SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[Raf]

Ok. You win. Congrats!

[excathedra]

hey raf, what's your little doggie in this fight?

jesus mary and joseph you faked speaking in tongues. so be it. who cares?

[Raf]

I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not the one demanding the other side prove its point, making it impossible for the other side to prove its point, lying about what the other side DOES say and demonstrate, then acting as if their failure to prove their point validates mine (although by the standard rules of debate, I am entitled to draw such a conclusion at SOME point, I do not believe I've reached that point). I have an opinion. I've expressed it. That's my right.

Who cares? Obviously, you do, for one. Despite your protestations. People who don't care about a thread don't post on it. If you TRULY don't care, you know what to do...

[Raf]

By the way, it did not escape my notice that we suddenly have three alleged accounts of people understanding SIT instead of two. I think this demonstrates my point that a supernatural claim only needs to be MADE in order to be accepted, considering that the third account offered exactly zero information to back it up. Not a shred of evidence. Not even a description of what happened. Just a naked claim, accompanied by a warning from the person making the claim that you'd have to be crazy to believe it, and BAM! Three accounts instead of two.

But I'm wrong to suggest a bit of gullibility.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Raf

[waysider]

We haven't discussed yet how Wierwille mangled dechomai and lambano to validate speaking in tongues. Do we want to go there?

[WordWolf]

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

It's what's called a "FALSE DILEMMA."

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma#Black-and-white_thinking

"A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between the two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be a completely different alternative.

False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us"). But the fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception."

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

Nobody on this thread has said

"Since modern SIT is not Biblical SIT, then there's no modern miracles, God doesn't work in people's lives, etc."

What's been said is "Modern SIT is not Biblical SIT." Period. NO "therefore."

It's rather DIShonest that this thread has been treated NOT as an honest discussion

about the modern phenomenon of modern SIT, but rather as a referendum on the power

of God in people's lives nowadays.

I mentioned something to this effect and the poster doing it completely blew it off

and continued to do it.

The whole thing is based on

"If I believe God acts miraculously in people's lives now,

then I have to believe modern SIT is the same as Biblical SIT,

and I have to swallow all claims of supernatural as actual supernatural occurrences."

The reasoning is flawed, as one can see as soon as that's stated outright.

It's not all or nothing.

[WordWolf]

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.

(snip)

That nicely highlights the gullibility issue.

The wise thing is to rule out all mundane answers before considering a supernatural answer.

Any competent actor can dress up in a funny costume, announce they have a funny name,

announce they are going to contact a spirit guide, perform a ceremony,

then begin speaking with voice and accent changes.

Many competent con artists can draw from the same skills and do the same.

None of that invalidates the existence of actual, supernatural events.

HOWEVER, most of the things with that label slapped on them, from what I've seen,

are mundane things with lots of window-dressing.

I don't need to suppose all of them are supernatural to believe there's supernatural events.

I believe in the existence of US dollar bills in $10,000 denominations, with Salmon P. Chase's

face on them. That doesn't mean that, if someone claims to have one and will sell it to me

for $1000, that I will automatically believe theirs is a real bill.

There's genuine, and there's counterfeit.

And the counterfeit relies on the gullibility of the public to work.

[Raf]

Claim: You have a dragon in your garage.

My approach: Prove it.

Your response: I can't. The dragon is invisible and non-corporeal. It doesn't leave footprints and if you try to throw water on it, the water will pass right through him. Also, the fire that the dragon breathes is non-thermal. It cannot be detected by, say, a thermometer or something. It defies testing.

My approach: You have described something whose existence is impossible to verify. By taking a testable claim (a real dragon) and making it untestable (invisible, non-thermal, non-corporeal), you have made your dragon, which you allege is there, and made it indistinguishable from something that doesn't exist or is not there. Unless you provide real proof that you have a dragon in your garage, I am compelled to disbelieve it. Call me when you have actual proof.

***

Claim: You have a dragon in your garage.

Chockfull's approach: Prove it.

Your response: I can't. The dragon is invisible and non-corporeal. It doesn't leave footprints and if you try to throw water on it, the water will pass right through him. Also, the fire that the dragon breathes is non-thermal. It cannot be detected by, say, a thermometer or something. It defies testing.

Chockfull's approach: Well, since I can't disprove it, and the Bible says nothing about God parking dragons in your garage, I'm going to have to assume your dragon is actually a devil spirit.

***

And that's the difference. A person making a supernatural claim that, if true, is clear evidence of devil spirit power in concrete form, first has to prove that the supernatural claim is, in fact, true. Le Baron's xenoglossia fails that test. He told us what he did. He told us how he did it. He WROTE DOWN the alleged xenoglossia. He told us what languages to look for. The xenoglossia was dispassionately examined. It was not confirmed. Rather, the dispassionate research determined that, in the opinion of the researcher, there was no linguistic difference between LeBaron's output and the product of those claiming glossolalia today.

Two possible conclusions to draw: Samarin must be some kind of idiot. Not only can he not tell a language when he doesn't know what to look for. He can't even tell a language when he DOES know what to look for. Why are we even dealing with this guy? What a maroon!

OR

LeBaron was a con man who faked a claim of xenoglossia.

You decide which conclusion is more reasonable.

[chockfull]

LeBaron was a con man who faked a claim of xenoglossia.

It's certainly possible. However, it is no reason to take a whole category of claims (psychic, séance related, medium talking to spirit guide) and automatically assume that all of them are faking and so they all fit under a pet term called "free vocalization", call it an "innate human ability", immediately assume that they are doing the exact same thing as Christians SIT, and draw conclusions about them together.

That's shoddy research.

That nicely highlights the gullibility issue.

Again, it's just probability thinking. Like for instance, the probability you are being a jerk right now is about 86.5%.

[chockfull]

By the way, it did not escape my notice that we suddenly have three alleged accounts of people understanding SIT instead of two. I think this demonstrates my point that a supernatural claim only needs to be MADE in order to be accepted, considering that the third account offered exactly zero information to back it up. Not a shred of evidence. Not even a description of what happened. Just a naked claim, accompanied by a warning from the person making the claim that you'd have to be crazy to believe it, and BAM! Three accounts instead of two.

But I'm wrong to suggest a bit of gullibility.

That account has a footnote and a resource reference. So you should be able to go to the actual source for more information. I see more information there about the individual account than I see in any of Samarin's references to test subjects.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you are talking about my gullibility in posting up accounts like this, but you find no problem in the fact that Samarin doesn't produce one single reference to any statistics in his studies, nor does he make public any of the test accounts or samples of anybody supposedly doing glossa that are the basis of his studies. So I can't check any of his sources to see if they are valid or not.

I think more truthful is that a supernatural claim only needs to be MADE in order for dishonest researchers to attack it.

So please explain to our dear readers why you attack the reference of a man in a Catholic mass coming up and trying to speak Persian to the person who SIT, but give researchers a pass when they don't provide individual account references in their studies? And I mean an explanation beyond the "innate human ability" of stupidity?

[Raf]

That account has a footnote and a resource reference. So you should be able to go to the actual source for more information. I see more information there about the individual account than I see in any of Samarin's references to test subjects.

Ah! So the third reference is NOT the one I thought it was. Rather, it was some outside reference getting lumped in on this thread with the accounts we already have. Thanks for clearing that up. If you're going to do THAT, then the number of accounts is a LOT greater than three. I mean a LOT greater. You left out the review of Sherrill's work, for example, which implies at LEAST two more.

All undocumented. All unverifiable. But I'm supposed to believe them solely on the basis that the claim was made.

I find it absolutely hilarious that you are talking about my gullibility in posting up accounts like this, but you find no problem in the fact that Samarin doesn't produce one single reference to any statistics in his studies, nor does he make public any of the test accounts or samples of anybody supposedly doing glossa that are the basis of his studies. So I can't check any of his sources to see if they are valid or not.

He doesn't do this in ANY of his studies? Really? So... you've reviewed the rest of his studies? Right? Not just the one article we're referring to. You've reviewed them all and determined that he doesn't provide a reference to statistics in any of them? Oh, you HAVEN'T read all of Samarin's studies. So... I have to assume someone else HAS reviewed them, and you're citing that other person as your source. Because you CERTAINLY are not stating your opinion as fact. I mean, that would be...

Interstingly, Samarin DOES provide a sample of glossolalia in the study we are reviewing. But you would have known that if you'd just read the flipping report.

So please explain to our dear readers why you attack the reference of a man in a Catholic mass coming up and trying to speak Persian to the person who SIT, but give researchers a pass when they don't provide individual account references in their studies? And I mean an explanation beyond the "innate human ability" of stupidity?

Sure. I haven't reviewed the work, so I'll just trust you are able to do this.

Name the Persian. Name the Glossolalist.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Raf

[Raf]

By now, your dismissal and denigration of free vocalization as an innate human ability should embarrass you. That it doesn't underscores my contention that you are not approaching this subject honestly and really don't deserve to be responded to as though you are.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Raf

[geisha779]

So what is JAL producing? Is that a genuine manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit(God)? Do we think that is a real language being used to communicate the wonderful works of God(the gospel)? Is he faking it? Is he willfully deluded and being reinforced by the group experience? Is that a demon on his lips? We have the example of him SIT, we have his exegesis, and we have his assurance that just because he is doing the speaking and forming the words....that doesn't mean it is fake.

How is what JAL is doing different than say what a non ex-twier from a pentecostal church is doing? They all sound very similar except for those who whoop and click . We have an example, we can watch it.....what is it? If we can assume about other accounts being supernatural in nature....without even seeing them or having all the details.....we have one right here to observe. JAL claims it is real. We DO have some knowledge about the tradition and beliefs of JAL and more knowledge than we need or want concerning his ministries and understanding of the HOLY Spirit.

I am inclined to think it is that the man has been deluded and keeps reinforcing that delusion with his experience of free vocalization. I don't think that is a demon on his lips....the simple explanation seems right.

That is not to say if God had a purpose SIT is impossible. I don't believe that. I think if it is still out there at all it is rare and God's purpose will be revealed and He will be glorified. Not much of that going on here with these recounted accounts.

[Raf]

So what is JAL producing?

Flashbacks and nightmares.

[WordWolf]

It's certainly possible. However, it is no reason to take a whole category of claims (psychic, séance related, medium talking to spirit guide) and automatically assume that all of them are faking and so they all fit under a pet term called "free vocalization", call it an "innate human ability", immediately assume that they are doing the exact same thing as Christians SIT, and draw conclusions about them together.

That's shoddy research.

It's also not what's happening here.

Nobody's "automatically assuming" anything except you.

We keep hearing the most casual of anecdotes is a reliable reflection of what actually happened.

Someone claimed to bring forth a message from God Almighty? That must be what happened.

Someone claimed to bring forth a message from some spirit? That must be what happened-even if they got the spirit's category wrong.

Someone claimed to do something supernatural? That must have happened.

That's no kind of "research" at all, that's jumping to a conclusion without even trying.

I noticed you condemned me for agreeing with a fellow Christian who is an expert stage magician

who wrote a book and drew some conclusions. I stated I have an opinion- which is pretty specific.

He had an expert background on the 2 disciplines he discussed. I read his book, I went over his

conclusions AND HOW HE GOT THERE.

Your response? We're wrong because you can't separate "those guys at one place and time were

charlatans" from "everyone at every time is a charlatan." I'd correct you about the book itself

but what would be the point? You've condemned an entire viewpoint by lumping all kinds of things

together, and keep constructing rationalizations to pretend you got there through logical steps.

I've been reading the thread. You formed your opinion and THEN BEGAN to look at everything,

and everything has been interpreted selectively through your CONCLUSION.

I've really wanted you to give me a reason to think I was overlooking something and there was

a reason to think that SOME of the modern SIT is legitimate. I really wanted that.

You've given me no reason to think that. In fact, since the strength of your position lies in

a leap of faith and an insistence on discrediting anything you disagree with, and then pretending

that's not what you did,

for me, you've made a rather strong case that you're wrong.

One side of the discussion has evidence, presented it, and is reflecting what it says accurately.

One side has no evidence and has been guessing, misinterpreting, speculating, and pretending that's

not what they're doing. I can't possibly support that.

Edited October 29, 2012 by WordWolf

[WordWolf]

Look, this is easy.

A new term is made up when someone has a concept that doesn't have a term. That's so we can discuss it.

(Examples: Astronaut, internet, computer.)

Someone was examining a phenomenon and called it "free vocalization."

The name comes from it being a vocalization, and it not following any language or formal structure.

It is unrestricted by pattern and logic. (Free as in speech, not as in beer.)

When examining different things, they share qualities with each other and all match the usage of

the phrase "free vocalization." Small children playing a game do it. Actors in training do it.

Conmen do it. Witch doctors do it. Christians who "SIT" do it.

How do we know it's the same thing?

All the things that define it, they share in common.

What is different about any of them is irrelevant to the definition.

(Age of speaker, intent of speaker, props used)

We've seen that. Many of us have seen children or actors do it personally-or been the actors.

Some of us who did "modern SIT" and seen children or actors do it have said it is the same.

How can we know they're not the same thing?

Someone would have to bring in at least one credible example that didn't match the pattern.

So far, we've seen lots of things matching the pattern, and vague anecdotes that supposedly

don't, but we can't examine them. With thousands of Christians doing it daily and more doing

it weekly, there should be a legitimate example SOMEWHERE that breaks the pattern-

IF THEY'RE NOT THE SAME.

Based on the evidence we've seen,

modern SIT IS free vocalization.

Modern SIT is free vocalization done by people who love God, want to serve God, and have been

misinformed that this act is the Biblical SIT that they would rather do.

God is still in Heaven, and appreciates their hearts, miracles happen despite these Christians

making a consistent mistake, and eventually Jesus Christ will correct all the parties involved.

Based on the evidence we've seen,

the "argument" against it goes as follows:

"The modern SIT is the same as the Biblical SIT. Its unable to be understood like the original

because its in languages of angels-despite those languages matching the patterns of languages

as studied by experts because God doesn't cooperate with experts. Sometimes it DOES produce

a spoken, earthly language- but it's incredibly rare and all accounts possible come from

unconfirmable anecdotes. Sometimes people produce real languages that exist around the earth

but are doing so by possession or devil influence- despite no linguist confirming THAT either."

I'm unclear whether today's position will be

-There's no such thing as free vocalization-it's all spirit-produced

-it's a coincidence that all accounts seem to match free vocalization

or something else.

I'm still amazed that "charlatans have faked speaking in a language" keeps getting distorted into

"there's no power of God ever, everyone's a charlatan."

It's dishonest, unfair, and damages the speaker's credibility.

But, there we go.

[Raf]

Ouch.

Let me play Angel's Advocate here because there are some things that are being said but not being adequately addressed because of where and how they are said.

First, everyone on this thread, myself included, has limited access to the studies that have been done. This is explicit in my, for now, rejection of Sherrill based on insufficient data. I'm inclined not to believe Sherrill for reasons I've stated elsewhere, but I do so only in a superficial way. I have not seen his research and cannot comment intelligently on it... and neither can anyone else on this thread who has not read it. So we have an outstanding piece of potential evidence and/or research that very well could prove me wrong, but no one here knows it because we haven't seen it. We HAVE seen a summary of it, but no one has challenged me, seriously or otherwise, on my rejection of that summary.

It is also VERY possible, if modern SIT is true, that someone we have yet to identify HAS documented an example or multiple examples. We just haven't come across the research yet. This is related to the inherent problem of sample size. Any sample under 100 percent is insufficient to prove my point conclusively. I can discover (for the sake of argument) that 99.95 percent of alleged glossolalia HAS been documented and reviewed and determined to be non-language, and there would still be a possibility that genuine, Biblical SIT is produced in the remaining 0.05 percent consisting of unreviewed cases. Assuming 10 million people SIT, that leaves us with thousands of people producing the real thing under the radar, so to speak. I'm wrong, but the evidence still shows I'm right because no legitimate case has been reviewed.

Chockfull raises another issue: On what basis are we assuming that the phenomenon of glossolalia is really what Samarin's reviewing? We don't know who the speakers are. We are pretty much taking his word that they are, indeed, Christians claiming to produce glossolalia. How do we know they're telling the truth? Because Samarin says so? And Goodman? And Kildahl? And Newman (who did the brain wave study that, I believe we agreed, doesn't prove what people claim it does)? And every other psychologist, sociologist and linguist who's investigated SIT? We only know what they're telling us. What if all their subjects are lying to the researchers? If what they're telling us is a lie from the pit of hell, then we're investigating scientific analyses of something that's not even SIT!

Personally, I think that last paragraph is a nutty conspiracy theory. It takes for granted a profound level of dishonesty, but if you're inclined to believe that this kind of research is committed to discrediting SIT instead of investigating it, then you have to take that possibility into account.

In that case, you can reject the research wholesale -- but you're rejecting the research. You're not countering it. You're not debating it. You're not discussing it. You're declaring it invalid by fiat.

Hey, feel free. But if you can do that to the research, you have no standing to stop me from doing that to your SIT claims. Good for the goose, as they say.

If we do not agree that the research into SIT is a valid subject of inquiry and review, we have no common ground for an argument or discussion. That's fine, if that's what you want to do. It certainly appears to be where Chockfull is headed.

It answers none of the questions raised in this thread. It evades them. And if you're cool with that, Godspeed. We are left with each other's opinions, and to each his own.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

A new term is made up when someone has a concept that doesn't have a term. That's so we can discuss it.

(Examples: Astronaut, internet, computer.)

Someone was examining a phenomenon and called it "free vocalization."

The name comes from it being a vocalization, and it not following any language or formal structure.

It is unrestricted by pattern and logic. (Free as in speech, not as in beer.)

No, someone was examine not "a phenomenon", they were examining "multiple phenomenon". This is easily ascertained by the fact they are even using two words to lump them together - glossolalia, and xenoglossia. The xeno word came from psychic studies. The glossa word came from the charismatic Christian movement.

Then some rocket scientist decided to lump both together and make up a third word. "Free vocalization". So I decided that if there was one rocket scientist, there might as well be two. Thus I coined my term "free mouthnoiseization". Since I can decide to include as many different types of "phenomenon" into my definition, then since I made up the word, I can prove that it applies to all these phenomenon. I can even declare it an "innate human ability".

See how much of a researcher I am? See how my hypothesis is clear? See how my sample space is really a defined group of people all with the same characteristics?

No? Oh, well.

When examining different things, they share qualities with each other and all match the usage of

the phrase "free vocalization." Small children playing a game do it. Actors in training do it.

Conmen do it. Witch doctors do it. Christians who "SIT" do it.

How do we know it's the same thing?

All the things that define it, they share in common.

What is different about any of them is irrelevant to the definition.

(Age of speaker, intent of speaker, props used)

It also helped that the person inventing the word DEFINED it to mean the same thing. And eliminated any areas where there might be a difference. You know, like first person vs. third person, two people having an imaginary conversation with themselves vs. praying, the context, etc.

But it is complete horse puckey that the same people defining the term now use their definition to "prove" that the things they are covering by it are the same. This is called circular logic.

Someone would have to bring in at least one credible example that didn't match the pattern.

So far, we've seen lots of things matching the pattern, and vague anecdotes that supposedly

don't, but we can't examine them. With thousands of Christians doing it daily and more doing

it weekly, there should be a legitimate example SOMEWHERE that breaks the pattern-

IF THEY'RE NOT THE SAME.

We can examine those anecdotes to a certain extent. It doesn't mean you automatically accept them or reject them. But certainly there is no case for rejecting them summarily yet accepting the samples presented in research cases on faith - you have to have some kind of standard for acceptance of samples. And that should be evident to your audience when writing about it.

Based on the evidence we've seen,

modern SIT IS free vocalization.

Modern SIT is free vocalization done by people who love God, want to serve God, and have been

misinformed that this act is the Biblical SIT that they would rather do.

You're the second person stating this. And I'll say the same thing to you. Please provide me ANY evidence this is true. What samples are there? What scientific method proving this?

Based on the evidence we've seen,

the "argument" against it goes as follows:

"The modern SIT is the same as the Biblical SIT. Its unable to be understood like the original

because its in languages of angels-despite those languages matching the patterns of languages

as studied by experts because God doesn't cooperate with experts. Sometimes it DOES produce

a spoken, earthly language- but it's incredibly rare and all accounts possible come from

unconfirmable anecdotes. Sometimes people produce real languages that exist around the earth

but are doing so by possession or devil influence- despite no linguist confirming THAT either."

No, you are presenting that side of the argument as a strawman. That's not the correct argument.

I'm unclear whether today's position will be

-There's no such thing as free vocalization-it's all spirit-produced

-it's a coincidence that all accounts seem to match free vocalization

or something else.

Same as yesterday. Free vocalization is a made up word encompassing older words glossolalia and xenoglossia, which studied different things - one was Christian, the other psychic. Basically I get the impression the linguist lumped everything together where someone was speaking a language not understood.

I'm still amazed that "charlatans have faked speaking in a language" keeps getting distorted into

"there's no power of God ever, everyone's a charlatan."

It's dishonest, unfair, and damages the speaker's credibility.

But, there we go.[/b]

I'm amazed at this too. I was amazed to see Raf state it in terms similar to that - it started out as Raf admitting he had faked it, to Raf calling out everyone that everyone faked it and lied to themselves, to looking at studies, to hyper-ventilating thinking the studies that didn't use the scientific method "proved" something, to a whole lot of name-calling and abusive language.

I agree it damages the speakers credibility. They don't seem to be able to see this though.

[chockfull]

First, everyone on this thread, myself included, has limited access to the studies that have been done. This is explicit in my, for now, rejection of Sherrill based on insufficient data. I'm inclined not to believe Sherrill for reasons I've stated elsewhere, but I do so only in a superficial way. I have not seen his research and cannot comment intelligently on it... and neither can anyone else on this thread who has not read it. So we have an outstanding piece of potential evidence and/or research that very well could prove me wrong, but no one here knows it because we haven't seen it. We HAVE seen a summary of it, but no one has challenged me, seriously or otherwise, on my rejection of that summary.

Correct. Good point. We have a thread in doctrinal with links and summaries, but MANY of these studies are not on the internet in any form.

It is also VERY possible, if modern SIT is true, that someone we have yet to identify HAS documented an example or multiple examples. We just haven't come across the research yet. This is related to the inherent problem of sample size. Any sample under 100 percent is insufficient to prove my point conclusively. I can discover (for the sake of argument) that 99.95 percent of alleged glossolalia HAS been documented and reviewed and determined to be non-language, and there would still be a possibility that genuine, Biblical SIT is produced in the remaining 0.05 percent consisting of unreviewed cases. Assuming 10 million people SIT, that leaves us with thousands of people producing the real thing under the radar, so to speak. I'm wrong, but the evidence still shows I'm right because no legitimate case has been reviewed.

This is true also. As a step towards proving your point conclusively, a study COULD state a hypothesis with a null and alternative hypothesis steps, select a sample space that represents the overall population, and measure the hypothesis statistically. Then numbers could be shown at the .05 level indicating a confidence interval of 95% that the hypothesis is true. I haven't seen such a study yet, but one could exist.

While that would not prove your point conclusively (according to your accurate caveats above), it WOULD prove a confidence interval that would support a lot more conclusions.

Chockfull raises another issue: On what basis are we assuming that the phenomenon of glossolalia is really what Samarin's reviewing? We don't know who the speakers are. We are pretty much taking his word that they are, indeed, Christians claiming to produce glossolalia. How do we know they're telling the truth? Because Samarin says so? And Goodman? And Kildahl? And Newman (who did the brain wave study that, I believe we agreed, doesn't prove what people claim it does)? And every other psychologist, sociologist and linguist who's investigated SIT? We only know what they're telling us. What if all their subjects are lying to the researchers? If what they're telling us is a lie from the pit of hell, then we're investigating scientific analyses of something that's not even SIT!

In a good study we would have audio / video bytes of the samples, as well as a short bio of the speakers involved including language background. You could also provide interviews with standard questions asked to all sample participants.

I suggest that would be also what you would like to see out of any of the anecdotes brought up. At least interviews with standard questions, and a bio. I don't know if it's practical to have obtained audio/video of a miraculous event like someone understanding a tongue spoken.

Personally, I think that last paragraph is a nutty conspiracy theory. It takes for granted a profound level of dishonesty, but if you're inclined to believe that this kind of research is committed to discrediting SIT instead of investigating it, then you have to take that possibility into account.

You can't rule this out if the researcher didn't provide access to their resources. Just like you can't rule out anecdotes. Or psychics. Or whatever. And it's not really objective to say "I believe the resources on one side of the argument without proof, but not the other".

In that case, you can reject the research wholesale -- but you're rejecting the research. You're not countering it. You're not debating it. You're not discussing it. You're declaring it invalid by fiat.

Hey, feel free. But if you can do that to the research, you have no standing to stop me from doing that to your SIT claims. Good for the goose, as they say.

Or I can point out the difference between good research and what I see here. You've already rejected all the SIT anecdote claims anyway.

If we do not agree that the research into SIT is a valid subject of inquiry and review, we have no common ground for an argument or discussion. That's fine, if that's what you want to do. It certainly appears to be where Chockfull is headed.

I've approached the research into SIT as a valid subject of inquiry and review. I just have not seen in the research anything of substance to the point that saying it "proves" anything is a valid conclusion. Which is a shame, because if the linguists/researchers had adhered a little better to the scientific method in doing their research it would put us a lot farther along than where we are.

It answers none of the questions raised in this thread. It evades them. And if you're cool with that, Godspeed. We are left with each other's opinions, and to each his own.

The possibilities for discussion on this topic are 1)Research-based and 2) Doctrinal. You could attempt to answer questions raised on this thread via either approach.

[Raf]

Chockfull,

Listen: I am rejecting any terms by which you decide to proceed with this discussion. You have shown yourself repeatedly to approach this discussion in a manner devoid of integrity. Sorry. You've exhausted my patience on that front. Go claim victory somewhere and throw yourself a party.

[Pete]

Raf

I want to do some further research before I respond to some of the previous discussion, and a response is needed as I don't like to see open ended ideas being left written off without proper consideration.

However, I do need to clarify something that I tried to explain but has not been understood.

I will draw a comparison here. Take a steam engine that you are watching travelling along a track. You see puffs of smoke coming from the stack. That's enough to tell you that the engine inside is running. The puff of smoke is not the engine. You don't see exactly what the engine is doing from your stand point.

What I am alluding to is that the SIT is the puff of smoke, but the working of the spirit inside is the engine.

So when you "pray in the spirit", the spirit is making intercession on the INSIDE and that is the engine, whereas the SIT is the puff of smoke on the outside.

So if my SIT is "Loshanta malakasheeta rakistaani" one day, the spirit on the inside may be making one type of intercession, whereas if my SIT on another day is still "Loshanta malakasheeta rakistaani", the spirit inside may be making a completely different type of intercession. The spirit of God is not limited by me. The work of the spirit on the INSIDE is perfect. (By the way, I don't think VP SIT during the recorded class, but that's a separate issue).

There are other things I have to say.

But I would like to remark at this point in time that this thread has become much too long for any new person to be inclined to follow, in my opinion.

I know this is Raf's thread, so I respectfully refer this back to Raf to consider decanting any good points onto a new thread so that newbies can pick up.

Otherwise, I will have to consider joining Excie.

[chockfull]

So what is JAL producing? Is that a genuine manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit(God)?

geisha, I know that JAL video is a sample of some kind. I'm sorry, though, I just can't bear to look at it more than about 10 sec. After knowing that guy in TWI, and knowing about all the havoc he wreaked through the STFI stuff, seeing two failed marriages and another new snake oil group he's starting, I just can't watch him to even give it an honest effort to tell you what I think about whether it's genuine or fake. I hope we can find other samples.

[Raf]

Pete, I get what you're saying. You are welcome to discuss anything you'd like. If I have something to respond to, I will do so. If I don't, I will keep silent. Kit Sober expressed herself beautifully a few pages back, utterly disagreed with me, and it did not energize an argument because she gave me nothing to respond to.

I'll look at your post in a little more depth later. Interested in that Puff of Smoke analogy.

I submit that the Bible says you're going to puff out white smoke, and if you puff out black smoke, you're doing something other than what the Bible says.

But that's a superficial approach to an analogy that's kind of superficial in the first place (no insult intended), so I don't know how well it holds up.

Once I post something, it is not "my" thread. It's ours. You are as free to post as I am. As long as you stay on the site rules, etc., no one can or should complain. Chockfull can keep posting, too. I merely reserve the right to no longer waste my time responding to every little thing, and I certainly won't jump through hoops looking to satisfy a petitioner who has made it clear that no amount of evidence will persuade him of anything. Better things to do.

But I won't complain if he posts.

And you, Pete, have not shown yourself to be approaching this the same way. You and I are not discussing linguistic studies, so I won't expect you to do so in any particular way.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

Chockfull,

Listen: I am rejecting any terms by which you decide to proceed with this discussion. You have shown yourself repeatedly to approach this discussion in a manner devoid of integrity. Sorry. You've exhausted my patience on that front. Go claim victory somewhere and throw yourself a party.

Raf,

I think you're a tool with all your name-calling. Kisses. But you don't own the internet. And I think you're hilarious trying to use the word integrity along with your approach to this discussion.

Regards,

chockfull

[Raf]

Whatever.

Edited October 29, 2012 by Raf