Raf! - I find your hypothetical dragon entertaining, but somewhat overbearing because of length and redundancy. Sagan was okay as a fabulist, but nowhere near as good as Tolkien!
Unfortunately for your argument, this thread is not about hypothetical dragons. It is about actual speaking by the Spirit of God, as described in I Corinthians 12-14.
In I Corinthians 14:24-25 Paul wrote, "But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth."
The speaking by the Spirit of God described here is REAL, Raf, not hypothetical. I've experienced it from both ends. One time, years before I ever heard of TWI or conceived that I could read the Bible for myself with understanding, God spoke directly to the issues of my heart through a conversation between strangers that I overheard from a neighboring table in a restaurant.
One time nearly two years after taking PFAL, I made an offhand comment to a friend of mine after a twig meeting. I remember it well. I looked at him and said "This world needs you." He almost flipped out. He told me that all day long he had been griping to God that nobody needed him.
There was only one time I had that kind of experience in a "believer's meeting." I don't remember what I said, but one of the ladies in attendance broke down and started bawling. It couldn't have been because I'd said some kind of intermediate class crap... she was familiar with THAT stuff...
After I left TWI, and especially the farther away from TWI I get, it seems, the frequency has been picking up. Dozens of times, people have told me God was speaking to them through me, many here on campus since I returned to school. None of those incidents have been in any kind of formal arrangement like chapel. Usually it happens when we are just sitting around shooting the breeze. It doesn't seem unusual to me now, and there are two people currently still on campus, who I see on a regular basis, who God has spoken to through me. God doesn't speak to them through me every time we have conversations. It usually doesn't happen more than once with a person... but there was a girl from Russia who told me I "speak with prophetic voice" on several different occasions. It seems to happen most often when I am wanting to give comfort to people.
One time, I gave a brief impromptu oration to an entire class, and the prof later told me he thought I had been speaking to those particular students prophetically.
So what Paul wrote about speaking by the Spirit of God in verses 24 and 25 is actual, Raf, not hypothetical. The Holy Spirit IS real. Speaking by that Spirit IS real. I have no reason to doubt the actuality of things Paul wrote about speaking in tongues. We have every reason to doubt everything that Wierwille ever taught about tongues. That's why we have to go back and re-examine everything about the topic from what the Bible actually says about it.
You are right, the Bible doesn't say the things Wierwille taught. In many ways, the testimony of the Bible is much more powerfully in favor of speaking in tongues than Wierwille ever was, because Wierwille had no idea what he was really talking about. There are real reasons why it seems so much like we are faking it... but more on that later... it has to do with Paul's statement in I Corinthians 2:16b, "But we have the mind of Christ."
I hope looking at some things in chapter 2 won't be too far off topic for this thread :)
More later...
Love,
Steve
By the by, Raf, I don't say I CAN speak in tongues. I say I DO speak in tongues...
Apparently I didn't hammer the dragon analogy hard enough, because you somehow missed the point.
"I DO speak in tongues" = "I DO have a dragon on my garage."
You're making a testable claim, and until you demonstrate that you're producing a language, your claim has not passed the test. A claim is not validated by the intensity with which it is asserted.
Why should I believe you DO speak in tongues when what you produce is no different than what I produced when I was faking it? Do you not agree that I have no basis to believe your claim until you produce the Biblically promised result, which IS a language?
You can claim it all you want, and as long as you don't expect me to believe it, we're cool. You want to claim it by faith? I can't argue with that.
But the moment you change "I can" to "I DO," you venture from a statement of faith to a statement of fact.
It's not a fact. It's a claim. A testable one. And no amount of redefining speak, redefining tongues or redefining language can change the fact that the claim you're making is testable. The only thing you guys accomplish when you deny the testability of the claim (by coming up with all sorts of excuses as to why a language won't be detected) is demonstrate a profound lack of confidence that you're producing a language. But a language is what the Bible promises.
That's the point of the dragon analogy: starting with a testable claim and then resorting to all sorts of mental gymnastics to make it untestable.
Steve Lortz said: "God spoke directly to the issues of my heart through a conversation between strangers that I overheard from a neighboring table in a restaurant."
Over the years, God was advising me through many people on the street to part ways with TWI. On several occasions (usually when it was crowded downtown) I distinctly remember someone coming right toward me very fast saying, "Get out of the way!" (I guess I just wasn't listening too well, huh?)
Ok, TLC. We're in doctrinal. This thread is supposed to be about what Biblical SIT is. We really shouldn't be entertaining my skepticism.
No more invisible dragons. My point has been made anew.
Raf, if you want to hammer the dragon in your garage, please feel free to do so. Just don't post pictures - :biglaugh:
Just a little levity there.
Anyway on a response to your scriptural references to tongues, doesn't Bullinger mark those as a figure of speech metonymy - an exchange of part for the whole - meaning the tongue and language or the use of the tongue for language related purposes are interchangeable in the verses that the figure appears?
There are other figures of speech with the tongue as well - like "the tongue is an unruly evil".
Anyway what language is literal and what is figurative is probably something to consider in this discussion as well.
Anyway on a response to your scriptural references to tongues, doesn't Bullinger mark those as a figure of speech metonymy - an exchange of part for the whole - meaning the tongue and language or the use of the tongue for language related purposes are interchangeable in the verses that the figure appears?
There are other figures of speech with the tongue as well - like "the tongue is an unruly evil".
Anyway what language is literal and what is figurative is probably something to consider in this discussion as well.
As much as I might prefer more said on how some think spirit says or hears anything, I may as well bring 1 Cor.14:4 into the picture and pose another question.
If it's written that SIT "edifies" himself (or themselves), then... how so? Or, in what way if it's very plainly stated that he does not understand what is said?
I think I may have been misunderstanding what you've been saying for a long time. I remember you making a positive statement somewhere early on that you had been faking tongues all the time you were involved with TWI. I read this to mean that you had been deliberately, willfully faking SIT.
It dawns on me that you may have been saying that during the time you were actually involved with TWI, you believed that you were genuinely speaking in tongues, but sometime later (probably in the time of the "actual errors in..." threads, if I'm not mistaken) you became convinced that you had been naively, unconsciously faking tongues all along.
I had to dig up my copy of The Cult That Snapped by Karl Kahler, one of the best biographical treatments of TWI out there (because it blends a reporter's gathering of information with his personal experiences).
It had to be 2000 or 2001 when I got the book.
p.28 (his first time taking PFAL)
Then he had us stand, close our eyes and breathe deep. His hypnotic voice filled the room, calming us, reassuring us, preparing us for what we were about to do.
"Now... speak in tongues! Move your lips, your throat, your tongue! You! Speak in tongues!" The grads behind us burt into tongues, the clamor filling the room. My heart was pounding. I didn't want to graduate a failure. I moved my lips, my throat, my tongue. I made sounds, I formed words. Andrea walked to the front of the room and looked at all the new students -- all seven speaking in tongues "like a house afire."
"Guess what," I said to Valencia after class. "You don't have to believe God raised Jesus Christ from the dead to speak in tongues."
"I know," she said...
p. 54
I took the Intermediate Class and learned to interpret tongues and prophesy. (The secret, though no one would ever admit it, is you make it all up).
Reading those words, and later conflating them (though I'm certain Karl would agree that such a conflating of ideas was a valid expression of his point), convicted me, as some Christians would say.
"You make it all up."
Back when I was in elementary school, I pretended to speak a foreign language once. I knew I was making it up, but it was harmless.
More than a decade later, I was being led into SIT for the first time. Nothing was coming out. I kept waiting, and nothing. Finally, I started speaking. And it felt exactly the same as when I'd made up that language in elementary school. I was faking it. I knew it.
"Don't let the devil talk you out of it," my 'coach' said. Those weren't his exact words, but I'm sure he'll agree that he said something along those lines.
And I eventually convinced myself it was real. It was what the Bible promised. It was available. And it worked for so many other people. This was real. This was real. This was real.
And suddenly I was confronted with this book: someone who never believed in the resurrection spoke in tongues. And admitted making up interpretations and prophecies.
He wasn't a Christian. Not by any logical definition of the term. He tried. But he never believed. He should not have been able to speak in tongues, but he did. How?
He faked it.
Just like I did.
No! I didn't. My experience was sincere. And it lined up with the Word.
A few years later, I learned about renowned skeptic James Randi and his offer of $1 million for proof of the supernatural. Weren't we taught that SIT was that proof? I knew that I could walk to James Randi's headquarters from my office (it was that close), speak in tongues in front of a linguist, and collect my check.
I never did it.
I never tried.
Because I knew what the result would be. I knew I was faking it all along. The knowledge I buried came roaring out, and I would never recover. "No one would ever admit it..."). To myself, I finally admitted it. I never spoke in tongues again without knowing it was a fake. I never spoke in tongues while praying. I just stopped.
I don't think anyone meant to lie. I didn't mean to lie. I meant to claim the promise of God. But looking back, I recognize that I faked it from day one. I taught others to fake it. I suspected we all faked it.
It wasn't until I was challenged to prove everyone faked it that I gathered the evidence to present my case in a systematic way. The Bible's claim about SIT is pretty clear to me (I'm done arguing about that. If you guys don't see it the same way, we have nothing to discuss. But I will restate that it seems odd I'm the only one allowing the Bible to speak for itself on the subject). I can't prove everyone is faking it, but anyone can prove me wrong by producing a language. Poythress and Samarin provided articulation of the mechanism for "faking it" (as I call it. They use different terms).
The more I studied, the more the hard evidence fell into place.
There is no dragon.
So, in short answer to your question, Steve, yes, you misunderstood me. Part of that is my fault because of the words I chose to use ("lies," for example). But part of it is because you did not carefully read what I originally wrote. It was an emotional thread, and again, MY fault for choosing inflammatory words that inspired defensiveness.
You say you DO speak in tongues. Fine. From where I sit, you have not established that you produce anything different from what I produced when I faked it, and until you do, I see no reason to believe your claim.
Your sincerity was never in doubt. I don't think you are lying or deliberately faking it. But until you produce a language, I have no reason to believe you're not.
Nothing personal. When two people hold mutually exclusive positions on a statement of fact/truth, one of them has to be wrong.
I don't think you're a liar. I don't think any of you are liars.
I think you're wrong. I've explained in excruciating detail how you can be wrong and still think you're right.
You think I'm wrong.
The difference between you and me? I can't prove you're wrong. But you can prove I am. Document the language.
Until then, I think I'm a few years past done arguing about it.
As you said, it's a story (sad as it may be), and I didn't have much to say about it (especially in the doctrinal thread.)
And there's pieces missing (which are probably lost or forgotten), which cause me to think that I might have lived in a different world from what some people say they experienced.
My last post was a sort of "knee jerk" reaction to what appeared to be someone labeling (and I'm not sure that's the best, or even the right word to use) or thinking themselves a (knowledgeable ?) Christian, and then boasting that they don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It's a hard concept for me to imagine, much less wrap my head around it. I just didn't (and still don't) encounter that sort of brash attitude in real life. (And no, I don't live in a bubble, never talking to all sorts of people, from all kinds of religious backgrounds.)
RAF --- I just remembered some "appropriate lyrics" from the song Born Again by Good Seed: "I ain't faking it..." (And I'm sure you can relate to that, huh?) So --- That brings to bear that (very likely) this may have been a concern...back in the day...to many more than we might suppose --- or else, those "reassuring words" need not to have been said at all. (Just sayin'...)
Also, (as I said sometime earlier in this Topic) I do admit "having faked it myself". Yes --- and even Interpretation & Prophesy! (I also believe there are many people out there who are perhaps just too ashamed to examine their heart and admit to having done that.)
Now Raf: Don't get yourself in a tizzy about having called people "liars". I (for one) believe to understand exactly what you intended that to imply....and please do correct me if I'm mistaken: Although they didn't truly realize it, they were lying to themselves. NOW --- While that (in and of itself) doesn't mean they did so intentionally, in the "wide view of things" it does remain that they indeed did lie, which (of course) would qualify them as "liars". How's that, my friend?
Thanks, Raf! That helps me tremendously to see where you are coming from.
My intentions about writing on speaking in tongues have never been to get you to change your interpretation of your experiences. That's why I'm not writing on the thread you re-booted, and that's why "Yet ANOTHER Thread on Speaking in Tongues" was subtitled "NOT an argument with Raf" and why discussion of your interpretation of your experience was the only thing off-topic on that thread.
Your response assures me I was not mistaken in continuing to regard you as a friend, even if we disagree on SOME things!
TLC makes a correct observation. My account is out of place in this forum, for which I apologize. It was, however, a direct answer to a direct question that provides significant context for my role in initiating and participating in this discussion. So in the "meta" sense, it's on topic. But let's not allow it to distract us from trying to explore what the Bible actually says about SIT.
Reading other responses and reserving the right to comment further.
My last post was a sort of "knee jerk" reaction to what appeared to be someone labeling (and I'm not sure that's the best, or even the right word to use) or thinking themselves a (knowledgeable ?) Christian, and then boasting that they don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It's a hard concept for me to imagine, much less wrap my head around it.
It is odd. I'd be willing to bet Thomas Jefferson fell in this category.
Now Raf: Don't get yourself in a tizzy about having called people "liars". I (for one) believe to understand exactly what you intended that to imply....and please do correct me if I'm mistaken: Although they didn't truly realize it, they were lying to themselves. NOW --- While that (in and of itself) doesn't mean they did so intentionally, in the "wide view of things" it does remain that they indeed did lie, which (of course) would qualify them as "liars". How's that, my friend?
SPEC
My regret isn't in what I meant, it's in how I articulated myself, which unnecessarily put people on the defensive. I'm glad you got my point (and from my recollection, you got it early). But not everyone did. I mean, here we have Steve asking me for a clarification just yesterday!
As a communicator, I am responsible for anticipating how people will respond to my words, and avoiding undue misunderstanding if possible. I failed. I'm not in a tizzy about it, but I want to be clear I'm not hiding from it either.
TLC makes a correct observation. My account is out of place in this forum, for which I apologize. It was, however, a direct answer to a direct question that provides significant context for my role in initiating and participating in this discussion. So in the "meta" sense, it's on topic. But let's not allow it to distract us from trying to explore what the Bible actually says about SIT.
Reading other responses and reserving the right to comment further.
I just went back and re-read chockfull's first post on this thread, and I don't think anything you've written here has been off topic. I can relate the discussion you and I have been engaged in right back to the stated topic of the thread, but not tonight. It's not all that complicated, but my time suddenly comes at a premium.
And don't beat yourself up on your ability to write and be understood! Ordinary communication requires feedback that enables the sender to find out if the message was properly transmitted to the receiver, and if the receiver properly decoded the message (or the "massage" as Marshall McLuhan would have said).
That was one of the real deficiencies of TWI teaching. Nobody could ask any questions. The talking heads could never be sure they were communicating... That may be part of the reason for Rainbow Man's over the top delivery style.
That's also one of the reasons why genuine speaking in tongues is not to be understood by the speaker. WE CAN'T SCREW IT UP! EVEN IF WE'RE KIDS!
The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible, was a book constructed by Thomas Jefferson in the later years of his life by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels which contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages indicating Jesus was divine.
A lot of the discussion under About the Way on the whole topic of tongues and interpretation with prophecy is going on there. This is a placeholder to discuss the scriptural side of that argument.
What does I Cor. 12 - 14 say about SIT? Where are TWI's teachings right? Where are they wrong? What are optional ways to look at the gifts and manifestations.
Facilitating some doctrinal discussion here.
On September 12th, 2012, Raf announced "I lied about it all" when he initiated the thread "SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession." Eight days later chockfull started THIS thread for the reasons stated above.
When Raf said "I lied about it all" he was making a claim based on his interpretation of his own experience. It's a wonderful thing that we are free to do that, instead of being manipulated into accepting Wierwille's interpretation of our experiences. It is Raf's right and responsibility... his duty... to interpret his own experience... and that applies to the rest of us, as well.
After careful consideration, I came to an interpretation of my experience different from Raf's interpretation of his. I make the claim that I DO speak in tongues, genuine Biblical speaking in tongues, that are in accordance with I Corinthians 12-14.
If I am recalling and analyzing things correctly, Raf puts forward an argument to the effect that "modern" speaking in tongues cannot be in accordance with the phrase "speaking in tongues [glossai = languages]" used in I Corinthians 12-14 because modern SIT does not produce a language.
Raf dismisses all anecdotal evidence that SIT can produce a known language, which is his right, and relying on anecdotal evidence can often be unwise. Raf seems to suggest that if we believed SIT produces "actual" languages, we should have a number of trained linguists study examples of SIT to determine what languages they are.
I would hazard the guess that, whether or not the linguists could identify specific languages, they would not be able to categorically deny that "modern" tongues produces actual languages.
And my guess is based on the actual definition of what a language actually is...
Here is a wikipedia definition: "Language is the ability to acquire and use complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so, and a language is any specific example of such a system.
Here are some more technical considerations, the kind trained linguists pay attention to: "[Language] is a system of communication based upon words and the combination of words into sentences...
"Among the characteristics that make a relatively clear distinction between linguistic and nonlinguistic communication meaningful, two are particularly important: double articulation and syntax...
"Languages have tens of thousands of signs, and the term double articulation refers to the fact that the formal sides of these sign are built from a relatively small repertoire – usually between 10 and 100 – of meaningless sounds...
"The ingenious invention that enabled human beings to talk about everything they can imagine, is syntax. Syntax is used to put together signs expressing relatively simple meanings into sign combinations expressing more complex meanings.
"Syntax is a mechanism that enables human beings to utter or understand an infinite number of sentences constructed from a finite number of building blocks. Without syntax, we would not be able to express other meanings than those associated with isolated signs, and the number of different meanings we would be able to express would be equal to the number of signs in the 'language'."
The ancients had no correspondingly detailed definitions for glossa. Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon simply says ""tongue...by word of mouth... language or dialect" All of the definitions we have for Greek words come from study of their use in context. We don't have any ancient dictionaries. We have practice tablets where students exercised their ability to write letters and words, but none of them record definitions.
I suspect that if a trained linguist were to study an example of a person speaking in tongues, and the linguist did not recognize it as a known language, the linguist would ask the question, does this thing exhibit double articulation? that is, does is consist of a number of signs made up of a number of meaningless sounds? The answer would have to be possibly so. The linguist would then ask does this thing exhibit syntax, that is, can the limited number of signs be combined to produce an unlimited variety of meanings. Again, the answer would have to be possibly so.
We cannot categorically deny the ability of "modern" tongues to produce an actual language, even if that specific language is not understood by anyone present. The ONLY requirement on understanding imposed by I Corinthians 12-14 is that the SPEAKER not understand what she is speaking. This raises questions in my mind about improvisational actors. Would the fact that they UNDERSTAND that they are producing nonsense syllables short circuit speaking by the Spirit? I don't have an answer for that.
Raf introduced Sagan's analogy of the hypothetical dragon in the garage. We aren't dealing with a hypothetical dragon in a garage. I Corinthians 12-14 describes the actual audible production of something exhibiting double articulation and syntax, not understood by the speaker.
Not only is it foolish to assume that another person's interpretation of their experience needs to conform with your own, it is foolish to assume that another person's experience is in the same box as your own.
If I claimed there could be a dragon in my garage, all I would have to do to prove it would be TO STAND IN MY GARAGE! I AM a Golden Dragon! I can't tell you when I became one, because for us, the day that the POGY crossed the International Date Line NEVER EXISTED!
Ok, one LAST time. My thesis cannot be proven by linguists' observations. I never said it could. What I said, repeatedly, is that my thesis can be DISPROVED by linfuists' observations. It only takes ONE person practicing SIT to produce an identifiable language to disprove my thesis.
I discount anecdotal accounts because they are insufficient for that purpose. The stories are usually second or third hand, and the actual participants are uniformly unavailable to document the claim. Anecdotal accounts are NOT evidence; they are CLAIMS. Using a claim to prove a claim is begging the question.
Any linguist can study thousands of samples of SIT and never identify a language, and it would still not prove my point. I NEVER SAID IT COULD, and if I did say that, I would be mistaken. I have made that concession multiple times.
Your citation of the opening post on this thread does establish that my personal experience and testimony is technically off topic on this thread, so let's stick with what the Bible says about SIT and glossa. I still find it ironic that I'm the only one who has tried to do that.
By the way, your use of the dragon in the garage analogy does not refute my use of it. It validates my use of it.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
127
53
47
49
Popular Days
Feb 12
24
Feb 8
22
Feb 20
22
Feb 19
21
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 127 posts
Steve Lortz 53 posts
waysider 47 posts
TLC 49 posts
Popular Days
Feb 12 2016
24 posts
Feb 8 2016
22 posts
Feb 20 2016
22 posts
Feb 19 2016
21 posts
Popular Posts
Steve Lortz
A Word About A Word Tolerance is necessary for articulation. A hinge is an articulated device. One plate attaches to the door, the other plate attaches to the doorjamb, the two plates are joined tog
geisha779
Is 1 Corinthians 14:4 an instruction, a passing comment, or a commendable endeavor? Or . . . . is it smack dab in the middle of correction and juxtaposed to the demeanor that Paul wanted the Corinthi
waysider
Ummmmm.......You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", don't you?
Posted Images
Steve Lortz
BOY! You all have certainly been BUSY in the last 24 hours!
...and so have I... but with different things...
SO MANY JUICY TOPICS... so little time...
I will post some commentary on Smaug and the Holy Spirit, but not tonight.
I love each and every one of you!
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Raf! - I find your hypothetical dragon entertaining, but somewhat overbearing because of length and redundancy. Sagan was okay as a fabulist, but nowhere near as good as Tolkien!
Unfortunately for your argument, this thread is not about hypothetical dragons. It is about actual speaking by the Spirit of God, as described in I Corinthians 12-14.
In I Corinthians 14:24-25 Paul wrote, "But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all: And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth."
The speaking by the Spirit of God described here is REAL, Raf, not hypothetical. I've experienced it from both ends. One time, years before I ever heard of TWI or conceived that I could read the Bible for myself with understanding, God spoke directly to the issues of my heart through a conversation between strangers that I overheard from a neighboring table in a restaurant.
One time nearly two years after taking PFAL, I made an offhand comment to a friend of mine after a twig meeting. I remember it well. I looked at him and said "This world needs you." He almost flipped out. He told me that all day long he had been griping to God that nobody needed him.
There was only one time I had that kind of experience in a "believer's meeting." I don't remember what I said, but one of the ladies in attendance broke down and started bawling. It couldn't have been because I'd said some kind of intermediate class crap... she was familiar with THAT stuff...
After I left TWI, and especially the farther away from TWI I get, it seems, the frequency has been picking up. Dozens of times, people have told me God was speaking to them through me, many here on campus since I returned to school. None of those incidents have been in any kind of formal arrangement like chapel. Usually it happens when we are just sitting around shooting the breeze. It doesn't seem unusual to me now, and there are two people currently still on campus, who I see on a regular basis, who God has spoken to through me. God doesn't speak to them through me every time we have conversations. It usually doesn't happen more than once with a person... but there was a girl from Russia who told me I "speak with prophetic voice" on several different occasions. It seems to happen most often when I am wanting to give comfort to people.
One time, I gave a brief impromptu oration to an entire class, and the prof later told me he thought I had been speaking to those particular students prophetically.
So what Paul wrote about speaking by the Spirit of God in verses 24 and 25 is actual, Raf, not hypothetical. The Holy Spirit IS real. Speaking by that Spirit IS real. I have no reason to doubt the actuality of things Paul wrote about speaking in tongues. We have every reason to doubt everything that Wierwille ever taught about tongues. That's why we have to go back and re-examine everything about the topic from what the Bible actually says about it.
You are right, the Bible doesn't say the things Wierwille taught. In many ways, the testimony of the Bible is much more powerfully in favor of speaking in tongues than Wierwille ever was, because Wierwille had no idea what he was really talking about. There are real reasons why it seems so much like we are faking it... but more on that later... it has to do with Paul's statement in I Corinthians 2:16b, "But we have the mind of Christ."
I hope looking at some things in chapter 2 won't be too far off topic for this thread :)
More later...
Love,
Steve
By the by, Raf, I don't say I CAN speak in tongues. I say I DO speak in tongues...
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Apparently I didn't hammer the dragon analogy hard enough, because you somehow missed the point.
"I DO speak in tongues" = "I DO have a dragon on my garage."
You're making a testable claim, and until you demonstrate that you're producing a language, your claim has not passed the test. A claim is not validated by the intensity with which it is asserted.
Why should I believe you DO speak in tongues when what you produce is no different than what I produced when I was faking it? Do you not agree that I have no basis to believe your claim until you produce the Biblically promised result, which IS a language?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You can claim it all you want, and as long as you don't expect me to believe it, we're cool. You want to claim it by faith? I can't argue with that.
But the moment you change "I can" to "I DO," you venture from a statement of faith to a statement of fact.
It's not a fact. It's a claim. A testable one. And no amount of redefining speak, redefining tongues or redefining language can change the fact that the claim you're making is testable. The only thing you guys accomplish when you deny the testability of the claim (by coming up with all sorts of excuses as to why a language won't be detected) is demonstrate a profound lack of confidence that you're producing a language. But a language is what the Bible promises.
That's the point of the dragon analogy: starting with a testable claim and then resorting to all sorts of mental gymnastics to make it untestable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
Steve Lortz said: "God spoke directly to the issues of my heart through a conversation between strangers that I overheard from a neighboring table in a restaurant."
Over the years, God was advising me through many people on the street to part ways with TWI. On several occasions (usually when it was crowded downtown) I distinctly remember someone coming right toward me very fast saying, "Get out of the way!" (I guess I just wasn't listening too well, huh?)
SPEC
Edited by spectrum49Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Raf, if you want to hammer the dragon in your garage, please feel free to do so. Just don't post pictures -
:biglaugh: 
Just a little levity there.
Anyway on a response to your scriptural references to tongues, doesn't Bullinger mark those as a figure of speech metonymy - an exchange of part for the whole - meaning the tongue and language or the use of the tongue for language related purposes are interchangeable in the verses that the figure appears?
There are other figures of speech with the tongue as well - like "the tongue is an unruly evil".
Anyway what language is literal and what is figurative is probably something to consider in this discussion as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Anyway what language is literal and what is figurative is probably something to consider in this discussion as well."
I think we may encounter some bandwidth limitations on that one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Don't you miss these chats we used to have, chockfull?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
As much as I might prefer more said on how some think spirit says or hears anything, I may as well bring 1 Cor.14:4 into the picture and pose another question.
If it's written that SIT "edifies" himself (or themselves), then... how so? Or, in what way if it's very plainly stated that he does not understand what is said?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Hey, Raf!
I think I may have been misunderstanding what you've been saying for a long time. I remember you making a positive statement somewhere early on that you had been faking tongues all the time you were involved with TWI. I read this to mean that you had been deliberately, willfully faking SIT.
It dawns on me that you may have been saying that during the time you were actually involved with TWI, you believed that you were genuinely speaking in tongues, but sometime later (probably in the time of the "actual errors in..." threads, if I'm not mistaken) you became convinced that you had been naively, unconsciously faking tongues all along.
What's the scoop?
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I had to dig up my copy of The Cult That Snapped by Karl Kahler, one of the best biographical treatments of TWI out there (because it blends a reporter's gathering of information with his personal experiences).
It had to be 2000 or 2001 when I got the book.
p.28 (his first time taking PFAL)
p. 54
Reading those words, and later conflating them (though I'm certain Karl would agree that such a conflating of ideas was a valid expression of his point), convicted me, as some Christians would say.
"You make it all up."
Back when I was in elementary school, I pretended to speak a foreign language once. I knew I was making it up, but it was harmless.
More than a decade later, I was being led into SIT for the first time. Nothing was coming out. I kept waiting, and nothing. Finally, I started speaking. And it felt exactly the same as when I'd made up that language in elementary school. I was faking it. I knew it.
"Don't let the devil talk you out of it," my 'coach' said. Those weren't his exact words, but I'm sure he'll agree that he said something along those lines.
And I eventually convinced myself it was real. It was what the Bible promised. It was available. And it worked for so many other people. This was real. This was real. This was real.
And suddenly I was confronted with this book: someone who never believed in the resurrection spoke in tongues. And admitted making up interpretations and prophecies.
He wasn't a Christian. Not by any logical definition of the term. He tried. But he never believed. He should not have been able to speak in tongues, but he did. How?
He faked it.
Just like I did.
No! I didn't. My experience was sincere. And it lined up with the Word.
A few years later, I learned about renowned skeptic James Randi and his offer of $1 million for proof of the supernatural. Weren't we taught that SIT was that proof? I knew that I could walk to James Randi's headquarters from my office (it was that close), speak in tongues in front of a linguist, and collect my check.
I never did it.
I never tried.
Because I knew what the result would be. I knew I was faking it all along. The knowledge I buried came roaring out, and I would never recover. "No one would ever admit it..."). To myself, I finally admitted it. I never spoke in tongues again without knowing it was a fake. I never spoke in tongues while praying. I just stopped.
I don't think anyone meant to lie. I didn't mean to lie. I meant to claim the promise of God. But looking back, I recognize that I faked it from day one. I taught others to fake it. I suspected we all faked it.
It wasn't until I was challenged to prove everyone faked it that I gathered the evidence to present my case in a systematic way. The Bible's claim about SIT is pretty clear to me (I'm done arguing about that. If you guys don't see it the same way, we have nothing to discuss. But I will restate that it seems odd I'm the only one allowing the Bible to speak for itself on the subject). I can't prove everyone is faking it, but anyone can prove me wrong by producing a language. Poythress and Samarin provided articulation of the mechanism for "faking it" (as I call it. They use different terms).
The more I studied, the more the hard evidence fell into place.
There is no dragon.
So, in short answer to your question, Steve, yes, you misunderstood me. Part of that is my fault because of the words I chose to use ("lies," for example). But part of it is because you did not carefully read what I originally wrote. It was an emotional thread, and again, MY fault for choosing inflammatory words that inspired defensiveness.
You say you DO speak in tongues. Fine. From where I sit, you have not established that you produce anything different from what I produced when I faked it, and until you do, I see no reason to believe your claim.
Your sincerity was never in doubt. I don't think you are lying or deliberately faking it. But until you produce a language, I have no reason to believe you're not.
Nothing personal. When two people hold mutually exclusive positions on a statement of fact/truth, one of them has to be wrong.
I don't think you're a liar. I don't think any of you are liars.
I think you're wrong. I've explained in excruciating detail how you can be wrong and still think you're right.
You think I'm wrong.
The difference between you and me? I can't prove you're wrong. But you can prove I am. Document the language.
Until then, I think I'm a few years past done arguing about it.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Wow... It's incredible to think such things were said.
I suppose the logical thought following that is, You don't have to believe God raised Jesus Christ from the dead to be a Christian.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Really? That's your takeaway from the story?
Just wow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
A professor of chemistry wanted to teach his 5th grade class a
lesson about the evils of liquor, so he produced an experiment
that involved a glass of water, a glass of whiskey, and two
worms.
"Now, class. Observe closely the worms," said the professor
putting the worm first into the glass of water. The worm in the
water writhed about, happy as a worm in water could be.
The second worm, he put into the glass of whiskey. It writhed
painfully, and quickly sank to the bottom,
dead as a doornail.
"Now, what lesson can we derive from this experiment?" the
professor asked.
Johnny, who naturally sits in back, raised his hand and wisely,
responded, "Drink whiskey and you won't get worms."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
As you said, it's a story (sad as it may be), and I didn't have much to say about it (especially in the doctrinal thread.)
And there's pieces missing (which are probably lost or forgotten), which cause me to think that I might have lived in a different world from what some people say they experienced.
My last post was a sort of "knee jerk" reaction to what appeared to be someone labeling (and I'm not sure that's the best, or even the right word to use) or thinking themselves a (knowledgeable ?) Christian, and then boasting that they don't believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It's a hard concept for me to imagine, much less wrap my head around it. I just didn't (and still don't) encounter that sort of brash attitude in real life. (And no, I don't live in a bubble, never talking to all sorts of people, from all kinds of religious backgrounds.)
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
spectrum49
RAF --- I just remembered some "appropriate lyrics" from the song Born Again by Good Seed: "I ain't faking it..." (And I'm sure you can relate to that, huh?) So --- That brings to bear that (very likely) this may have been a concern...back in the day...to many more than we might suppose --- or else, those "reassuring words" need not to have been said at all. (Just sayin'...)
Also, (as I said sometime earlier in this Topic) I do admit "having faked it myself". Yes --- and even Interpretation & Prophesy! (I also believe there are many people out there who are perhaps just too ashamed to examine their heart and admit to having done that.)
Now Raf: Don't get yourself in a tizzy about having called people "liars". I (for one) believe to understand exactly what you intended that to imply....and please do correct me if I'm mistaken: Although they didn't truly realize it, they were lying to themselves. NOW --- While that (in and of itself) doesn't mean they did so intentionally, in the "wide view of things" it does remain that they indeed did lie, which (of course) would qualify them as "liars". How's that, my friend?
SPEC
Edited by spectrum49Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thanks, Raf! That helps me tremendously to see where you are coming from.
My intentions about writing on speaking in tongues have never been to get you to change your interpretation of your experiences. That's why I'm not writing on the thread you re-booted, and that's why "Yet ANOTHER Thread on Speaking in Tongues" was subtitled "NOT an argument with Raf" and why discussion of your interpretation of your experience was the only thing off-topic on that thread.
Your response assures me I was not mistaken in continuing to regard you as a friend, even if we disagree on SOME things!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
TLC makes a correct observation. My account is out of place in this forum, for which I apologize. It was, however, a direct answer to a direct question that provides significant context for my role in initiating and participating in this discussion. So in the "meta" sense, it's on topic. But let's not allow it to distract us from trying to explore what the Bible actually says about SIT.
Reading other responses and reserving the right to comment further.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It is odd. I'd be willing to bet Thomas Jefferson fell in this category.
My regret isn't in what I meant, it's in how I articulated myself, which unnecessarily put people on the defensive. I'm glad you got my point (and from my recollection, you got it early). But not everyone did. I mean, here we have Steve asking me for a clarification just yesterday!
As a communicator, I am responsible for anticipating how people will respond to my words, and avoiding undue misunderstanding if possible. I failed. I'm not in a tizzy about it, but I want to be clear I'm not hiding from it either.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
It could be, but I've never studied his life carefully enough to venture a guess (and it was a much different time.)
https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I just went back and re-read chockfull's first post on this thread, and I don't think anything you've written here has been off topic. I can relate the discussion you and I have been engaged in right back to the stated topic of the thread, but not tonight. It's not all that complicated, but my time suddenly comes at a premium.
And don't beat yourself up on your ability to write and be understood! Ordinary communication requires feedback that enables the sender to find out if the message was properly transmitted to the receiver, and if the receiver properly decoded the message (or the "massage" as Marshall McLuhan would have said).
That was one of the real deficiencies of TWI teaching. Nobody could ask any questions. The talking heads could never be sure they were communicating... That may be part of the reason for Rainbow Man's over the top delivery style.
That's also one of the reasons why genuine speaking in tongues is not to be understood by the speaker. WE CAN'T SCREW IT UP! EVEN IF WE'RE KIDS!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The Jefferson Bible
The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, commonly referred to as the Jefferson Bible, was a book constructed by Thomas Jefferson in the later years of his life by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural, including sections of the four gospels which contain the Resurrection and most other miracles, and passages indicating Jesus was divine.
Source
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
On September 12th, 2012, Raf announced "I lied about it all" when he initiated the thread "SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession." Eight days later chockfull started THIS thread for the reasons stated above.
When Raf said "I lied about it all" he was making a claim based on his interpretation of his own experience. It's a wonderful thing that we are free to do that, instead of being manipulated into accepting Wierwille's interpretation of our experiences. It is Raf's right and responsibility... his duty... to interpret his own experience... and that applies to the rest of us, as well.
After careful consideration, I came to an interpretation of my experience different from Raf's interpretation of his. I make the claim that I DO speak in tongues, genuine Biblical speaking in tongues, that are in accordance with I Corinthians 12-14.
If I am recalling and analyzing things correctly, Raf puts forward an argument to the effect that "modern" speaking in tongues cannot be in accordance with the phrase "speaking in tongues [glossai = languages]" used in I Corinthians 12-14 because modern SIT does not produce a language.
Raf dismisses all anecdotal evidence that SIT can produce a known language, which is his right, and relying on anecdotal evidence can often be unwise. Raf seems to suggest that if we believed SIT produces "actual" languages, we should have a number of trained linguists study examples of SIT to determine what languages they are.
I would hazard the guess that, whether or not the linguists could identify specific languages, they would not be able to categorically deny that "modern" tongues produces actual languages.
And my guess is based on the actual definition of what a language actually is...
Here is a wikipedia definition: "Language is the ability to acquire and use complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so, and a language is any specific example of such a system.
Here are some more technical considerations, the kind trained linguists pay attention to: "[Language] is a system of communication based upon words and the combination of words into sentences...
"Among the characteristics that make a relatively clear distinction between linguistic and nonlinguistic communication meaningful, two are particularly important: double articulation and syntax...
"Languages have tens of thousands of signs, and the term double articulation refers to the fact that the formal sides of these sign are built from a relatively small repertoire – usually between 10 and 100 – of meaningless sounds...
"The ingenious invention that enabled human beings to talk about everything they can imagine, is syntax. Syntax is used to put together signs expressing relatively simple meanings into sign combinations expressing more complex meanings.
"Syntax is a mechanism that enables human beings to utter or understand an infinite number of sentences constructed from a finite number of building blocks. Without syntax, we would not be able to express other meanings than those associated with isolated signs, and the number of different meanings we would be able to express would be equal to the number of signs in the 'language'."
(Those quotes were from this
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=how+do+linguists+define+%22language%22
I don't know how to cite it any better than this)
The ancients had no correspondingly detailed definitions for glossa. Liddell & Scott's Greek-English Lexicon simply says ""tongue...by word of mouth... language or dialect" All of the definitions we have for Greek words come from study of their use in context. We don't have any ancient dictionaries. We have practice tablets where students exercised their ability to write letters and words, but none of them record definitions.
I suspect that if a trained linguist were to study an example of a person speaking in tongues, and the linguist did not recognize it as a known language, the linguist would ask the question, does this thing exhibit double articulation? that is, does is consist of a number of signs made up of a number of meaningless sounds? The answer would have to be possibly so. The linguist would then ask does this thing exhibit syntax, that is, can the limited number of signs be combined to produce an unlimited variety of meanings. Again, the answer would have to be possibly so.
We cannot categorically deny the ability of "modern" tongues to produce an actual language, even if that specific language is not understood by anyone present. The ONLY requirement on understanding imposed by I Corinthians 12-14 is that the SPEAKER not understand what she is speaking. This raises questions in my mind about improvisational actors. Would the fact that they UNDERSTAND that they are producing nonsense syllables short circuit speaking by the Spirit? I don't have an answer for that.
Raf introduced Sagan's analogy of the hypothetical dragon in the garage. We aren't dealing with a hypothetical dragon in a garage. I Corinthians 12-14 describes the actual audible production of something exhibiting double articulation and syntax, not understood by the speaker.
Not only is it foolish to assume that another person's interpretation of their experience needs to conform with your own, it is foolish to assume that another person's experience is in the same box as your own.
If I claimed there could be a dragon in my garage, all I would have to do to prove it would be TO STAND IN MY GARAGE! I AM a Golden Dragon! I can't tell you when I became one, because for us, the day that the POGY crossed the International Date Line NEVER EXISTED!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok, one LAST time. My thesis cannot be proven by linguists' observations. I never said it could. What I said, repeatedly, is that my thesis can be DISPROVED by linfuists' observations. It only takes ONE person practicing SIT to produce an identifiable language to disprove my thesis.
I discount anecdotal accounts because they are insufficient for that purpose. The stories are usually second or third hand, and the actual participants are uniformly unavailable to document the claim. Anecdotal accounts are NOT evidence; they are CLAIMS. Using a claim to prove a claim is begging the question.
Any linguist can study thousands of samples of SIT and never identify a language, and it would still not prove my point. I NEVER SAID IT COULD, and if I did say that, I would be mistaken. I have made that concession multiple times.
Your citation of the opening post on this thread does establish that my personal experience and testimony is technically off topic on this thread, so let's stick with what the Bible says about SIT and glossa. I still find it ironic that I'm the only one who has tried to do that.
By the way, your use of the dragon in the garage analogy does not refute my use of it. It validates my use of it.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.