Leaderboard

Good Morning Everyone....I want to preface my post by saying, I'm not coming to defend 12 step programs but I am coming to give an accurate picture of them. Not everyone who comes to a 12 step program is there because they want help. Some come because of being court ordered and come to get their paper signed for the court and when they reached the needed number of Meetings take off and don't come back. Some come because of pressure the family puts on them and usually they have a hard time succeeding. Others come and once there decide this is a cool place to pick of a girl or guy. And I'm sure there are any number of other reasons why people come to the program. In the beginning I thought everyone was there for the same reason I was, to get help. I found out that is not accurate. But, I learned that I, as a human being, could not judge whether this person or that person would make it and change their life. Some I thought wouldn't did. Some I thought would, didn't. The ones that succeed are those who come and want the help and they come for themselves, not for the court, not for family, but they are honest about needing and wanting the help. Those people are the ones to really work hard to get the program and they do in fact turn their lives around. I have been there for almost 18 years now and I've seen tons of people come in and get a beautiful life. I've also seen tons of people who come in and out of the program like a revolving door. I've also been to a lot of funerals because of suicide or overdoses. Unfortunately, the alternatives to change are few, jails, institutions or death. There is no leadership in a 12 step program. It's based on the 12 steps, and 12 traditions. It runs because people volunteer to do a job, like chair a meeting, or help out with a public explanation at a hospital about their selected program. And having come from TWI where Leadership was a Huge deal, I was amazed that there are no designated leaders here, only people who want to do service and yet it has run and run for years and years. I really learned that the reason it runs is because of God. So yes, unfortunately, there are those who do not give the program a good name, but there are many who do. Just like there are many christians who give christianity and God a bad name. We all know that from experience. The 12 step program of today is not the same 12 step program it was in the beginning. It was started and based on Christianity and the true God. The book of James, the Sermon on the Mt. and 1 Corinthians 13 were the three most used passages in getting people turned around. Through the years this has been added, this has been subtracted, to where it has deviated from the original program...However it still works for people who want to work it. And if they don't want to, it still works just not for them. Of course, I am so very thankful for the 12 step program because with God, it gave me the beautiful life that I now have. I hope I have not defended, but given an accurate perspective as from one who is involved.

Look, this is easy. A new term is made up when someone has a concept that doesn't have a term. That's so we can discuss it. (Examples: Astronaut, internet, computer.) Someone was examining a phenomenon and called it "free vocalization." The name comes from it being a vocalization, and it not following any language or formal structure. It is unrestricted by pattern and logic. (Free as in speech, not as in beer.) When examining different things, they share qualities with each other and all match the usage of the phrase "free vocalization." Small children playing a game do it. Actors in training do it. Conmen do it. Witch doctors do it. Christians who "SIT" do it. How do we know it's the same thing? All the things that define it, they share in common. What is different about any of them is irrelevant to the definition. (Age of speaker, intent of speaker, props used) We've seen that. Many of us have seen children or actors do it personally-or been the actors. Some of us who did "modern SIT" and seen children or actors do it have said it is the same. How can we know they're not the same thing? Someone would have to bring in at least one credible example that didn't match the pattern. So far, we've seen lots of things matching the pattern, and vague anecdotes that supposedly don't, but we can't examine them. With thousands of Christians doing it daily and more doing it weekly, there should be a legitimate example SOMEWHERE that breaks the pattern- IF THEY'RE NOT THE SAME. Based on the evidence we've seen, modern SIT IS free vocalization. Modern SIT is free vocalization done by people who love God, want to serve God, and have been misinformed that this act is the Biblical SIT that they would rather do. God is still in Heaven, and appreciates their hearts, miracles happen despite these Christians making a consistent mistake, and eventually Jesus Christ will correct all the parties involved. Based on the evidence we've seen, the "argument" against it goes as follows: "The modern SIT is the same as the Biblical SIT. Its unable to be understood like the original because its in languages of angels-despite those languages matching the patterns of languages as studied by experts because God doesn't cooperate with experts. Sometimes it DOES produce a spoken, earthly language- but it's incredibly rare and all accounts possible come from unconfirmable anecdotes. Sometimes people produce real languages that exist around the earth but are doing so by possession or devil influence- despite no linguist confirming THAT either." I'm unclear whether today's position will be -There's no such thing as free vocalization-it's all spirit-produced -it's a coincidence that all accounts seem to match free vocalization or something else. I'm still amazed that "charlatans have faked speaking in a language" keeps getting distorted into "there's no power of God ever, everyone's a charlatan." It's dishonest, unfair, and damages the speaker's credibility. But, there we go.

It's also not what's happening here. Nobody's "automatically assuming" anything except you. We keep hearing the most casual of anecdotes is a reliable reflection of what actually happened. Someone claimed to bring forth a message from God Almighty? That must be what happened. Someone claimed to bring forth a message from some spirit? That must be what happened-even if they got the spirit's category wrong. Someone claimed to do something supernatural? That must have happened. That's no kind of "research" at all, that's jumping to a conclusion without even trying. I noticed you condemned me for agreeing with a fellow Christian who is an expert stage magician who wrote a book and drew some conclusions. I stated I have an opinion- which is pretty specific. He had an expert background on the 2 disciplines he discussed. I read his book, I went over his conclusions AND HOW HE GOT THERE. Your response? We're wrong because you can't separate "those guys at one place and time were charlatans" from "everyone at every time is a charlatan." I'd correct you about the book itself but what would be the point? You've condemned an entire viewpoint by lumping all kinds of things together, and keep constructing rationalizations to pretend you got there through logical steps. I've been reading the thread. You formed your opinion and THEN BEGAN to look at everything, and everything has been interpreted selectively through your CONCLUSION. I've really wanted you to give me a reason to think I was overlooking something and there was a reason to think that SOME of the modern SIT is legitimate. I really wanted that. You've given me no reason to think that. In fact, since the strength of your position lies in a leap of faith and an insistence on discrediting anything you disagree with, and then pretending that's not what you did, for me, you've made a rather strong case that you're wrong. One side of the discussion has evidence, presented it, and is reflecting what it says accurately. One side has no evidence and has been guessing, misinterpreting, speculating, and pretending that's not what they're doing. I can't possibly support that.

So what is JAL producing? Is that a genuine manifestation of the power of the Holy Spirit(God)? Do we think that is a real language being used to communicate the wonderful works of God(the gospel)? Is he faking it? Is he willfully deluded and being reinforced by the group experience? Is that a demon on his lips? We have the example of him SIT, we have his exegesis, and we have his assurance that just because he is doing the speaking and forming the words....that doesn't mean it is fake. How is what JAL is doing different than say what a non ex-twier from a pentecostal church is doing? They all sound very similar except for those who whoop and click . We have an example, we can watch it.....what is it? If we can assume about other accounts being supernatural in nature....without even seeing them or having all the details.....we have one right here to observe. JAL claims it is real. We DO have some knowledge about the tradition and beliefs of JAL and more knowledge than we need or want concerning his ministries and understanding of the HOLY Spirit. I am inclined to think it is that the man has been deluded and keeps reinforcing that delusion with his experience of free vocalization. I don't think that is a demon on his lips....the simple explanation seems right. That is not to say if God had a purpose SIT is impossible. I don't believe that. I think if it is still out there at all it is rare and God's purpose will be revealed and He will be glorified. Not much of that going on here with these recounted accounts.