I made a conscious decision to stop using variations of the word "lying" in connection with this topic. I think the desire was sincere and the belief was sincere. I think we were encouraged to continue from the moment the first sounds came out of our mouths, and we were explicitly told that doubts about whether this was real were devilish. We reinforced ourselves and each other by sharing the experience in public. We were deceived. We received ourselves.
And we WANTED it to be true. Some of us still do, to the point of redefining the experience beyond all biblical bounds, throwing up obstacles to make the biblical claim untreatable when it is quite testable.
No one is lying. But no one is producing a language.
No, you're not.
No, you're not.
No, sorry, you're just not.
Yes, you do have to prove it. No, I do not have to disprove it. I am not the one making a claim. I am denying yours.
"Lying" is a poor word choice (for me, as I've used the term). Hence, I ceased using it. I'm not disagreeing with Bolshevik. I'm just choosing a different vocabulary and explaining why.
But the emperor is naked. There's no dragon in the garage. There were no wiretaps. Is means is. There were no WMD. The evidence is more than just absent.
I lied. That's how you get it over with. I did not believe it was genuine, I did not see options I was willing to make the sacrifices for. And I lied. Usually I tried to skip fellowship somehow. The rest of the time, I lied.
Gotcha, I see that more clearly after you made some edits.
I should add I expressed I did not want to go to Fellowships, but I was informed I did not have a choice. I lied about SIT, and did not enjoy doing it. That became practice.
It's probably down to irrelevance. We're not even having the same discussion. One discussion is "ARE they the same thing? Let's look at the evidence..." and the other discussion is "SINCE they're the same thing, the evidence doesn't matter..."
There is no "other discussion" because you won't (or can't) engage in it for whatever reason. Furthermore, your labeling of what you think it might be (were it to ever happen) likewise misses. If effectually they're the same, then whether or not they're exactly the same is irrelevant. Evidently that possibility eluded you... or maybe you were just trying to steer around it.
The comparison has already been made. The comparison focuses on existence vs. nonexistence. Comparisons beyond that would be straw man in nature until existence is established.
Nice example of two dimensional, lineal thinking.
Really goes outside the box. Not.
Mocking my comments does not discredit them. If you're familiar with a phoneme, you can incorporate it into SIT without a supernatural explanation. That is perfectly sound logic, and to treat it as a "gotcha" makes no sense. Of COURSE you can incorporate phonemes you're aware of, even if they're part of a language you don't speak. The issue is you're aware of them, and this is in the literature. It's not "made up" to account for anything.
If two languages share a phonemic inventory, and a sample of SIT fits that inventory, then it should be a piece of cake to determine whether the SIT matches any of those languages. So far, hasn't happened. Still waiting. Not holding my breath. Assuming you are correct and there are languages that share phonemic inventories, dandy! We still have ZERO documented examples of SIT producing a known language (barring unverifiable anecdotes whose participants are conveniently a. anonymous and b. half a world away).
You can ask for the checklist that you've already reviewed many times, if you'd like. I don't see why you're arguing with me on a point on which we agree: the "what makes it a language" checklist did not apply to our discussion. You are correct. Now you want me to prove that you're right? Why? For you to accuse me of "making it up..." damn, bro, that's false and you KNOW it. Especially after I just agreed with you on the subject. I didn't make up jack, and I can't help it if you don't remember the very checklists we discussed and agreed were irrelevant to our discussion. That's YOUR faulty memory, not mine. Do not accuse me of making s* up just because your memory failed.
Convenient. Cop out, though. Sorry, it is. It is exactly the kind of explanation you expect from someone trying to explain why you should not expect to find evidence for your claim. It's the dragon in the garage principle.
"I have a dragon in my garage."
Oh yeah? Let me see it.
"It's invisible."
Ok. Let me feel it. Let's throw a blanket over it or something.
"It's incorporeal. That won't work."
Fine, let's use infrared.
"That won't work either. It's non-thermal."
Joo no, I's starting to sink joo no has a dragon in joo garage.
[Concept stolen from Carl Sagan].
Look, you make a testable claim, and then when someone tests it, you start going through logical somersaults to avoid the test. It's not a human language. The connection is shut off when people are watching. It's non-thermal.
Meanwhile, the people being recorded don't think they're faking it when they're doing it "while you are filming," which means by your definitionthey are faking it without realizing they are faking it, which is exactly my thesis in the first place. I say we all did that and you're all doing it! Not that you lack sincerity. Not that you're bad people. You're just not doing anything supernatural. If you were, you'd be producing languages. You're not, because you're not.
So, to mix humor from another thread, maybe it's time for people to get out of the Nile!
Just to clarify cordiality I was not mocking your comments. Obviously you believe them. And you believe that although I don't speak languages with glottal stops, and I'm not familiar with a single vocabulary word in languages with those "phonemes" (BTW - where did you pick up that word? - I'm assuming from one of the studies and that you didn't make the word up but I don't have the source), that somehow I subconsciously learned the sounds somewhere - we don't know where - and that now I am producing them in context that has "aural characteristics" of a language. (Meaning it kind of sounds like one but I have no way of knowing which one it is or if it really is because I don't speak the language).
I'm not mocking but from my perspective the logic flow just doesn't even remotely fit reality.
And now I have a fictional dragon in my garage too. My day is going downhill already :)
If something is done that only a dragon in the garage can do...
Then you will have established that you have a dragon. But you f-ing don't, and this is getting boring. That is actually this whole discussion in a nutshell. You claim this dragon can do something, I'm saying prove it, and you're saying I can't disprove it. I have no obligation to disprove it. Prove it can, or there's nothing to discuss.
Then what difference does if make to you, Raf, whether or not tongues (or the effect of it) is the same now as it was in the early church if it didn't exist back then either?
Where did I pick up the word phonemes? You critique and dismiss the research I cited repeatedly, research YOU ALSO CITED to defend your position, and you wonder where I picked up that word?Bruh, if you really reviewed the research the way you claim you have, you would have picked up that word too. It's all over everything we reviewed.
Then what difference does if make to you, Raf, whether or not tongues (or the effect of it) is the same now as it was in the early church if it didn't exist back then either?
Really?
Because if you're actually producing languages now, then you're doing something that cannot be explained naturally, thus confirming the supernatural.
But if you're doing something any schmoe in an acting class can do regardless of religious belief, then you're not doing anything that cannot be explained naturally, so the question reverts to you: Why are you impressed at your ability to do what anyone can do?
Known or unknown, recognized or identifiable as a "language" or not... if it serves the same purpose and/or achieves the same benefits... does anything else about it really matter?
I'm coming from more of this type of perspective. When I was in middle school I realized through Biblical teachings that I needed a savior, that I wasn't strong enough, smart enough, capable enough to take on a world full of evil without God. So I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, asked him to be my lord, and my life changed from that perspective. Part of the change was a new prayer life. Now I pray to someone else, someone wiser, smarter, stronger than me. My Heavenly Father. This is part of how I interact with my Father and say "abba", and this is part of my overall relationship. My brain is not the end all of existence or truth on a matter.
Part of this prayer life has developed over time, and prior to the Way. I was not in the Way in middle school or growing up. I joined in college. What I saw there I assumed everyone else was doing what I was, or believed similarly. It never occurred to me to even think people were being inauthentic about it.
I helped put on INT classes. One comment on this thread mentioned them. I think the Way's INT class is an abomination. I think their whole approach to manifestations is an abomination. It all smacks of Wierwille faking it on stage at an Oral Roberts convention, the JE Sitles story, and even then maybe VP learned how to fake it real good and teach others. "You move your mouth, your lips, you make the sound".
Nobody ever had to cover that kind of detail for me with my private prayer life.
But I have all sorts of people with opinions about it. Apparently I have a dragon in my garage that I'm making up along with languages.
Who knew?
I'm sure someone will be happy to sell me a can of dragon repellent though.
Look. I get it. People are disenfranchised with the Way's BS. And false teachings. And heavy-handedness. And child abuse. Me too.
Now please excuse me while I take my dragon out for a spin. Airline tickets are getting so damn expensive!!!!!!
By the way, chockfull, your self-reporting of distinct phonemes in your SIT that cannot be accounted for in languages you know or sounds you have been exposed to would be a lot more impressive coming from a disinterested third party who analyzed your SIT and identified a language, rather than someone trying to win a debate on the internet who claims to be keeping up with the studies we're discussing but does not recognize a word that came up dozens of times in each of those studies.
"Serves the same purpose/achieves the same benefits" is subjective. If it gives you the warm and fuzzies, so be it. But that's not the Biblical claim. The Biblical claim is speaking in languages, not merely promoting warm and fuzzies.
Where did I pick up the word phonemes? You critique and dismiss the research I cited repeatedly, research YOU ALSO CITED to defend your position, and you wonder where I picked up that word?Bruh, if you really reviewed the research the way you claim you have, you would have picked up that word too. It's all over everything we reviewed.
I'm not critiquing research, honestly. I may have read that word in a study that both of us cited in that thread. But that thread was a while ago, and I don't have a comprehensive list of sources we explored, and it wasn't widespread throughout all of the resources.
No, I didn't "really review the research" in any sense. I didn't re-read the 86 page thread, trying to compile sources, prior to engaging in conversation. This is why I am asking. You have been on this thread, started the thread, are pontificating on the thread. I figured since you had such a high interest in this topic that maybe the researchers were on the tip of your tongue or easily accessible in memory where I didn't have to try and look for it in that long thread.
I've mentioned repeatedly that I'm waiting for publication of research on SIT and phonemic inventory. Didn't want anyone to think I had forgotten about it since it still hasn't been published four years later.
I didn't resurrect this thread, and I did need to be reminded about certain vocabulary terms -- a handy thing to do when you're engaging in a discussion about language
"Serves the same purpose/achieves the same benefits" is subjective. If it gives you the warm and fuzzies, so be it. But that's not the Biblical claim. The Biblical claim is speaking in languages, not merely promoting warm and fuzzies.
What exact Biblical claim are we talking about here? And why is it important?
You previously referred to the tower of Babel as a fictional event. I mean if you don't believe in God, and don't believe that He could control languages like that, then how is there any basis for discussion?
I mean if there is no God, then of course everybody is making it up, and you won your argument, right?
The basis for discussion remains that a testable claim is made. If the claim is proved, I am wrong. If the claim is not proved, I may still be wrong, but we'll have to use other means to determine it.
That is why I keep saying (and Word Wolf keeps demonstrating by example) that you can agree with me on this topic and remain a committed Christian.
And I'm not taking the bait: We have gone over what the Biblical claim is too many times to come back to a debate about it again. If you don't agree that the Bible promises a known human language, you need not. But I personally consider that a debate victory, to see a clear biblical promise retreated from with such enthusiasm that it turns an obvious, testable claim to an ethereal generator of warmth and fuzziness that cannot be disproved any more than the Mormons bosom warmth.
Because if you're actually producing languages now, then you're doing something that cannot be explained naturally, thus confirming the supernatural.
But if you're doing something any schmoe in an acting class can do regardless of religious belief, then you're not doing anything that cannot be explained naturally, so the question reverts to you: Why are you impressed at your ability to do what anyone can do?
Raf, right here is where you actually spell out fairly accurately the faith dilemma.
Can I confirm the supernatural?
Who can I confirm or prove it to? Just myself, or the whole world?
If I can confirm it to the whole world by proof, then everyone would believe. But they don't. They have to make up their own mind.
But if you make a testable claim and follow through, then you have something that cannot be answered in natural terms.
You don't though. You made the testable claim, but when the time came to follow through, you redefined the claim to make it untreatable, allowing you the privilege of making it an issue of faith.
Biblical SIT is not a matter of faith. It's a matter of making a claim that can be objectively demonstrated and evaluated by a disinterested third party.
The notion that it's untestable comes from a repeated failure to identify a language in any sample of SIT, ever, except of course for those cases where the key participants are now anonymous, on the other side of the planet, or both.
By the way, chockfull, your self-reporting of distinct phonemes in your SIT that cannot be accounted for in languages you know or sounds you have been exposed to would be a lot more impressive coming from a disinterested third party who analyzed your SIT and identified a language, rather than someone trying to win a debate on the internet who claims to be keeping up with the studies we're discussing but does not recognize a word that came up dozens of times in each of those studies.
Just sayin.
Raf, I'm not trying to win a debate. I ceased posting on the topic after 86 pages before, and I saw this being resurrected. I can totally appreciate it is part of a fact-based approach to sorting out our common past.
I'm kind of sensing we are approaching that impasse in major premise again.
I just have a different perspective from you, and hope that my contributions to questioning faith and SIT will also help some members recover from the Way that your approach to it can't connect with.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
95
23
22
27
Popular Days
Mar 23
59
Mar 14
36
Mar 20
32
Mar 13
16
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 95 posts
WordWolf 23 posts
waysider 22 posts
chockfull 27 posts
Popular Days
Mar 23 2017
59 posts
Mar 14 2017
36 posts
Mar 20 2017
32 posts
Mar 13 2017
16 posts
Popular Posts
Bolshevik
The purpose of Speaking in Tongues is to loosen people minds, or, reduce critical thinking enough that they will accept TWI doctrine and direction. It aids in building non-coherency. It is a sig
Bolshevik
I had thought for a time people who'd never heard SIT would be impressed. Isn't that why we're trying to get them to TWIG? To be wowed by what we take for granted? . . . what? . . . THAT didn'
Raf
It's almost impossible to believe this is an honest question. What good would it do to objectively prove the supernatural? He seriously asked that question. First off, it would win the
Raf
I made a conscious decision to stop using variations of the word "lying" in connection with this topic. I think the desire was sincere and the belief was sincere. I think we were encouraged to continue from the moment the first sounds came out of our mouths, and we were explicitly told that doubts about whether this was real were devilish. We reinforced ourselves and each other by sharing the experience in public. We were deceived. We received ourselves.
And we WANTED it to be true. Some of us still do, to the point of redefining the experience beyond all biblical bounds, throwing up obstacles to make the biblical claim untreatable when it is quite testable.
No one is lying. But no one is producing a language.
No, you're not.
No, you're not.
No, sorry, you're just not.
Yes, you do have to prove it. No, I do not have to disprove it. I am not the one making a claim. I am denying yours.
"Lying" is a poor word choice (for me, as I've used the term). Hence, I ceased using it. I'm not disagreeing with Bolshevik. I'm just choosing a different vocabulary and explaining why.
But the emperor is naked. There's no dragon in the garage. There were no wiretaps. Is means is. There were no WMD. The evidence is more than just absent.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I lied. That's how you get it over with. I did not believe it was genuine, I did not see options I was willing to make the sacrifices for. And I lied. Usually I tried to skip fellowship somehow. The rest of the time, I lied.
But if lying is a dishonest use of words . .
Bad Faith?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Oh, that's different. If you continued after you knew it was B.S, yeah. That's another story.
And I tried to be clear that lying was a bad word choice FOR ME. I did not intend to extend it to you.
"Talked ourselves into what we wanted to be true" would be more accurate for me.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Gotcha, I see that more clearly after you made some edits.
I should add I expressed I did not want to go to Fellowships, but I was informed I did not have a choice. I lied about SIT, and did not enjoy doing it. That became practice.
Edited by Bolshevikextra word
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
There is no "other discussion" because you won't (or can't) engage in it for whatever reason. Furthermore, your labeling of what you think it might be (were it to ever happen) likewise misses. If effectually they're the same, then whether or not they're exactly the same is irrelevant. Evidently that possibility eluded you... or maybe you were just trying to steer around it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That post added nothing to the discussion.
I'm not saying you're being a troll. Because I can't prove it. But you can't prove you're not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Nice example of two dimensional, lineal thinking.
Really goes outside the box. Not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Trolling trolling trolling, keep the nonsense rolling
Contributing nothing, RAWHIDE!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Just to clarify cordiality I was not mocking your comments. Obviously you believe them. And you believe that although I don't speak languages with glottal stops, and I'm not familiar with a single vocabulary word in languages with those "phonemes" (BTW - where did you pick up that word? - I'm assuming from one of the studies and that you didn't make the word up but I don't have the source), that somehow I subconsciously learned the sounds somewhere - we don't know where - and that now I am producing them in context that has "aural characteristics" of a language. (Meaning it kind of sounds like one but I have no way of knowing which one it is or if it really is because I don't speak the language).
I'm not mocking but from my perspective the logic flow just doesn't even remotely fit reality.
And now I have a fictional dragon in my garage too. My day is going downhill already :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Then what difference does if make to you, Raf, whether or not tongues (or the effect of it) is the same now as it was in the early church if it didn't exist back then either?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Where did I pick up the word phonemes? You critique and dismiss the research I cited repeatedly, research YOU ALSO CITED to defend your position, and you wonder where I picked up that word?Bruh, if you really reviewed the research the way you claim you have, you would have picked up that word too. It's all over everything we reviewed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Really?
Because if you're actually producing languages now, then you're doing something that cannot be explained naturally, thus confirming the supernatural.
But if you're doing something any schmoe in an acting class can do regardless of religious belief, then you're not doing anything that cannot be explained naturally, so the question reverts to you: Why are you impressed at your ability to do what anyone can do?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I'm coming from more of this type of perspective. When I was in middle school I realized through Biblical teachings that I needed a savior, that I wasn't strong enough, smart enough, capable enough to take on a world full of evil without God. So I accepted Jesus Christ as my savior, asked him to be my lord, and my life changed from that perspective. Part of the change was a new prayer life. Now I pray to someone else, someone wiser, smarter, stronger than me. My Heavenly Father. This is part of how I interact with my Father and say "abba", and this is part of my overall relationship. My brain is not the end all of existence or truth on a matter.
Part of this prayer life has developed over time, and prior to the Way. I was not in the Way in middle school or growing up. I joined in college. What I saw there I assumed everyone else was doing what I was, or believed similarly. It never occurred to me to even think people were being inauthentic about it.
I helped put on INT classes. One comment on this thread mentioned them. I think the Way's INT class is an abomination. I think their whole approach to manifestations is an abomination. It all smacks of Wierwille faking it on stage at an Oral Roberts convention, the JE Sitles story, and even then maybe VP learned how to fake it real good and teach others. "You move your mouth, your lips, you make the sound".
Nobody ever had to cover that kind of detail for me with my private prayer life.
But I have all sorts of people with opinions about it. Apparently I have a dragon in my garage that I'm making up along with languages.
Who knew?
I'm sure someone will be happy to sell me a can of dragon repellent though.
Look. I get it. People are disenfranchised with the Way's BS. And false teachings. And heavy-handedness. And child abuse. Me too.
Now please excuse me while I take my dragon out for a spin. Airline tickets are getting so damn expensive!!!!!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
By the way, chockfull, your self-reporting of distinct phonemes in your SIT that cannot be accounted for in languages you know or sounds you have been exposed to would be a lot more impressive coming from a disinterested third party who analyzed your SIT and identified a language, rather than someone trying to win a debate on the internet who claims to be keeping up with the studies we're discussing but does not recognize a word that came up dozens of times in each of those studies.
Just sayin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"Serves the same purpose/achieves the same benefits" is subjective. If it gives you the warm and fuzzies, so be it. But that's not the Biblical claim. The Biblical claim is speaking in languages, not merely promoting warm and fuzzies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I'm not critiquing research, honestly. I may have read that word in a study that both of us cited in that thread. But that thread was a while ago, and I don't have a comprehensive list of sources we explored, and it wasn't widespread throughout all of the resources.
No, I didn't "really review the research" in any sense. I didn't re-read the 86 page thread, trying to compile sources, prior to engaging in conversation. This is why I am asking. You have been on this thread, started the thread, are pontificating on the thread. I figured since you had such a high interest in this topic that maybe the researchers were on the tip of your tongue or easily accessible in memory where I didn't have to try and look for it in that long thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I've mentioned repeatedly that I'm waiting for publication of research on SIT and phonemic inventory. Didn't want anyone to think I had forgotten about it since it still hasn't been published four years later.
I didn't resurrect this thread, and I did need to be reminded about certain vocabulary terms -- a handy thing to do when you're engaging in a discussion about language
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
What exact Biblical claim are we talking about here? And why is it important?
You previously referred to the tower of Babel as a fictional event. I mean if you don't believe in God, and don't believe that He could control languages like that, then how is there any basis for discussion?
I mean if there is no God, then of course everybody is making it up, and you won your argument, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The basis for discussion remains that a testable claim is made. If the claim is proved, I am wrong. If the claim is not proved, I may still be wrong, but we'll have to use other means to determine it.
That is why I keep saying (and Word Wolf keeps demonstrating by example) that you can agree with me on this topic and remain a committed Christian.
And I'm not taking the bait: We have gone over what the Biblical claim is too many times to come back to a debate about it again. If you don't agree that the Bible promises a known human language, you need not. But I personally consider that a debate victory, to see a clear biblical promise retreated from with such enthusiasm that it turns an obvious, testable claim to an ethereal generator of warmth and fuzziness that cannot be disproved any more than the Mormons bosom warmth.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Raf, right here is where you actually spell out fairly accurately the faith dilemma.
Can I confirm the supernatural?
Who can I confirm or prove it to? Just myself, or the whole world?
If I can confirm it to the whole world by proof, then everyone would believe. But they don't. They have to make up their own mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
But if you make a testable claim and follow through, then you have something that cannot be answered in natural terms.
You don't though. You made the testable claim, but when the time came to follow through, you redefined the claim to make it untreatable, allowing you the privilege of making it an issue of faith.
Biblical SIT is not a matter of faith. It's a matter of making a claim that can be objectively demonstrated and evaluated by a disinterested third party.
The notion that it's untestable comes from a repeated failure to identify a language in any sample of SIT, ever, except of course for those cases where the key participants are now anonymous, on the other side of the planet, or both.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
And just to be abundantly clear, I CAN be right about SIT but wrong about God.
I do not see how I can be wrong about SIT but right about God. I mean, I suppose it's possible, but I don't see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Raf, I'm not trying to win a debate. I ceased posting on the topic after 86 pages before, and I saw this being resurrected. I can totally appreciate it is part of a fact-based approach to sorting out our common past.
I'm kind of sensing we are approaching that impasse in major premise again.
I just have a different perspective from you, and hope that my contributions to questioning faith and SIT will also help some members recover from the Way that your approach to it can't connect with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Fair enough, Chockfull.
Link 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.