OK as a major participator in that 86 page thread WW I am going to have to call you on some conclusions you are posting here:
The modern "SIT" practice (that resembles free vocalization exactly) ALWAYS produces speech that is NOT understood as a language by any bystander- except as when vpw himself faked it and spoke Greek when claiming he was Speaking In Tongues (BY HIS OWN ADMISSION and as recorded in "The Way-Living in Love.") Actual attempts to identify SOME kind of language with modern SIT have-without exception- shown the results to be an amalgam of sounds resembling the speaker's primary language, but not being any kind of language and not possessing the structure OF a language. (Not just "not a known language", but also "not an unknown language",)
Wow that is quite a conclusion jump here from the resources in that 86 page thread. VP's history is a given. Please cite sources for your opinion that without exception the results are shown to be an amalgamation of the speaker's primary language, but not being any kind of language and not possessing the structure of a language. The linguists that I read in that thread observed that the "canned SIT" recordings of someone saying they were SIT on an audio tape produced what they could distinguish as sentences and syllables, both important characteristics of language. Actually the results I read did NOT show strong correlation between the purported tongue and the speaker's primary language. IMO, you and Raf both in the course of that discussion gravitated towards rejecting this altogether. This also looks to be a major lynch pin for Raf's current atheism and rejection of previous faith. Which is fine - everyone is entitled to their own exploration and conclusions. From my perspective the end of that 86 page discussion I withdrew continuing strenuous arguments because there was a mutual agreement that nothing could be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt one way or another. Also, the discussion was leading into denigrating areas and practices that I felt to be a poor representation of my faith of Christianity. However many of these recent threads are resurrecting one side of that conversation - the one side that rejects SIT. I do not. I also do not admit, confess, or think that VPW in any way taught genuine SIT, and it wouldn't surprise me if he was faking it every time he did it and taught it. The fruit of his life bears out that he was a fraud in more than one way. I also think it is disingenuous to present one side of that argument to someone newer around here asking for advice.
I like you, chockfull, really I do, but your posts on that long thread helped convince me my previous position was wrong. Your approach to the discussion said quite a bit.
Others can read the thread to their satisfaction. As concerning languages and the recorded examples, I came away with the following:
A) At no time was an actual language produced ("He's speaking Ukranian! He's praising Jesus!")
B) At no time was a recording identified as qualifying as a language unknown to the expert ("I've never heard this language, but this meets all the requirements of a language, so it is one nonetheless!" )
C) Recordings were never found to match ALL the criteria of a language-and ALL would have to be met to confirm it's a language. Recordings were found to have SOME of the criteria of a language- but so would an actor doing "free vocalization." It's not noteworthy that the recording was out loud, had syllables, and pauses. We all communicate out loud with syllables and pauses, so even an attempt to fake a language should have THAT property. In other words, the recordings met the same criteria as free vocalization would, and failed the same criteria that free vocalization would. (As someone who believed in SIT at the time, I found that rather telling-and annoying. It undermined the position I held at the time.
I think further rehashing will hit the same reefs as before, but I'm willing to let the new guy pick which reef he wants to hit.
1. According to the studies we reviewed and posted together, the phonemic inventory of "tongues" matched the speakers' native languages. This was a big deal to me as it fit neatly with the thesis of this coming from our heads and not God giving the utterance.
2. I don't think I ever said SIT was a major linchpin in my atheism. Quite the opposite: I tried to make it very clear that you could be a strong believer and still recognize that what we were doing was not biblical SIT. Atheism did not enter the equation, nor need it.
On 3/12/2017 at 5:16 PM, ImLikeSoConfused said:
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.
Just didn't want to see this passed over so quickly or easily.
What "benefit" do you suppose is inherently associated with Paul's speaking "with tongues more than ye all" ?
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.
This is what we call a "non-sequitur." It is when you connect two concepts as though one proves the other, although one doesn't actually prove the other.
Namely: Paul praying privately in tongues DOES NOT "refute the claim" that unless the tongues you speak are understandable by some other person then they aren't real tongues.
The claim that speaking in tongues should produce an actual human language is biblically defensible, as I have shown multiple times across multiple threads. In the Bible, tongues ARE languages. They are synonyms. Speaking in languages IS speaking in languages. So if you're not producing a language, you are not speaking in tongues.
Paul praying privately DOES NOT NEGATE the fact that he would be producing a language. If Paul said he prayed in tongues privately to God, it follows BY DEFINITION that he prayed to God in a language that he himself did not understand. It's still a language understandable by some other person.
So, respectfully, Paul's prayer life does not refute my contention that tongues are languages.
1. According to the studies we reviewed and posted together, the phonemic inventory of "tongues" matched the speakers' native languages. This was a big deal to me as it fit neatly with the thesis of this coming from our heads and not God giving the utterance.
2. I don't think I ever said SIT was a major linchpin in my atheism. Quite the opposite: I tried to make it very clear that you could be a strong believer and still recognize that what we were doing was not biblical SIT. Atheism did not enter the equation, nor need it.
1. Doesn't stand up to the test of even my own experience. I am a native English speaker, Spanish some - romance languages. Tongues I've heard from my own mouth contain glottal stops, dipthongs, pitch variations that do not match romance languages.
I like you, chockfull, really I do, but your posts on that long thread helped convince me my previous position was wrong. Your approach to the discussion said quite a bit.
Others can read the thread to their satisfaction. As concerning languages and the recorded examples, I came away with the following:
A) At no time was an actual language produced ("He's speaking Ukranian! He's praising Jesus!")
B) At no time was a recording identified as qualifying as a language unknown to the expert ("I've never heard this language, but this meets all the requirements of a language, so it is one nonetheless!" )
C) Recordings were never found to match ALL the criteria of a language-and ALL would have to be met to confirm it's a language. Recordings were found to have SOME of the criteria of a language- but so would an actor doing "free vocalization." It's not noteworthy that the recording was out loud, had syllables, and pauses. We all communicate out loud with syllables and pauses, so even an attempt to fake a language should have THAT property. In other words, the recordings met the same criteria as free vocalization would, and failed the same criteria that free vocalization would. (As someone who believed in SIT at the time, I found that rather telling-and annoying. It undermined the position I held at the time.
I think further rehashing will hit the same reefs as before, but I'm willing to let the new guy pick which reef he wants to hit.
What did my approach to the discussion say? I don't accept carrying the blame for your decision on my approach. My "approach" from my perspective is that tongues for me is / was / will be faith based. Part of a Christian's private prayer life if they choose.
A) Incorrect - the audio recordings analyzed were not of known languages - they did not jump to the conclusion you did there that no actual languages were produced. On the contrary, it is fairly evident to anyone listening that there are some language breakdowns present, like pauses in diction, sentence or comma-like silence interruptions, consonant and vowel formations. They just are not understood.
B) The "experts" did not have a checklist whereby if something meets those criteria it is a language. So it is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to present their findings to the negative according to what you now believe, just as it was to use it to "prove" your previous belief on the topic. I just listed 3 or 4 "criteria" of a language in A above, yet that doesn't "prove" a language is spoken any more than it proves no language is spoken.
C) Again, you sound like experts have some kind of list of "criteria of a language". None that I read did. Or please feel free to post up factual evidence. You say "it's not noteworty" the language criteria I brought up. Well it is enough of a criteria to distinguish between humans and animal communication, so that is just opinion on your part. "Even an attempt to fake a language should have THAT property". Oh, so now you are an expert in how to fake languages? Well, maybe so I can't tell.
What I will say is that someone could probably fake speaking Spanish by mimic to someone that doesn't know Spanish and get away with it. At least to the point where they couldn't "prove" someone wasn't speaking Spanish unless a Spanish speaker could verify / reject.
There were several anecdotal accounts different people brought up in that thread about some kind of manifestation meeting where that tongue of the speaker was known to the audience member prior to interpretation. All of those personal accounts were rejected in that thread by you guys. Why? Doesn't line up with your current beliefs, therefore can't accept a secondhand account as proof.
The only reefs I see this discussion hitting is what I just pointed out. I'm not going to argue back and forth the above points with you like on that thread. But they are consistent points of logic that exist there and are there whether or not you acknowledge them.
1. Doesn't stand up to the test of even my own experience. I am a native English speaker, Spanish some - romance languages. Tongues I've heard from my own mouth contain glottal stops, dipthongs, pitch variations that do not match romance languages.
2. thx for clarification.
1. I couldn't possibly begin to argue with your experience in terms of what I said, but I can approach it with honest questions. Namely, "Tongues I've heard from my own mouth contain glottal stops, dipthongs, pitch variations that do not match romance language." That may be the case, but were they sounds with which you were not familiar? I speak English and some Spanish, but I am aware of phonemes from some other languages (my go-to is the "ch" in Chanukah) and, being aware of such sounds, it would have been easy for me to incorporate them into a tongue. If you're exposed to a phoneme (whether or not you know that's what it's called) then you can incorporate it, QED.
There were several anecdotal accounts different people brought up in that thread about some kind of manifestation meeting where that tongue of the speaker was known to the audience member prior to interpretation. All of those personal accounts were rejected in that thread by you guys. Why? Doesn't line up with your current beliefs, therefore can't accept a secondhand account as proof.
They were rejected because they were not credible. They have as much going for them as ghost stories and urban legends. None of the principle players could be contacted to verify the accounts. And this is the case with every single one of those stories.
1. I couldn't possibly begin to argue with your experience in terms of what I said, but I can approach it with honest questions. Namely, "Tongues I've heard from my own mouth contain glottal stops, dipthongs, pitch variations that do not match romance language." That may be the case, but were they sounds with which you were not familiar? I speak English and some Spanish, but I am aware of phonemes from some other languages (my go-to is the "ch" in Chanukah) and, being aware of such sounds, it would have been easy for me to incorporate them into a tongue. If you're exposed to a phoneme (whether or not you know that's what it's called) then you can incorporate it, QED.
2. You're welcome.
1. Some sounds no I was not familiar at all with. Later on in life I learned that Chinese languages have pitch variations that go up and down like something from a tongue earlier and the difference totally changes the meaning. Definitely not sounds that I am used to forming in language from my experience. Other times it would all be more sounds that are totally from my language sounds. And not something I would consciously turn on or turn off like "ok today I'm making russian like sounds because I heard Putin newscast".
They were rejected because they were not credible. They have as much going for them as ghost stories and urban legends. None of the principle players could be contacted to verify the accounts. And this is the case with every single one of those stories.
Every single one of those stories is more credible than your global blanket claim that everyone in TWI who spoke in tongues faked it.
At least those single accounts have people and facts attached to them.
Anyway, DRAW! We've been here before. This is where we walked in, remember! Salud!
And, on a related note, I mentioned toward the end of the original debates/discussions that I was waiting for the outcome a study of glossolalia that categorized the utterances by phonemic inventory. I haven't brought it up since then because... I'm... still.... waiting....
The last time I checked, in November, there was a possible May publication date. I have no reason at this point to assert with confidence that this will actually take place, but if it does, you'll all be the 3,000th, 3,001st, and 3,002nd to know.
No, they don't. That's why they're not credible! Who were these people? Where are they now? Hmm? Right. Back to Asia!
Come now.
As for my blanket claim that everyone faked it: I have provided the mechanism for faking it, which we were all taught, and the motive, which was pure and sincere.
I'm willing to accept your sincerity, but you can't reasonable assert that "my claim" is less credible than a series of stories whose principle players have all vanished.
Anyway, DRAW! We've been here before. This is where we walked in, remember! Salud!
And, on a related note, I mentioned toward the end of the original debates/discussions that I was waiting for the outcome a study of glossolalia that categorized the utterances by phonemic inventory. I haven't brought it up since then because... I'm... still.... waiting....
The last time I checked, in November, there was a possible May publication date. I have no reason at this point to assert with confidence that this will actually take place, but if it does, you'll all be the 3,000th, 3,001st, and 3,002nd to know.
So I'm praying in the shower out loud, and the language changes from some italian - ish type sounds to some that are more gutteral like Mandarin but not exactly different sound, and somehow there's a subconscious man in my mind saying "I don't want italian takeout I'm in the mood for Chinese" ?
Dude.
Even if they did a "phonetic inventory of glossolalia", how could they distinguish between a "spritual" genuine one and a faked one? Actually a "phonetic inventory of glossolalia" sounds a lot like a modern tower of Babel to me.
Strategies in discussion are like strategies in a courtroom, and certain gambits play to certain strengths and minimize certain weaknesses. Just like there's other posters who will show up on a thread and completely change the subject-because they can't refute the thread and can't silence it, so they try to divert it. It becomes a "tell" and actually tells you why they're posting. I saw what I consider a "defensive" strategy. If I was an attorney defending a guilty client (one reason I refused to consider law as a career was this was a possibility), I would use this strategy. Discredit the expert analysis, fog the issues, all to try to win the case by blurring the lines. I saw some amazing digressions where the meaning of language was challenged, and report results were creatively reinterpreted, and so on. It was the natural strategy for someone trying to "win on points" and not on the facts. That's what it told me. And I wasn't going to get into it, but you did ask.
"I don't accept carrying the blame for your decision on my approach."
I said it HELPED convince me. You were unable to provide a logical "argument" for the side I wanted to see win. Neither was I. Furthermore, you fell on strategies used by those who don't have the facts on their side. To me, that lampshaded the same points.
"My "approach" from my perspective is that tongues for me is / was / will be faith based. Part of a Christian's private prayer life if they choose. "
That's your PERSPECTIVE. In the thread, you approached it in a specific way, and THAT's what I noted.
A) I did make a posting error. My example was my point-it was not identified as a known language. I meant to say that, but it was late and I was tired. But the pauses, again, would characterize something like :"free vocalization" just as much as the samples.
B) Yes they did. C) Yes they did. You kept selectively referring to parts of their checklist while skipping the other parts. And again here- the trick is not to distinguish between animal communication "baa baa" and human communication, but between a real human language and an absence of a human language underpinning the sounds.
Anecdotes are NEVER proof. I'll get into that when I have time.
No, they don't. That's why they're not credible! Who were these people? Where are they now? Hmm? Right. Back to Asia!
Come now.
As for my blanket claim that everyone faked it: I have provided the mechanism for faking it, which we were all taught, and the motive, which was pure and sincere.
I'm willing to accept your sincerity, but you can't reasonable assert that "my claim" is less credible than a series of stories whose principle players have all vanished.
Secondhand story of mine - was a contingent from Zaire that 2 people I know witnessed - they were men who spoke French and a native African language. Tongues in a manifestation meeting from one of these men were in English, fully formed sentences, made sense. Not just the sounds. Where are they now? DRC - Democratic Republic of Congo.
I do not have names for tracing of the DRC men. I am not in contact with the 2 people I mention, as I've left the cult.
Strategies in discussion are like strategies in a courtroom, and certain gambits play to certain strengths and minimize certain weaknesses. Just like there's other posters who will show up on a thread and completely change the subject-because they can't refute the thread and can't silence it, so they try to divert it. It becomes a "tell" and actually tells you why they're posting. I saw what I consider a "defensive" strategy. If I was an attorney defending a guilty client (one reason I refused to consider law as a career was this was a possibility), I would use this strategy. Discredit the expert analysis, fog the issues, all to try to win the case by blurring the lines. I saw some amazing digressions where the meaning of language was challenged, and report results were creatively reinterpreted, and so on. It was the natural strategy for someone trying to "win on points" and not on the facts. That's what it told me. And I wasn't going to get into it, but you did ask.
"I don't accept carrying the blame for your decision on my approach."
I said it HELPED convince me. You were unable to provide a logical "argument" for the side I wanted to see win. Neither was I. Furthermore, you fell on strategies used by those who don't have the facts on their side. To me, that lampshaded the same points.
"My "approach" from my perspective is that tongues for me is / was / will be faith based. Part of a Christian's private prayer life if they choose. "
That's your PERSPECTIVE. In the thread, you approached it in a specific way, and THAT's what I noted.
A) I did make a posting error. My example was my point-it was not identified as a known language. I meant to say that, but it was late and I was tired. But the pauses, again, would characterize something like :"free vocalization" just as much as the samples.
B) Yes they did. C) Yes they did. You kept selectively referring to parts of their checklist while skipping the other parts. And again here- the trick is not to distinguish between animal communication "baa baa" and human communication, but between a real human language and an absence of a human language underpinning the sounds.
Anecdotes are NEVER proof. I'll get into that when I have time.
Wow - so because I committed the sin of defending the truth it is a "tell" and thus SIT is false. How bout you take accountability for your own beliefs and stop trying to guilt trip me that I didn't defend truth well enough when doing so is a sin anyway?
I can't defend SIT - I do it by faith.
I can't defend point, line and plane in geometry either by the way.
B and C - look those points are easily refutable by finding a checklist from one of those authors. I didn't read one where I was selectively skipping parts. I didnt' read one at all.
As for my blanket claim that everyone faked it: I have provided the mechanism for faking it, which we were all taught, and the motive, which was pure and sincere.
I'm willing to accept your sincerity, but you can't reasonable assert that "my claim" is less credible than a series of stories whose principle players have all vanished.
Sincerity. I don't even want to use that word after VP.
Whatever I do in my shower related to prayer, its done in a vacuum, and has not changed pre-Way, during the Way, or post Way. I act by faith. Whatever is proven is proven only to myself as all belief systems have to be.
You are free to make whatever claims about me and my shower you want.
Ok, so some men from Zaire who did not know English were in a believers meeting in the USA, which was in English? And they, not knowing English, spoke in tongues and it was English.
And we do not know who these African visitors were or where they are now. Somewhere in the DRC. And we know they didn't know English because why would two foreign born followers of TWI visiting the USA and attending a believers meeting possibly have any prior familiarity with the English language?
Ok, so two men from Zaire who did not know English were in a believers meeting in the USA, which was in English? And they, not knowing English, spoke in tongues and it was English.
And we do not know who these African visitors were or where they are now. Somewhere in the DRC. And we know they didn't know English because why would two foreign born followers of TWI visiting the USA and attending a believers meeting possibly have any prior familiarity with the English language?
Got it
The country was called Zaire then. It now is the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). I think the men were traveling to and from the Adv. Class and the incident took place in a home fellowship around their travel route - not at the class in Ohio.
That's all the detail I remember of this story. I just saw a picture of one of the people - a girl - who told the story.
I don't have basic corroborating facts of question answers - like - "why were French speakers in an English bible study?" or "was it a English/French bible study?" or "if they got called on to SIT in English, how did they understand to do so?" and "am I sure one didn't know English and fake like VP?"
It's not proof. It's not firsthand witness stand testimony reliable.
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
WordWolf
I like you, chockfull, really I do, but your posts on that long thread helped convince me my previous position was wrong. Your approach to the discussion said quite a bit.
Others can read the thread to their satisfaction. As concerning languages and the recorded examples, I came away with the following:
A) At no time was an actual language produced ("He's speaking Ukranian! He's praising Jesus!")
B) At no time was a recording identified as qualifying as a language unknown to the expert ("I've never heard this language, but this meets all the requirements of a language, so it is one nonetheless!" )
C) Recordings were never found to match ALL the criteria of a language-and ALL would have to be met to confirm it's a language. Recordings were found to have SOME of the criteria of a language- but so would an actor doing "free vocalization." It's not noteworthy that the recording was out loud, had syllables, and pauses. We all communicate out loud with syllables and pauses, so even an attempt to fake a language should have THAT property. In other words, the recordings met the same criteria as free vocalization would, and failed the same criteria that free vocalization would. (As someone who believed in SIT at the time, I found that rather telling-and annoying. It undermined the position I held at the time.
I think further rehashing will hit the same reefs as before, but I'm willing to let the new guy pick which reef he wants to hit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
A couple of quick points.
1. According to the studies we reviewed and posted together, the phonemic inventory of "tongues" matched the speakers' native languages. This was a big deal to me as it fit neatly with the thesis of this coming from our heads and not God giving the utterance.
2. I don't think I ever said SIT was a major linchpin in my atheism. Quite the opposite: I tried to make it very clear that you could be a strong believer and still recognize that what we were doing was not biblical SIT. Atheism did not enter the equation, nor need it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Just didn't want to see this passed over so quickly or easily.
What "benefit" do you suppose is inherently associated with Paul's speaking "with tongues more than ye all" ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
This is what we call a "non-sequitur." It is when you connect two concepts as though one proves the other, although one doesn't actually prove the other.
Namely: Paul praying privately in tongues DOES NOT "refute the claim" that unless the tongues you speak are understandable by some other person then they aren't real tongues.
The claim that speaking in tongues should produce an actual human language is biblically defensible, as I have shown multiple times across multiple threads. In the Bible, tongues ARE languages. They are synonyms. Speaking in languages IS speaking in languages. So if you're not producing a language, you are not speaking in tongues.
Paul praying privately DOES NOT NEGATE the fact that he would be producing a language. If Paul said he prayed in tongues privately to God, it follows BY DEFINITION that he prayed to God in a language that he himself did not understand. It's still a language understandable by some other person.
So, respectfully, Paul's prayer life does not refute my contention that tongues are languages.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
1. Doesn't stand up to the test of even my own experience. I am a native English speaker, Spanish some - romance languages. Tongues I've heard from my own mouth contain glottal stops, dipthongs, pitch variations that do not match romance languages.
2. thx for clarification.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
What did my approach to the discussion say? I don't accept carrying the blame for your decision on my approach. My "approach" from my perspective is that tongues for me is / was / will be faith based. Part of a Christian's private prayer life if they choose.
A) Incorrect - the audio recordings analyzed were not of known languages - they did not jump to the conclusion you did there that no actual languages were produced. On the contrary, it is fairly evident to anyone listening that there are some language breakdowns present, like pauses in diction, sentence or comma-like silence interruptions, consonant and vowel formations. They just are not understood.
B) The "experts" did not have a checklist whereby if something meets those criteria it is a language. So it is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to present their findings to the negative according to what you now believe, just as it was to use it to "prove" your previous belief on the topic. I just listed 3 or 4 "criteria" of a language in A above, yet that doesn't "prove" a language is spoken any more than it proves no language is spoken.
C) Again, you sound like experts have some kind of list of "criteria of a language". None that I read did. Or please feel free to post up factual evidence. You say "it's not noteworty" the language criteria I brought up. Well it is enough of a criteria to distinguish between humans and animal communication, so that is just opinion on your part. "Even an attempt to fake a language should have THAT property". Oh, so now you are an expert in how to fake languages? Well, maybe so I can't tell.
What I will say is that someone could probably fake speaking Spanish by mimic to someone that doesn't know Spanish and get away with it. At least to the point where they couldn't "prove" someone wasn't speaking Spanish unless a Spanish speaker could verify / reject.
There were several anecdotal accounts different people brought up in that thread about some kind of manifestation meeting where that tongue of the speaker was known to the audience member prior to interpretation. All of those personal accounts were rejected in that thread by you guys. Why? Doesn't line up with your current beliefs, therefore can't accept a secondhand account as proof.
The only reefs I see this discussion hitting is what I just pointed out. I'm not going to argue back and forth the above points with you like on that thread. But they are consistent points of logic that exist there and are there whether or not you acknowledge them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
1. I couldn't possibly begin to argue with your experience in terms of what I said, but I can approach it with honest questions. Namely, "Tongues I've heard from my own mouth contain glottal stops, dipthongs, pitch variations that do not match romance language." That may be the case, but were they sounds with which you were not familiar? I speak English and some Spanish, but I am aware of phonemes from some other languages (my go-to is the "ch" in Chanukah) and, being aware of such sounds, it would have been easy for me to incorporate them into a tongue. If you're exposed to a phoneme (whether or not you know that's what it's called) then you can incorporate it, QED.
2. You're welcome.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
They were rejected because they were not credible. They have as much going for them as ghost stories and urban legends. None of the principle players could be contacted to verify the accounts. And this is the case with every single one of those stories.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
1. Some sounds no I was not familiar at all with. Later on in life I learned that Chinese languages have pitch variations that go up and down like something from a tongue earlier and the difference totally changes the meaning. Definitely not sounds that I am used to forming in language from my experience. Other times it would all be more sounds that are totally from my language sounds. And not something I would consciously turn on or turn off like "ok today I'm making russian like sounds because I heard Putin newscast".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Every single one of those stories is more credible than your global blanket claim that everyone in TWI who spoke in tongues faked it.
At least those single accounts have people and facts attached to them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
No one said it had to be conscious.
Anyway, DRAW! We've been here before. This is where we walked in, remember! Salud!
And, on a related note, I mentioned toward the end of the original debates/discussions that I was waiting for the outcome a study of glossolalia that categorized the utterances by phonemic inventory. I haven't brought it up since then because... I'm... still.... waiting....
The last time I checked, in November, there was a possible May publication date. I have no reason at this point to assert with confidence that this will actually take place, but if it does, you'll all be the 3,000th, 3,001st, and 3,002nd to know.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Have people and facts attached to them?
No, they don't. That's why they're not credible! Who were these people? Where are they now? Hmm? Right. Back to Asia!
Come now.
As for my blanket claim that everyone faked it: I have provided the mechanism for faking it, which we were all taught, and the motive, which was pure and sincere.
I'm willing to accept your sincerity, but you can't reasonable assert that "my claim" is less credible than a series of stories whose principle players have all vanished.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Take the last word: I promise I'll shut up.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So I'm praying in the shower out loud, and the language changes from some italian - ish type sounds to some that are more gutteral like Mandarin but not exactly different sound, and somehow there's a subconscious man in my mind saying "I don't want italian takeout I'm in the mood for Chinese" ?
Dude.
Even if they did a "phonetic inventory of glossolalia", how could they distinguish between a "spritual" genuine one and a faked one? Actually a "phonetic inventory of glossolalia" sounds a lot like a modern tower of Babel to me.
But more power to the inventory takers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
"What did my approach to the discussion say?"
Strategies in discussion are like strategies in a courtroom, and certain gambits play to certain strengths and minimize certain weaknesses. Just like there's other posters who will show up on a thread and completely change the subject-because they can't refute the thread and can't silence it, so they try to divert it. It becomes a "tell" and actually tells you why they're posting. I saw what I consider a "defensive" strategy. If I was an attorney defending a guilty client (one reason I refused to consider law as a career was this was a possibility), I would use this strategy. Discredit the expert analysis, fog the issues, all to try to win the case by blurring the lines. I saw some amazing digressions where the meaning of language was challenged, and report results were creatively reinterpreted, and so on. It was the natural strategy for someone trying to "win on points" and not on the facts. That's what it told me. And I wasn't going to get into it, but you did ask.
"I don't accept carrying the blame for your decision on my approach."
I said it HELPED convince me. You were unable to provide a logical "argument" for the side I wanted to see win. Neither was I. Furthermore, you fell on strategies used by those who don't have the facts on their side. To me, that lampshaded the same points.
"My "approach" from my perspective is that tongues for me is / was / will be faith based. Part of a Christian's private prayer life if they choose. "
That's your PERSPECTIVE. In the thread, you approached it in a specific way, and THAT's what I noted.
A) I did make a posting error. My example was my point-it was not identified as a known language. I meant to say that, but it was late and I was tired. But the pauses, again, would characterize something like :"free vocalization" just as much as the samples.
B) Yes they did. C) Yes they did. You kept selectively referring to parts of their checklist while skipping the other parts. And again here- the trick is not to distinguish between animal communication "baa baa" and human communication, but between a real human language and an absence of a human language underpinning the sounds.
Anecdotes are NEVER proof. I'll get into that when I have time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Secondhand story of mine - was a contingent from Zaire that 2 people I know witnessed - they were men who spoke French and a native African language. Tongues in a manifestation meeting from one of these men were in English, fully formed sentences, made sense. Not just the sounds. Where are they now? DRC - Democratic Republic of Congo.
I do not have names for tracing of the DRC men. I am not in contact with the 2 people I mention, as I've left the cult.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Wow - so because I committed the sin of defending the truth it is a "tell" and thus SIT is false. How bout you take accountability for your own beliefs and stop trying to guilt trip me that I didn't defend truth well enough when doing so is a sin anyway?
I can't defend SIT - I do it by faith.
I can't defend point, line and plane in geometry either by the way.
B and C - look those points are easily refutable by finding a checklist from one of those authors. I didn't read one where I was selectively skipping parts. I didnt' read one at all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm not challenging your anecdote. I'm just trying to get it straight so that I understand it properly:
Two people who you know //
were in a meeting in Zaire//
and they saw men who speak French and a native African language.//
One of those men spoke in tongues and it was English.
And you're no longer in touch with the two people that you know.So I guess it's knew.
Have I got that right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
the meeting was in the US at a home fellowship the Zaire men were attending while visiting.
i didn't witness this firsthand. i do believe the credibility of the 2 that told the story.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Sincerity. I don't even want to use that word after VP.
Whatever I do in my shower related to prayer, its done in a vacuum, and has not changed pre-Way, during the Way, or post Way. I act by faith. Whatever is proven is proven only to myself as all belief systems have to be.
You are free to make whatever claims about me and my shower you want.
True or false.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ok, so some men from Zaire who did not know English were in a believers meeting in the USA, which was in English? And they, not knowing English, spoke in tongues and it was English.
And we do not know who these African visitors were or where they are now. Somewhere in the DRC. And we know they didn't know English because why would two foreign born followers of TWI visiting the USA and attending a believers meeting possibly have any prior familiarity with the English language?
Got it
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
The country was called Zaire then. It now is the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). I think the men were traveling to and from the Adv. Class and the incident took place in a home fellowship around their travel route - not at the class in Ohio.
That's all the detail I remember of this story. I just saw a picture of one of the people - a girl - who told the story.
I don't have basic corroborating facts of question answers - like - "why were French speakers in an English bible study?" or "was it a English/French bible study?" or "if they got called on to SIT in English, how did they understand to do so?" and "am I sure one didn't know English and fake like VP?"
It's not proof. It's not firsthand witness stand testimony reliable.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Wait, THEY WERE IN THE ADVANCED CLASS?
In Ohio?
In... French?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Utilizing translators...
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.