P.S. If you believe SIT as practiced today is genuine and Biblical, you are on topic on this thread.
Anyone who wants to discuss any aspect of it -- doctrinal, practical, hypothetical, theoretical, anecdotal... you're all on topic. You're on topic. You're on topic. EVERYONE is on topic!
And while we're at it, you're on topic if you want to discuss interpretation and prophecy too, seeing as they're all related.
MRAP asked: "Hey Raf and Kermitt (Waysider, don't mind if I call you Kermitt - any parts of you smell like pork) All aside, here's my question: I have been speaking in tongues since 1972 (what's that, 40 some years) and my tonuge/s change quite frequently and have done so over the years and decades. I SIT alot, often outloud when alone, sometimes just at the lips and more often, prior to making it that far. I do "hear" the words in the ol'e noggin (no, not hearing voices). So,if the Bible says that it is a manifesttion than is it real? Now, I do remember all about those "starter words" and that is a mind thing; I recall how many folks started their tongues the same way that VP did (la shanta). I spoke in tongues prior to completing the PFAL class; that's another story. So, do either of you still SIT, I think I know that answer, in part. I have not read this whole thread but just needed to ask, maybe had I read the whole thing I would have gotten my answer."
Christianity in general and TWI in particular teaches people how to fake speaking in tongues. There's nothing genuine about it. You can only establish that your SIT is genuine by demonstrating that you have in fact produced a language. Until you do, you are merely making a claim. The claim I make, that you're faking it, has gobs of evidence to support it. The only evidence you can provide to support your claim is... a language.
MRAP asked: "Hey Raf and Kermitt (Waysider, don't mind if I call you Kermitt - any parts of you smell like pork)
Ok...
All aside, here's my question: I have been speaking in tongues since 1972 (what's that, 40 some years) and my tonuge/s change quite frequently and have done so over the years and decades. I SIT alot, often outloud when alone, sometimes just at the lips and more often, prior to making it that far. I do "hear" the words in the ol'e noggin (no, not hearing voices). So,if the Bible says that it is a manifesttion than is it real?
We were all TOLD that what you were/are doing is the same thing that's in the Bible.
Personally, I believe the thing in the Bible (I call it "Biblical SIT") was genuine,
really happened, and was from God. (Some people disagree, but that's really a separate
issue.) It describes something specific.
Personally, I believe that there's overwhelming evidence that the thing that's done
now (I call it "modern SIT") is completely different, and is a cheap counterfeit that
anyone can be taught to do- and are, in acting classes every semester.
It's CLAIMED that it's the same thing I mentioned before ("Biblical SIT") but the
main resemblance is that people keep SAYING it's the same thing and they SAY
it's resembling the other.
If the "Biblical SIT" is "available" now, I don't know. I am confident I haven't seen
it yet. I am confident I was never taught it. If it IS possible now, then getting
fixated on a cheap imitation is a sure way to miss the real thing. If it is NOT
possible now, getting fixated on a cheap imitation will waste your time and can
give God a black eye because people lose confidence in the genuine if they can't
distinguish between it and counterfeits.
We're all (all positions) saying that what we were taught was "real" (it happened.)
We disagree as to whether the label of the Pentecost thing is correct in describing
the modern thing. So, is it "really" the Pentecost thing? Evidence examined all
points to "no." Anecdotes are offered to claim it's "yes", but if that's the best
one can offer, don't be surprised if nobody buys it. The other part is people
getting ranty and claiming that to claim the modern thing is not the same as
the Pentecost thing are casting doubt categorically on God and the Bible.
No. My faith is in God, my faith is NOT in cheap fakes offered by people who CLAIM
he's endorsing his actions. (Obviously, there are people who disagree with me
on having faith in God-but that is not required to disagree with the modern
practice of so-called "speaking in tongues."
Now, I do remember all about those "starter words" and that is a mind thing; I recall how many folks started their tongues the same way that VP did (la shanta). I spoke in tongues prior to completing the PFAL class; that's another story. So, do either of you still SIT, I think I know that answer, in part. I have not read this whole thread but just needed to ask, maybe had I read the whole thing I would have gotten my answer."
I occasionally DO still do the so-called "speaking in tongues" silently.
I do it as a mental focus and am fully aware it's me doing it.
I might do it more if I ever participate in another acting class.
MRAP, you say you've been speaking in tongues since 1972 and you follow up with a question: if the Bible says it's a manifestation, then is it real?
Your question presumes that what you're doing is, in fact, what the Bible describes as speaking in tongues. As far as I'm concerned, until you prove that point, I am not obliged to answer your question.
You don't speak in tongues. You only claim to. You're sincere about it, but a self-serving man claiming to be wise once said...
If, when you speak in tongues, you produce a language, then I have little choice but to concede your practice is genuine. But that determination is based on you producing the results the Bible predicts. Otherwise, it's just a claim, of no more merit than the warmth in the bosom of the sincere Mormon.
I think the whole thing weasels out of having to adhere to any sense of being real by invoking the "language of angels" clause. Then there's the idea of dead languages - again weasel-y.
Clearly in Acts the first time people spoke in tongues they spoke in (1.) languages they did not speak to (2.) people who did speak those languages. There is no evidence that phenomenon ever took place again - not that it wasn't attempted. As time continued, speaking in tongues became more and more weasel-y in its purpose (and at some point mostly dies out in common usage) until we arrive at the mid 20th century where it becomes a "test" of who is a believer by a certain religious sect that shall not be named by me. But given the weasel-y nature of the whole thing, it just becomes a point of division because no one actually knows if they are actually doing it. Right. Wrong. At all.
I have a fairly good ear for language, and maybe one time did I detect anything that remotely had the sound of "language". Most of the time I would hear a lot of repeat phrasing. However, in the "interpretation", there would be a lack of repeat phrasing, which indicated to me that what was "interpreted" was not going along with what spoken.
Charles Parham originated the doctrine of initial evidence—that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is evidenced by speaking in tongues.[2] It was this doctrine that made Pentecostalism distinct from other holiness Christian groups that spoke in tongues or believed in an experience subsequent to salvation and sanctification. In a move criticized by Parham,[21] his Apostolic Faith Movement merged with other Pentecostal groups in 1914 to form the General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America.[32] Today, the worldwide Assemblies of God is the largest Pentecostal denomination.
The Charles F. Parham Center for Pentecostal-Charismatic Studies is an "independent research facility" on the campus of South Texas Bible Institute in Houston, Texas. It is one of several organizations to consider Parham a founding leader of the Pentecostal movement.[33]
If only VPW hadn't hauled all his books to the dump he might have known about this guy and the furor he created at the turn of the century. He could have saved a lot of time searching.
Just an observation from another thread: am I the only one who finds it amusing that we're not supposed to draw any conclusions from the 100 percent failure rate of linguists to detect a language in SIT, but we are supposed to trust that there's value in a friend of the speaker with no training in linguistics who says "sounds like a language to me!"?
Waysider - I am aware of the beginnings of what we think of the charismatic movement. My dad was pentecostal "oneness" church of god in his youth. I was also aware of VPW leading us to believe he'd discovered something. Well maybe interpretation. I'd been hearing tongues long before that.
I think the whole thing weasels out of having to adhere to any sense of being real by invoking the "language of angels" clause. Then there's the idea of dead languages - again weasel-y.
This came up in the SIT confession thread. The way I see it, Biblical SIT makes a testable claim. But practitioners bend over backwards to make it untestable. They get emphatic that the Bible says NO ONE understands. But at the same time they want you to believe their brother's third cousin did it in front of some people visiting from the Congo, and they understood it. That's PROOF! Suddenly the No Man Understands requirement doesn't apply. It only applies when the Man seeking to understand is a linguist.
The conundrum faced by the SIT community is that they want to make the experience of SIT "real" as in "I'm hooking up directly with god in a special way via hs" as a sort of scientifically verifiable fact, when all of it is not in that realm at all.
The verbal utterances in charismatic movements are supposed to provide the proof that one is saved. Because the reality is that no one REALLY knows if they are saved. One can do the whole Romans 10:9-10 and claim that's sufficient, but there's really not enough supporting evidence that it really does the job. NO ONE has come back to provide a definitive answer. SIT attempts to do just that. If one is willing to go there and allow themselves to jabber out loud in a group of co-jabberers, then surely they are providing proof.
In reality, the only sure-fired way of knowing would be to interject ones self into a group of people that one does not share a language with and have at it. THAT would be the true test of whether tongues is from god.
I don't think there's a Biblical promise that would support that test, Tzaia, though you can't rule it out. That is, if it worked, it would establish pretty clearly that the speaking is from God. But then, the others present would have to know enough English to convey the verification to the speaker, who does not know their language. However, if it did NOT work, it wouldn't tell us anything. Drop me in a group of Russians, I speak in tongues and produce ancient Peruvian, and it would look like your test failed even though it was genuine SIT. (When I say genuine SIT, I mean it produces a language. Not tongues of angels, which is nothing but an excuse for why language is not detected. Not computer code, which would be remarkably easy to verify. An actual language).
My challenge still stands: Show me A PERSON who speaks in a language he's never learned. And not just an anecdote from my best friend's cousins sister who spoke in tongues before a delegation of indigenous Phillipinos who understood it all and went back home, never to be seen again. With the vast number of samples available of people performing so-called genuine SIT, getting someone to verify that a language was produced should be easy. Why doesn't it happen? I have a suggestion.
That is presupposing ths (the holy spirit) can't lead someone into speaking the language of those around the speaker. Isn't that the purpose?
Perhaps in the future it will be possible to capture someone SIT and feed it into a google-like translator that can determine the language and what is said.
Not that I ever really believed it was real. I just saw it as some sort of a spiritual dick-size/....ing contest thing.
You do not have to be an atheist to doubt SIT, and for me, the two concepts were pretty much unrelated. I continued to be a Christian for YEARS after I came to the conclusion that I was faking it and everyone else probably was, too.
I find this quite amazing that you spent so much time faking speaking in tongues. I think if you actually spoke in tongues you probably would still be a christian today. Of course there are plenty of people who speak in tongues who are no longer christians and probably dont do it anymore. But the mere fact that you were faking it is hilarious and sad at the same time. I also am not going to say your faith was weak because you couldn't speak in tongues but I will say faith clearly just isn't a gift you have. I definitely believe speaking in tongues is real but I also believe that if you can't speak in tongues then you can't understand it. The mere fact that you were faking it obviously brings into question your character and any faith you may have thought you had couldve been fake as well. I just don't think any sincere person seeking God would fake tongues and then go out and assume everyone is because he is. Thats definitely a fallacy to assume because you can't do something that no one else is or can. But besides that point at least you were being honest that speaking in tongues and faith in god just never clicked or stopped clicking. I don't think you are the only person who claimed to be a christian to please people or because they thought they had no choice or it was what they were suppose to do. I still personally wouldn't waste my time faking tongues or believing in something I thought was not true but to each its own.
I find this quite amazing that you spent so much time faking speaking in tongues. I think if you actually spoke in tongues you probably would still be a christian today. Of course there are plenty of people who speak in tongues who are no longer christians and probably dont do it anymore. But the mere fact that you were faking it is hilarious and sad at the same time. I also am not going to say your faith was weak because you couldn't speak in tongues but I will say faith clearly just isn't a gift you have. I definitely believe speaking in tongues is real but I also believe that if you can't speak in tongues then you can't understand it. The mere fact that you were faking it obviously brings into question your character and any faith you may have thought you had couldve been fake as well. I just don't think any sincere person seeking God would fake tongues and then go out and assume everyone is because he is. Thats definitely a fallacy to assume because you can't do something that no one else is or can. But besides that point at least you were being honest that speaking in tongues and faith in god just never clicked or stopped clicking. I don't think you are the only person who claimed to be a christian to please people or because they thought they had no choice or it was what they were suppose to do. I still personally wouldn't waste my time faking tongues or believing in something I thought was not true but to each its own.
This is one of the dangers of not understanding something within the context of its presentation. When we discussed the subject of faking SIT, we weren't implying that anyone did so intentionally. (Some may have deceitfully faked it, of course. Wierwille, himself, stated that he once intentionally faked SIT by reciting Greek or something to that effect.) We thought it was real but it wasn't. That's what was meant by fake.
HERE is a good thread that covers quite a bit of ground on the subject.
This is one of the dangers of not understanding something within the context of its presentation. When we discussed the subject of faking SIT, we weren't implying that anyone did so intentionally. (Some may have deceitfully faked it, of course. Wierwille, himself, stated that he once intentionally faked SIT by reciting Greek or something to that effect.) We thought it was real but it wasn't. That's what was meant by fake.
HERE is a good thread that covers quite a bit of ground on the subject.
Can you give me an example of how someone can fake SIT while not doing it intentionally. Unless I'm missing something how do you do something and not know what you are doing is fake? So people in the way were faking SIT thinking it was real, doesn't make any sense.
Can you give me an example of how someone can fake SIT while not doing it intentionally. Unless I'm missing something how do you do something and not know what you are doing is fake? So people in the way were faking SIT thinking it was real, doesn't make any sense.
I think if you spend some time in the link I provided it will become more obvious to you.
Your question about how someone can unintentionally fake SIT/TIP/Prophesy is answered very early in the discussion.
Well I read the first 10 pages or so. Lots of arguing but not much substance or answering to the question how someone can unintentionally fake speaking in tongues. But from reading your posts in that thread you admit to faking it but say something to the tune of I was genuine in my fake tongues. Raf on the other hand seems to take it a step further and seems to believe speaking in tongues is impossible because of his subjective experience. His claim is that because he faked tongues everyone else who spoke in tongues or still speaks in tongues is faking and in a delusion about it. Also he points to acts and says because when we speak in tongues we aren't speaking in a historical language or known language with the structure of language as we know it today. While I can't explain why that is the case if it is the case, I will say that he needs to just speak for himself and say something like I faked speaking in tongues anyone else? Instead of jumping to the conclusion since he was faking everyone else was and its all hogwash.
Are the tongues I speak in any way a known language? probably not, do they help witness to others? no. But I really don't think that because people in acts spoke in tongues and others understood it that when paul says he speaks in tongues in the epistles(I can't remember if it was him or weirwille who said tongues is for private prayer life) that others had to understood it. Mainly because he claimed to have spoke in tongues an incredible amount yet theres no evidence of paul ever saying he spoke in tongues to witness to others or convert them etc. It seems he spoke in tongues personally to God. Which would refute the claim that unless the tongues you speak in are understandable by some other person that they aren't real tongues. Does that mean there are 2 types of tongues I don't know but no one taught me how to speak in tongues. I was never instructed by anyone to do it.
I just remember praying to God and did it but others around me thought I was just crazy so I stopped then a year or so later in private I did it and doubted it as first. But over time with experience the doubts went away and I no longer doubt that I am speaking in tongues. Tongues wasn't forced on me I was under no pressure to do it like those in the way. No one taught it to me. I personally believe God taught me to do it. Because all of those around me believed speaking in tongues was something you got as a gift but not something you can learn. I believe I could teach others to do it as I taught my sister recently. The problem is overcoming the doubt that comes when you first start speaking in tongues that it is anything but gibberish.
It certainly doesn't sound like any language I have heard of but that doesn't mean its fake or I'm faking it. I personally have 0 incentive to come here and fake like I can speak in tongues and am under no obligation or pressure to do it and gain nothing by sharing it. But this goes back to my post in the"can i share weirwille books" thread where I said you shouldn't just discard everything you learned from the way if that thing you are discarding is true. If people in the way weren't having authentic SIT experiences then I can see why you would believe its not possible. But thats just one persons experience. What reason do we have to believe paul spoke in tongues to witness to others or thats the purpose of speaking in tongues? I don't see how speaking in syllables you or other people don't understand would be a good witnessing tool. I do however see the benefits if it is perfect prayer that you don't understand, or if it is a private thing between you and God and it is something that recharges your spirit. I use SIT a lot when I feel worn out or down in spirits and it does recharge me and lift me up. One could say thats just a placebo effect or baloney but its one hell of a placebo is all I can say. I sometimes feel chills when doing it and refreshed. Perhaps thats not what others here experienced and if not then I can see why you would doubt it. I don't make any special claims here of being this special gifted person but will say that I do wish others could experience what I experience with God and tongues on a daily basis as I do. Perhaps then these people would see the light and not doubt like they do.
. I don't see how speaking in syllables you or other people don't understand would be a good witnessing tool.
In The Way, there was a lot of emphasis put on it being a sign to unbelievers. Scriptural reference, of course, was cited. We had a class called the Intermediate Class that taught us a specific protocol to be followed when performing what were referred to as the three utterance manifestations. (According to Way doctrine, when you become born again you automatically receive an innate ability to speak in tongues, as well as an ability to perform several other spiritual acts...nine, in total. Way doctrine also states that these are not individual gifts, but, rather, the evidence of one gift, which is indwelling holy spirit.)
Part of that protocol dictates that when the believer brings forth speaking in tongues in a group setting, the same person is to immediately follow it with an interpretation that is given in the language of the people present. This is supposed to serve as a sign that something spiritual is taking place. In the Intermediate class, we engaged heavily in practice sessions to enhance the theatrics involved. These were called excellor sessions. We practiced diction, speed, fluency, emotional presentation and so on. Then, when the situation presented itself, the message would appear to have spontaneity and enthusiasm. We weren't supposed to pre-plan our messages. This aided in the extemporaneous nature of the event. It was to Wow! people
Does this address your question about how it applies to witnessing?
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
P.S. If you believe SIT as practiced today is genuine and Biblical, you are on topic on this thread.
Anyone who wants to discuss any aspect of it -- doctrinal, practical, hypothetical, theoretical, anecdotal... you're all on topic. You're on topic. You're on topic. EVERYONE is on topic!
And while we're at it, you're on topic if you want to discuss interpretation and prophecy too, seeing as they're all related.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Anyone ever notice how SIT is perfectly represented in the Emperor's New Clothes story?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
MRAP asked: "Hey Raf and Kermitt (Waysider, don't mind if I call you Kermitt - any parts of you smell like pork) All aside, here's my question: I have been speaking in tongues since 1972 (what's that, 40 some years) and my tonuge/s change quite frequently and have done so over the years and decades. I SIT alot, often outloud when alone, sometimes just at the lips and more often, prior to making it that far. I do "hear" the words in the ol'e noggin (no, not hearing voices). So,if the Bible says that it is a manifesttion than is it real? Now, I do remember all about those "starter words" and that is a mind thing; I recall how many folks started their tongues the same way that VP did (la shanta). I spoke in tongues prior to completing the PFAL class; that's another story. So, do either of you still SIT, I think I know that answer, in part. I have not read this whole thread but just needed to ask, maybe had I read the whole thing I would have gotten my answer."
I'll answer later
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Try this one on for size, it's only 106 pages long...perfect for a cold, rainy, Saturday morning.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Well, I was going to condense it, but...
Christianity in general and TWI in particular teaches people how to fake speaking in tongues. There's nothing genuine about it. You can only establish that your SIT is genuine by demonstrating that you have in fact produced a language. Until you do, you are merely making a claim. The claim I make, that you're faking it, has gobs of evidence to support it. The only evidence you can provide to support your claim is... a language.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
You move your tongue.You move your lips.That's it! That's it! you're doing it! You're chewing gum!
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I'll recap my thoughts briefly for the new guy,
because I'm going to take the high road here.
He, of course, is free to claim I'm not.
Ok...
We were all TOLD that what you were/are doing is the same thing that's in the Bible.
Personally, I believe the thing in the Bible (I call it "Biblical SIT") was genuine,
really happened, and was from God. (Some people disagree, but that's really a separate
issue.) It describes something specific.
Personally, I believe that there's overwhelming evidence that the thing that's done
now (I call it "modern SIT") is completely different, and is a cheap counterfeit that
anyone can be taught to do- and are, in acting classes every semester.
It's CLAIMED that it's the same thing I mentioned before ("Biblical SIT") but the
main resemblance is that people keep SAYING it's the same thing and they SAY
it's resembling the other.
If the "Biblical SIT" is "available" now, I don't know. I am confident I haven't seen
it yet. I am confident I was never taught it. If it IS possible now, then getting
fixated on a cheap imitation is a sure way to miss the real thing. If it is NOT
possible now, getting fixated on a cheap imitation will waste your time and can
give God a black eye because people lose confidence in the genuine if they can't
distinguish between it and counterfeits.
We're all (all positions) saying that what we were taught was "real" (it happened.)
We disagree as to whether the label of the Pentecost thing is correct in describing
the modern thing. So, is it "really" the Pentecost thing? Evidence examined all
points to "no." Anecdotes are offered to claim it's "yes", but if that's the best
one can offer, don't be surprised if nobody buys it. The other part is people
getting ranty and claiming that to claim the modern thing is not the same as
the Pentecost thing are casting doubt categorically on God and the Bible.
No. My faith is in God, my faith is NOT in cheap fakes offered by people who CLAIM
he's endorsing his actions. (Obviously, there are people who disagree with me
on having faith in God-but that is not required to disagree with the modern
practice of so-called "speaking in tongues."
I occasionally DO still do the so-called "speaking in tongues" silently.
I do it as a mental focus and am fully aware it's me doing it.
I might do it more if I ever participate in another acting class.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
MRAP, you say you've been speaking in tongues since 1972 and you follow up with a question: if the Bible says it's a manifestation, then is it real?
Your question presumes that what you're doing is, in fact, what the Bible describes as speaking in tongues. As far as I'm concerned, until you prove that point, I am not obliged to answer your question.
You don't speak in tongues. You only claim to. You're sincere about it, but a self-serving man claiming to be wise once said...
If, when you speak in tongues, you produce a language, then I have little choice but to concede your practice is genuine. But that determination is based on you producing the results the Bible predicts. Otherwise, it's just a claim, of no more merit than the warmth in the bosom of the sincere Mormon.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
I think the whole thing weasels out of having to adhere to any sense of being real by invoking the "language of angels" clause. Then there's the idea of dead languages - again weasel-y.
Clearly in Acts the first time people spoke in tongues they spoke in (1.) languages they did not speak to (2.) people who did speak those languages. There is no evidence that phenomenon ever took place again - not that it wasn't attempted. As time continued, speaking in tongues became more and more weasel-y in its purpose (and at some point mostly dies out in common usage) until we arrive at the mid 20th century where it becomes a "test" of who is a believer by a certain religious sect that shall not be named by me. But given the weasel-y nature of the whole thing, it just becomes a point of division because no one actually knows if they are actually doing it. Right. Wrong. At all.
I have a fairly good ear for language, and maybe one time did I detect anything that remotely had the sound of "language". Most of the time I would hear a lot of repeat phrasing. However, in the "interpretation", there would be a lack of repeat phrasing, which indicated to me that what was "interpreted" was not going along with what spoken.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Charles Parham originated the doctrine of initial evidence—that the baptism of the Holy Spirit is evidenced by speaking in tongues.[2] It was this doctrine that made Pentecostalism distinct from other holiness Christian groups that spoke in tongues or believed in an experience subsequent to salvation and sanctification. In a move criticized by Parham,[21] his Apostolic Faith Movement merged with other Pentecostal groups in 1914 to form the General Council of the Assemblies of God in the United States of America.[32] Today, the worldwide Assemblies of God is the largest Pentecostal denomination.
The Charles F. Parham Center for Pentecostal-Charismatic Studies is an "independent research facility" on the campus of South Texas Bible Institute in Houston, Texas. It is one of several organizations to consider Parham a founding leader of the Pentecostal movement.[33]
SOURCE
If only VPW hadn't hauled all his books to the dump he might have known about this guy and the furor he created at the turn of the century. He could have saved a lot of time searching.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Just an observation from another thread: am I the only one who finds it amusing that we're not supposed to draw any conclusions from the 100 percent failure rate of linguists to detect a language in SIT, but we are supposed to trust that there's value in a friend of the speaker with no training in linguistics who says "sounds like a language to me!"?
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
Waysider - I am aware of the beginnings of what we think of the charismatic movement. My dad was pentecostal "oneness" church of god in his youth. I was also aware of VPW leading us to believe he'd discovered something. Well maybe interpretation. I'd been hearing tongues long before that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This came up in the SIT confession thread. The way I see it, Biblical SIT makes a testable claim. But practitioners bend over backwards to make it untestable. They get emphatic that the Bible says NO ONE understands. But at the same time they want you to believe their brother's third cousin did it in front of some people visiting from the Congo, and they understood it. That's PROOF! Suddenly the No Man Understands requirement doesn't apply. It only applies when the Man seeking to understand is a linguist.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
The conundrum faced by the SIT community is that they want to make the experience of SIT "real" as in "I'm hooking up directly with god in a special way via hs" as a sort of scientifically verifiable fact, when all of it is not in that realm at all.
The verbal utterances in charismatic movements are supposed to provide the proof that one is saved. Because the reality is that no one REALLY knows if they are saved. One can do the whole Romans 10:9-10 and claim that's sufficient, but there's really not enough supporting evidence that it really does the job. NO ONE has come back to provide a definitive answer. SIT attempts to do just that. If one is willing to go there and allow themselves to jabber out loud in a group of co-jabberers, then surely they are providing proof.
In reality, the only sure-fired way of knowing would be to interject ones self into a group of people that one does not share a language with and have at it. THAT would be the true test of whether tongues is from god.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't think there's a Biblical promise that would support that test, Tzaia, though you can't rule it out. That is, if it worked, it would establish pretty clearly that the speaking is from God. But then, the others present would have to know enough English to convey the verification to the speaker, who does not know their language. However, if it did NOT work, it wouldn't tell us anything. Drop me in a group of Russians, I speak in tongues and produce ancient Peruvian, and it would look like your test failed even though it was genuine SIT. (When I say genuine SIT, I mean it produces a language. Not tongues of angels, which is nothing but an excuse for why language is not detected. Not computer code, which would be remarkably easy to verify. An actual language).
My challenge still stands: Show me A PERSON who speaks in a language he's never learned. And not just an anecdote from my best friend's cousins sister who spoke in tongues before a delegation of indigenous Phillipinos who understood it all and went back home, never to be seen again. With the vast number of samples available of people performing so-called genuine SIT, getting someone to verify that a language was produced should be easy. Why doesn't it happen? I have a suggestion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tzaia
That is presupposing ths (the holy spirit) can't lead someone into speaking the language of those around the speaker. Isn't that the purpose?
Perhaps in the future it will be possible to capture someone SIT and feed it into a google-like translator that can determine the language and what is said.
Not that I ever really believed it was real. I just saw it as some sort of a spiritual dick-size/....ing contest thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImLikeSoConfused
I find this quite amazing that you spent so much time faking speaking in tongues. I think if you actually spoke in tongues you probably would still be a christian today. Of course there are plenty of people who speak in tongues who are no longer christians and probably dont do it anymore. But the mere fact that you were faking it is hilarious and sad at the same time. I also am not going to say your faith was weak because you couldn't speak in tongues but I will say faith clearly just isn't a gift you have. I definitely believe speaking in tongues is real but I also believe that if you can't speak in tongues then you can't understand it. The mere fact that you were faking it obviously brings into question your character and any faith you may have thought you had couldve been fake as well. I just don't think any sincere person seeking God would fake tongues and then go out and assume everyone is because he is. Thats definitely a fallacy to assume because you can't do something that no one else is or can. But besides that point at least you were being honest that speaking in tongues and faith in god just never clicked or stopped clicking. I don't think you are the only person who claimed to be a christian to please people or because they thought they had no choice or it was what they were suppose to do. I still personally wouldn't waste my time faking tongues or believing in something I thought was not true but to each its own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
This is one of the dangers of not understanding something within the context of its presentation. When we discussed the subject of faking SIT, we weren't implying that anyone did so intentionally. (Some may have deceitfully faked it, of course. Wierwille, himself, stated that he once intentionally faked SIT by reciting Greek or something to that effect.) We thought it was real but it wasn't. That's what was meant by fake.
HERE is a good thread that covers quite a bit of ground on the subject.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImLikeSoConfused
Can you give me an example of how someone can fake SIT while not doing it intentionally. Unless I'm missing something how do you do something and not know what you are doing is fake? So people in the way were faking SIT thinking it was real, doesn't make any sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I think if you spend some time in the link I provided it will become more obvious to you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImLikeSoConfused
That link has over 2100 posts. Can't you just tell me the important parts of that thread in your own words?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Your question about how someone can unintentionally fake SIT/TIP/Prophesy is answered very early in the discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImLikeSoConfused
Well I read the first 10 pages or so. Lots of arguing but not much substance or answering to the question how someone can unintentionally fake speaking in tongues. But from reading your posts in that thread you admit to faking it but say something to the tune of I was genuine in my fake tongues. Raf on the other hand seems to take it a step further and seems to believe speaking in tongues is impossible because of his subjective experience. His claim is that because he faked tongues everyone else who spoke in tongues or still speaks in tongues is faking and in a delusion about it. Also he points to acts and says because when we speak in tongues we aren't speaking in a historical language or known language with the structure of language as we know it today. While I can't explain why that is the case if it is the case, I will say that he needs to just speak for himself and say something like I faked speaking in tongues anyone else? Instead of jumping to the conclusion since he was faking everyone else was and its all hogwash.
Are the tongues I speak in any way a known language? probably not, do they help witness to others? no. But I really don't think that because people in acts spoke in tongues and others understood it that when paul says he speaks in tongues in the epistles(I can't remember if it was him or weirwille who said tongues is for private prayer life) that others had to understood it. Mainly because he claimed to have spoke in tongues an incredible amount yet theres no evidence of paul ever saying he spoke in tongues to witness to others or convert them etc. It seems he spoke in tongues personally to God. Which would refute the claim that unless the tongues you speak in are understandable by some other person that they aren't real tongues. Does that mean there are 2 types of tongues I don't know but no one taught me how to speak in tongues. I was never instructed by anyone to do it.
I just remember praying to God and did it but others around me thought I was just crazy so I stopped then a year or so later in private I did it and doubted it as first. But over time with experience the doubts went away and I no longer doubt that I am speaking in tongues. Tongues wasn't forced on me I was under no pressure to do it like those in the way. No one taught it to me. I personally believe God taught me to do it. Because all of those around me believed speaking in tongues was something you got as a gift but not something you can learn. I believe I could teach others to do it as I taught my sister recently. The problem is overcoming the doubt that comes when you first start speaking in tongues that it is anything but gibberish.
It certainly doesn't sound like any language I have heard of but that doesn't mean its fake or I'm faking it. I personally have 0 incentive to come here and fake like I can speak in tongues and am under no obligation or pressure to do it and gain nothing by sharing it. But this goes back to my post in the"can i share weirwille books" thread where I said you shouldn't just discard everything you learned from the way if that thing you are discarding is true. If people in the way weren't having authentic SIT experiences then I can see why you would believe its not possible. But thats just one persons experience. What reason do we have to believe paul spoke in tongues to witness to others or thats the purpose of speaking in tongues? I don't see how speaking in syllables you or other people don't understand would be a good witnessing tool. I do however see the benefits if it is perfect prayer that you don't understand, or if it is a private thing between you and God and it is something that recharges your spirit. I use SIT a lot when I feel worn out or down in spirits and it does recharge me and lift me up. One could say thats just a placebo effect or baloney but its one hell of a placebo is all I can say. I sometimes feel chills when doing it and refreshed. Perhaps thats not what others here experienced and if not then I can see why you would doubt it. I don't make any special claims here of being this special gifted person but will say that I do wish others could experience what I experience with God and tongues on a daily basis as I do. Perhaps then these people would see the light and not doubt like they do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
In The Way, there was a lot of emphasis put on it being a sign to unbelievers. Scriptural reference, of course, was cited. We had a class called the Intermediate Class that taught us a specific protocol to be followed when performing what were referred to as the three utterance manifestations. (According to Way doctrine, when you become born again you automatically receive an innate ability to speak in tongues, as well as an ability to perform several other spiritual acts...nine, in total. Way doctrine also states that these are not individual gifts, but, rather, the evidence of one gift, which is indwelling holy spirit.)
Part of that protocol dictates that when the believer brings forth speaking in tongues in a group setting, the same person is to immediately follow it with an interpretation that is given in the language of the people present. This is supposed to serve as a sign that something spiritual is taking place. In the Intermediate class, we engaged heavily in practice sessions to enhance the theatrics involved. These were called excellor sessions. We practiced diction, speed, fluency, emotional presentation and so on. Then, when the situation presented itself, the message would appear to have spontaneity and enthusiasm. We weren't supposed to pre-plan our messages. This aided in the extemporaneous nature of the event. It was to Wow! people
Does this address your question about how it applies to witnessing?
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.