Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Questioning SIT


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, waysider said:

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?

Yes I see but find it hard to believe anyones going to be like oh wow you just spoke something I don't understand let me sign up for the way or let me give my life over to Christ because I didn't understand one thing you said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, ImLikeSoConfused said:

Yes I see but find it hard to believe anyones going to be like oh wow you just spoke something I don't understand let me sign up for the way or let me give my life over to Christ because I didn't understand one thing you said.

Well, but you see they DO understand because, immediately following the tongue portion, the same speaker interprets the message in the audiences' language.

 

Here's an example of what it might sound like:

"Lo Shanta La Go ba Tagga taka see tay...Yea, my little children. I am your God and father and I love you dearly."

(spoken with emotional intensity)

 

In the excellor sessions, we practiced on expanding our messages and developing the theatrical nature of the presentation

Edited by waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, waysider said:

Well, but you see they DO understand because, immediately following the tongue portion, the same speaker interprets the message in the audiences' language.

 

Here's an example of what it might sound like:

"Lo Shanta La Go ba Tagga taka see tay...Yea, my little children. I am your God and father and I love you dearly."

(spoken with emotional intensity)

 

In the excellor sessions, we practiced on expanding our messages and developing the theatrical nature of the presentation

So you guys actually had some success doing this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Huge success. Especially with people who had already tried and failed with other groups. They saw people doing it with ease and confidence and said "Sign me up! I want that, too!"  Lots of people signed up for PFAL for that very reason. When we were in the presence of people who were already experienced, we often used prophesy instead, which is supposed to be the same message without the preemptive tongue portion.  Of course, as you already discovered, we were supposed to do the tongue portion, silently, as  the acceptable method of personal prayer

 

I was in a 2 year communal living type training program where we routinely did this "tongues with interpretation/prophesy" stuff a bare minimum of twice a day,every day. Do the math. It loses its mystique rather quickly.

Edited by waysider
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the benefit of the new person, I'll reiterate my position.

First, understand that I began the discussions at least nominally supporting the same view twi pushed concerning SIT.  As the discussion progressed, I re-evaluated everything, and changed position because I found my previous one did not stand up to scrutiny, and all objections to it could be answered.  So I understand both sides of this issue well.

Second, understand that there's a type of exercise we discussed at points. It has been named "free vocalization" because it is unregulated ("free") and spoken (vocalized.) This practice is done by acting students as well as by small children.  To any outside observer, it's identical to what twi said was "Speaking in Tongues."  Any person could learn to perform "free vocalization" and do it. If they were also told "this practice is of God" and given examples of practitioners who believed the same, they'd even do it with the firm belief this was something supernatural-which it obviously is not.  This would then appear completely identical to the supposed modern 'SIT".

Third, understand that the modern "SIT" does not actually resemble the Biblical "SIT" except where someone's insisting it resembles it.  The Biblical examples were all of spoken words in actual languages, and many people understood them who were eyewitnesses (happened on Pentecost, happened at the house of Cornelius....)   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",)  The only defense given for this is the SINGLE verse in I Corinthians that mentions "tongues of angels"-a subject that never comes up again.  A careful read of the surrounding verses shows that each verse introduces a RIDICULOUS EXAGGERATION in order to make an independent point-including that verse. So, the "tongues of angels" reference is as normative as "moving mountains with faith", "having ALL Knowledge",  and giving to charity to the point that you're body is hauled off for kindling. 

In short, if the Biblical SIT exists now, it in no way resembles the thing twi taught and called "SIT."  The modern "SIT", however, completely resembles a practice that is in no way supernatural.  I don't have a deep, compelling reason to dismiss the possibility that there's a Biblical SIT out there right now that IS legitimate and supernatural- but I'm fully persuaded that the one SIT taught-and all the ones in that pattern, all the ones I've seen in my life- are neither that nor supernatural, but something actors are taught.

All of these were previously discussed, some in different threads.  There was a thread just to discuss Free Vocalization in Open.

  There was a Doctrinal thread that discussed the verses. 

 

The main thread covered the main discussion, and kept circling the same handful of points because someone kept trying to fog issues for pages and pages. The main problem was a conflation of "I believe twi was right about SIT"  with "I'm a Christian" and to challenge one was secretly to challenge both.

BTW, that continual insistence on fogging the issues was the final nail in the coffin of my old position. I was looking to see if I'd somehow overlooked something, but that side only had obfuscation to offer, not actual substance.  And when I pointed that out, I was asked why I didn't post an example of something I'd overlooked. Seriously-you want me to think up something I haven't thought up, then post about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So werewolf you believe that christians who claim to speak in tongues are doing nothing more than what actors do when they act like they are speaking a language? I guess the question becomes do those actors experience the effects that christians experience when they speak in tongues. For instance when I speak in tongues I get spiritual insights(by this I mean certain questions involving angels or other spiritual questions i have i get insights on whether its an actual thought or image etc its in a form that is understandable to me in my mind that clears up some confusion i have had about a spiritual matter), chills(good relaxing ones), increased peace, my mind feels at rest and calmer than before doing it etc.

There has been a study showing the brains of people who speak in tongues compared to those who meditate, but there hasnt been any studies to show the brains of people who speak free vocalization or any other people who speak in a language that no one understands compared to christians who claim to speak in tongues. That would be helpful to see if theres a difference. Its definitely doubtful that there would be but theres no way to know. Because while some other religions practice free vocalization as you call it, do these people also experience the things I said I do when I do it? What about those who aren't religious like the actors you posted clips of doing it.

When paul for instance said he spoke in tongues more than anyone else, who was he speaking these tongues to? Other people or by himself privately to god? If he did it privately then its possible what the modern speaking in tongue people are doing is still biblical.

Now of course my experience when I speak in tongues is subjective and not all people experience what I experience, but I think theres some reasons to believe that what I am doing is biblical because why would paul wish we would all do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, Staff?

Where should I post my responses to him?   This is "Questioning Faith."   Should someone start a new Doctrinal thread, or something?

We're going "off-topic" for "Questioning Faith" right now, so I don't want to disrespect the system, here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Edited by chockfull
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The poster's questions are addressed in the links that were provided. It takes a bit of sifting through to find them but that's the nature of the beast.

Yeah. Meaning like you have to sift out 50% of the argument on the other side with all of the facts and supporting logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, WordWolf said:

Ok, Staff?

Where should I post my responses to him?   This is "Questioning Faith."   Should someone start a new Doctrinal thread, or something?

We're going "off-topic" for "Questioning Faith" right now, so I don't want to disrespect the system, here.

If you could touch on my questions I'd like to hear an answer. Whether you start the thread or I do let me know.

Edited by ImLikeSoConfused
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something just occurred to me.  If a mute person is asked (or decides) to speak in tongues and interpret, one would assume that the interpretation would be the standard sign language he's accustomed to.  It's the speaking (signing) in tongues part that gets tricky.  Would it all be finger-spelled?  I don't know how many sign languages there are, but I would guess that most use very similar (if not identical) signs for the same words.  Is that true?  If so, signing in tongues and interpreting would be like speaking in British English and interpreting in American English.

Has anyone here been in a meeting with mute manifestations?

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Why did you doubt at first? Why did you stop for a year?

Think about it. Wouldn't you, of all people, have known if you were faking it? That doubt was not misplaced. That was your brain telling you that you were faking it. And it took time and repetition (what those psychology types like to refer to as conditioning) to convince yourself that it was genuine, and the doubts went away.

Your doubts were right the first time, in my opinion.

If you no longer doubt you're speaking in tongues, that's between you and your God. I don't believe you. I think you faked it then and are faking it now. Nothing personal. I just don't believe anyone who claims they can do real magic, and speaking a language you've never learned is really magic.

Now, it may be that you don't care whether I believe you or not. Fair enough. I'm not asking you to care what I think. I feel the same way about any expression of "if you had done this, you would still be a Christian today" or however you phrased it. It's a polite way of saying you do not believe my turn away from "faith" was based on reason, but on experience. You're entitled to believe that wrong thing. I'm not gonna stop you.

I do suppose you're right, though. If I had magically begun speaking Aztec or Zimbabwean (or whatever languages are spoken by the people represented by the words I just threw out there for effect), I probably WOULD still be a Christian. Because that there would be evidence. I rejected faith because I found the evidence lacking. (Well, absent, to be frank, but I'll go with lacking). You can agree. You can disagree. I can have a beer with you either way.

But if you want me to believe you really genuinely speak in tongues (and I'm not saying you do or you should), then show me the language. Otherwise, you can have no doubt at all that you speak in tongues, and I have no obligation whatsoever to believe you.

It's like Schroedinger's utterance. It's spoken, But is it a language or is it not? As long as no one tests it, either of us can claim it is/isn't.

But come one. You know as well as I do.

That's why you doubted.

And that's why you're still trying to talk yourself into it.

(P.S. You can still be a Christian, and a good one, while acknowledging that out of a hunger and thirst for righteousness, you allowed someone to trick you into thinking something unremarkable was quite remarkable). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, WordWolf said:

Ok, Staff?

Where should I post my responses to him?   This is "Questioning Faith."   Should someone start a new Doctrinal thread, or something?

We're going "off-topic" for "Questioning Faith" right now, so I don't want to disrespect the system, here.

I did not see this thread until this afternoon and have not been diving into each.... and EEEEVery post, so here's the deal. If you want to argue about whether modern SIT is or is not supernatural, keep it here.

If you want to discuss what Biblical SIT should be and whether what you're practicing conforms to it. start a new thread in doctrinal or resurrect an old thread that brought it up already. Either way is fine with me. Just know, whatever stays HERE in Questioning Faith... "unbelief" is an expected part of the conversation.

Translation, if you want to talk about this biblically, take it to doctrinal and I promise not to stick my atheist nose in it (at least not without plenty of scripture to support what I'm saying).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Raf said:

 

 

Why did you doubt at first? Why did you stop for a year?

Think about it. Wouldn't you, of all people, have known if you were faking it? That doubt was not misplaced. That was your brain telling you that you were faking it. And it took time and repetition (what those psychology types like to refer to as conditioning) to convince yourself that it was genuine, and the doubts went away.

Your doubts were right the first time, in my opinion.

If you no longer doubt you're speaking in tongues, that's between you and your God. I don't believe you. I think you faked it then and are faking it now. Nothing personal. I just don't believe anyone who claims they can do real magic, and speaking a language you've never learned is really magic.

Now, it may be that you don't care whether I believe you or not. Fair enough. I'm not asking you to care what I think. I feel the same way about any expression of "if you had done this, you would still be a Christian today" or however you phrased it. It's a polite way of saying you do not believe my turn away from "faith" was based on reason, but on experience. You're entitled to believe that wrong thing. I'm not gonna stop you.

I do suppose you're right, though. If I had magically begun speaking Aztec or Zimbabwean (or whatever languages are spoken by the people represented by the words I just threw out there for effect), I probably WOULD still be a Christian. Because that there would be evidence. I rejected faith because I found the evidence lacking. (Well, absent, to be frank, but I'll go with lacking). You can agree. You can disagree. I can have a beer with you either way.

But if you want me to believe you really genuinely speak in tongues (and I'm not saying you do or you should), then show me the language. Otherwise, you can have no doubt at all that you speak in tongues, and I have no obligation whatsoever to believe you.

It's like Schroedinger's utterance. It's spoken, But is it a language or is it not? As long as no one tests it, either of us can claim it is/isn't.

But come one. You know as well as I do.

That's why you doubted.

And that's why you're still trying to talk yourself into it.

(P.S. You can still be a Christian, and a good one, while acknowledging that out of a hunger and thirst for righteousness, you allowed someone to trick you into thinking something unremarkable was quite remarkable). 

Why did I doubt? Because I always doubted my ability to do it and doing it one time was not long enough to remove that doubt. I stopped for a year because I was dealing with other issues in life and God was not my main focus. Is it unreasonable to doubt something you tried to do in the past but couldn't do and then you do it once but all of those around you who hear it claim you aren't and you already doubted it all your life so of course you just take their word for it.

 

Lets understand what SIT is. Its speaking a language you don't understand. Even if no one on earth understands it does not mean it is complete garbage. Because the language is spoken to God not other people. Whats odd is you found the evidence to be good enough at one point and did believe it but what changed? Also why do you think you need the bible to believe in God(in your darkness thread you wrote your critiques of the bible and used it as a reason for not believing). Plenty of people believed in God before the bible existed. The question is what experiences did you have that made you think God existed changed. The bible didn't change. God didn't change. You changed is obvious but why. The evidence has always been the same while you were a christian and while you became an atheist.

I've explained my reasoning for doubting SIT. I never believed I could my whole life so doing it out of the blue would not be enough to change a life long belief. But doing it on a daily basis I realized it was real and that I was not faking as you say. I have no reason to lie to you or myself or anyone else about it. Your logic seems to be our first instinct is always right but thats clearly not true because sometimes for instance our first impressions are incorrect etc. Your first instinct seems to have been God is true but you no longer trust that instinct and instead believe he doesn't exist. So whats the truth here. You can't have it both ways.

Theres more to say about this but i'll leave what I wrote for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not odd at all that I found the evidence compelling. It has a perfectly natural explanation: I WANTED it to be true, so I talked myself out of the doubts that told me it was false, just like you did. We were literally in a cult that discouraged doubt. Doubt is bad. Doubt gets little kids killed by cars when their mommies aren't looking. Who wouldn't want it to be true?

But where's the evidence? Glopping gloppleness is not proof.

I agree. The evidence has not changed. It was nonexistent then and is non-existent now. Disagree? Fine. Have a disinterested third party identify the language you produce and I'll change my mind. You are under no obligation to do so, but if you're going to start using expressions like "the evidence is there, it hasn't changed," then you shouldn't balk when asked to produce the evidence.

Please note the use of the word "like" in the previous sentence. I know the quote is not exact.

Anyway, you can look at my experiences and wonder what about my experiences led to a lack of faith. Or you can look at the Bible and test its claims, really asking yourself some pretty hard questions (like, seriously, you could have put that tree on the other side of the planet, dude! Or, working on Friday night cracked the top 10 commandments but rape and slavery didn't?)

It's not about experiences. It's about reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never said that. YOU said that I was basing my decision on experiences. You said "The question is what experiences did you have that made you think God existed changed."

It had nothing to do with experiences. It had to do with reason. I'm not saying others did not use reason. I'm not saying anything about other people at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyway, back to topic:

I question SIT not merely because I realize I faked it, but because it's a testable claim that no one seems willing to test (and when it is tested, it never passes. I'm not saying it fails, because certain folks won't let me, but it only needs to pass, convincingly, ONE TIME to be credible).

It's not that hard to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2017 at 5:49 PM, ImLikeSoConfused said:

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.

You know, the more I look at this post, the more I want to just post a two-word response and be done with it.

How dare you, man? I spent 40 years as a Christian, 40 years seeking and praying and teaching and studying. For you to come along based on a thread on a message board and question my character? How DARE you?

But I really don't want to lose my cool. So let me refer you to the informal logical fallacy known as "No True Scotsman." The "No True Scotsman" fallacy improperly seeks to invalidate the sincerity of a critic's previous experience in a group or belief he now questions or renounces.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/

It goes like this (in context, not using formal formula for logical arguments)

A: "I just don't think any sincere person seeking God would fake tongues."

B: Presented with an example of a sincere person seeking God who faked tongues.

C: "He must not have been sincere."

See how easy it is? Your premise can NEVER be refuted because any time it IS refuted, you can claim the person wasn't sincere and support your premise.

News flash: Sincere people who once embraced faith can come to reject it, and if you can't come to terms with that reality, then you'd best not engage me in conversation because I will defend my honor.

 

Seriously, fornicate alone with a cactus if you don't think my Christianity was sincere. That is not for you to judge, and for you to call my character into question is deeply unappreciated.

Edited by Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2017 at 6:49 PM, ImLikeSoConfused said:

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." 

A large number of ex-twi people agreed it was faked. It's neither amazing nor unique to have spent as much time faking it as he did. Others said they'd faked it longer (they were in twi a lot longer.)

" I think if you actually spoke in tongues you probably would still be a christian today."

I agree. If he'd been the recipient of a miraculous healing, or prayed and saw a miracle unfold the following seconds as well, those would have made an indelible impression on him, and I would be shocked if he just dismissed them, even decades later. (I say this as someone who's known him for years because I have. I'm ashamed to say I'm the one who introduced him to twi.)

"Of course there are plenty of people who speak in tongues who are no longer christians and probably dont do it anymore."

They certainly BELIEVED they were speaking in tongues, but their opinions didn't change the reality of the situation.

". But the mere fact that you were faking it is hilarious and sad at the same time."

You have an odd sense of humor. We were taught to fake it. We faked it institutionally. I think that IS sad, but not funny.

" 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."

Whatever that's supposed to mean, it's certainly meant as an insult.

" 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. "

That's awfully convenient for you. It frees you from having to bother attempting to explain things logically, or explain why logical "arguments"  that refute your position exist.

"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."

Speaking on this before understanding it makes ignorance obvious.  "He that answers a matter before he hears it, it is a folly and a shame unto him." A lot of devout posters-still committed Christians to this day-admitted they faked it in twi, in addition to lots of folks who admitted they faked it and are no longer devout Christians. A devout person can do something and naively think they're pleasing God while they're doing the opposite.  How do you think vpw got women to go along with his claims that his sexual assaults on them were godly and going along with them was pleasing God? He fooled legitimately devout people.

As for why to think it was ALL faked- we were all taught the same thing, to perform identically in the same way. If LOTS of people came forth and said it was fraud, then the identical times that they DIDN'T step forward should be identically fraudulent.  Again- people MEANT to do godly things but were genuinely mistaken in thinking that.Didn't mean they're any less devout.  Ever meet devout Trinitarians?  Would you dare accuse all Trinitarians of lacking true devotion because they're wrong as you see it?

"Thats definitely a fallacy to assume because you can't do something that no one else is or can."

By all means, throw this discussion wide open- conclusively demonstrate an ability to do exactly what SIT is in the Bible. I for one would be THRILLED to welcome that event.  When examining all attempts to prove this so far, they've all fallen short.  Just ONE conclusive demonstration would change everything. Until then, at best you have an unproven claim- and there's lots of evidence that people with identical claims were NOT doing it-regardless of their conviction that they were.

"I still personally wouldn't waste my time faking tongues or believing in something I thought was not true but to each its own."

Nobody here's claimed they "believed in something they thought wasn't true" (explain how that's supposed to work. How does one disbelieve something while believing it? It's the story of the tall midget. )  As for not wasting your time faking tongues.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2017 at 7:11 PM, waysider said:

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

On 12/3/2017 at 7:34 PM, ImLikeSoConfused said:

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.

It's no different from being handed counterfeit money and being told it's genuine.  The practice titled "free vocalization" can be taught to any adult. Normally, it's taught as a simple acting exercise, when it's taught at all.   However, take the exact same practice and claim it's actually some supernatural activity of God. Show lots of people doing it, all convinced it's of God.  Spend hours and hours teaching about the activity from God and get people to want to do that. All the while, keep pouring on that they're the same thing, and people will go along and not question why they're not identical, why there's differences.  Insist that any second thoughts about this will actually be evil and of the devil, so the people will be in FEAR of questioning it. Make a big deal about the first time people do it, with celebrations when they do.  Then, when you get ridiculous, they won't question it for a moment. When you have them practice saying words all starting with the same letter, they won't question why this is never mentioned in the Bible, or how you're now telling God which utterances to supply, or how you're supposed to speak a wonderful work of God in extensive alliteration. (The excellors sessions, by themselves, should make it obvious we were REHEARSING and PRACTICING a secular ability.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're also getting a "so what" on the languages. It's pretty simple. If you're producing excerpts of a language through a miraculous event, then you are producing excerpts of a language.  So far, every time a claim like that has been put forth, the claimant has been disappointed.  No known language has been demonstrated to have been produced. Ok, so then you claim you always produce an UNKNOWN language. The thing is, experts in language can tell when they're confronted with a language vs being confronted with some sort of gibberish.   Even non-experts can sometimes recognize excerpts in a language they don't know.  I saw someone publish something written in Hungarian (Magyar). His editor asked him about an error he caught- despite not knowing it was IN Hungarian.  He compared the phrases, and deduced which word should appear in an instance. (He was right.)  Even invented languages have a structure. (An episode of Star Trek had an error in an invented language, and a fan pointed it out.)  Of course, in these instances, it is a strength to know more than one language in one's life, since you have practice in comparing words in at least 2 languages.   

So, what's the relevance to all that?  The claimants didn't produce known languages, and they didn't produce results that were pronounced A language. Their speech lacked the specific distinctions between a discrete LANGUAGE and sounds that RESEMBLED a language superficially but fell short nonetheless.  So, a miraculous production of..nothing..isn't very impressive, nor is it noteworthy. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ImLikeSoConfused said:

So werewolf you believe that christians who claim to speak in tongues are doing nothing more than what actors do when they act like they are speaking a language? I guess the question becomes do those actors experience the effects that christians experience when they speak in tongues. For instance when I speak in tongues I get spiritual insights(by this I mean certain questions involving angels or other spiritual questions i have i get insights on whether its an actual thought or image etc its in a form that is understandable to me in my mind that clears up some confusion i have had about a spiritual matter), chills(good relaxing ones), increased peace, my mind feels at rest and calmer than before doing it etc.

There has been a study showing the brains of people who speak in tongues compared to those who meditate, but there hasnt been any studies to show the brains of people who speak free vocalization or any other people who speak in a language that no one understands compared to christians who claim to speak in tongues. That would be helpful to see if theres a difference. Its definitely doubtful that there would be but theres no way to know. Because while some other religions practice free vocalization as you call it, do these people also experience the things I said I do when I do it? What about those who aren't religious like the actors you posted clips of doing it.

When paul for instance said he spoke in tongues more than anyone else, who was he speaking these tongues to? Other people or by himself privately to god? If he did it privately then its possible what the modern speaking in tongue people are doing is still biblical.

Now of course my experience when I speak in tongues is subjective and not all people experience what I experience, but I think theres some reasons to believe that what I am doing is biblical because why would paul wish we would all do it?

"So werewolf you believe that christians who claim to speak in tongues are doing nothing more than what actors do when they act like they are speaking a language? "

A) No need to call names.   B) I claim there's no substantial difference between the type of supposed "SIT" I was taught in twi (and all incidents I've seen) and what actors are taught to do, and the differences are all cosmetic. (Actors could be taught to produce results that look absolutely identical to the twi experience with a little coaching, staging, and practice.

" I guess the question becomes do those actors experience the effects that christians experience when they speak in tongues. For instance when I speak in tongues I get spiritual insights(by this I mean certain questions involving angels or other spiritual questions i have i get insights on whether its an actual thought or image etc its in a form that is understandable to me in my mind that clears up some confusion i have had about a spiritual matter), chills(good relaxing ones), increased peace, my mind feels at rest and calmer than before doing it etc."

Actually, the feelings of the actors are different because they know they are actors and are feigning emotion.

If we had a "control" group, it would be of a bunch of actors or otherwise non-charismatics who were taken through the exercises, taught convincingly they were genuinely of God, and that they're supposed to feel connected to God.  I expect THOSE people would definitely feel SOMETHING. 

As for insights, there's 2 answers, neither of which is difficult.

If there IS no such divine insight, your subconscious is working things out and presenting them when you're expecting them-which is when you're petitioning for divine insight. They may or may not be actual insight. (The Questioning Faith subforum assumes this position.)

If there IS such a thing as divine insight, then the key to getting it is to get yourself to the point where you can listen to it, then ask for it.  Getting there might involve raking sand, working in a garden, baking, reading, quietly thinking, ecstatically dancing, etc.  So whatever you do to get your head there does not need to be anything other than a mundane practice that works for you.

"Now of course my experience when I speak in tongues is subjective and not all people experience what I experience, but I think theres some reasons to believe that what I am doing is biblical because why would paul wish we would all do it?'

You're automatically assuming that you're doing what Paul was recommending, then assuming that you're right because he made good recommendations, so his recommendation "of what you're doing" is a reasonable one.

 

 

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...