waysider

Actors never want to admit there's something they can't do. I think that's one of the things that made Joey Tribbiani's character so funny and gave rise to so many crazy scenarios. Joey, can you ride a horse? Sure. Joey, can you ice skate? Sure. Joey, can you pilot the space shuttle? uhmmm.....Sure.

They were owned by Hostess and have closed up shop as well, according to news reports I have seen.

Someone else will revive them. If the demand is there, someone will supply it.

Sounds like a plan. I'm not trying to dispute anything. I'm just trying to understand the essence of what's being said. (I think my reading skills "ain't what they used to be.")

I must be dense. The context seems to suggest that "Fundamentalist" is a blanket term for a group that encompasses Lutheran, Baptist, Reformed, other Protestants. What am I missing?

Lutherans are fundamentalists? When did this happen?

Using that as a criteria, I don't see how anyone could make a definitive pronouncment on the previously mentioned "muck and mire" example.

If a speaker can "inject" those words, why should we assume he can't inject others? And, how are we to sort out which words are "injected" and which are not?

"Where is the benefit?" I believe we can extrapolate somewhat of an answer to that from Newberg's study. According to the findings, part of the brain relaxes and frees itself from the encumbrance of critical thinking. I liken that to relaxing in an easy chair after a long, grueling day of physical work. Is that a bad thing? I don't think so...unless you allow yourself to set unrealistic expectations for it. "How does TIP and Prophesy work?" It's really quite simple. You already have a framework of what sorts of things can and can't be said. These are things that you hear frequently repeated in meetings and teachings. (Ex: God is with you, God loves you, stay your mind on the word, etc.) You know what it's supposed to look/sound like because you've been presented with lots of examples in classes, twig fellowships, branch meetings and so forth. (culturalization) Have you ever been to a campfire event where someone makes up a scary story? I think the same mental facilities come into play. Try this. Take the following lead-in and expand it out for a few more sentences: "It was a cold and rainy night and we found ourselves headed down a dark and narrow road. Just as we turned hard into a sharp corner to the right,__________________________________.

Ya know, the moon could fall out of the sky tonight and flatten my neighbor's potting shed. It's possible.....but not very likely.

SIT has no code. Ergo, SIT is not a language. Edit: Someone could prove me wrong by simply exposing and defining the code.

What is language? language A system for communicating. Written languages use symbols (that is, characters) to build words. The entire set of words is the language's vocabulary. The ways in which the words can be meaningfully combined is defined by the language's syntax and grammar. The actual meaning of words and combinations of words is defined by the language's semantics. SOURCE ........................................................ Let's examine the key points, shall we? A system for communicating.....There can be no communication if there is no system. SIT lacks a system. The ways in which the words can be meaningfully combined is defined by the language's syntax and grammar....As there is no syntax or grammar involved in SIT, it follows suit that the words cannot be meaningfully combined. The actual meaning of words and combinations of words is defined by the language's semantics....As SIT, the alleged language, has no defined semantics, the words and combinations of words have no actual meaning. To make a short story long, SIT is not a language(s)

Like ? :B)

"glossa has some similarities and some differences with natural languages". Yes, that's true. Then again, you could say the same of a comparison of elephants and jelly beans

What is it you think I don't understand?

First century: People hear languages they understand and interpret expound on them for people who don't understand them. Today: People hear "languages" they DON"T understand and "interpret" them for other people who also don't understand them. Am I sensing a discrepancy here? ...................................................... Is that more what you had in mind?

Ahh, yes. Interpretation. Who is able to interpret something that they don't understand?

Forget Hockett. Here's the essence of what Samarin said, according to your post: "Glossas, by this standard, are not human languages, primarily because they really are not systems of communication. They are not characterized by semanticity (7), arbitrariness (8), displacement (10), prevarification (14), and reflexiveness (15)". .................................................................. Oh, but wait. When people speak in tongues, sounds come out of their mouths. Likewise, when people speak in a known language, sounds come out of their mouths. Therefore speaking in tongues is synonymous with language. Do we really need to reexamine why this is a fallacy? (Hint: It constitutes a false conclusion)

"However, when you ask them for detail like "what changed?" there seems to be no answer." I thought the answer was rather obvious. The record in Acts talks of people speaking in languages that were understood by some the hearers. People, today, doing what they assume to be a replication of what happened at Pentecost, are unsuccessful in producing languages that are understood by any of the hearers. Can there possibly be an answer that's more straightforward than that? ............................................................................... "People are working those scriptures and applying them, coming to conclusions about gifts and manifestations. At least they are on the affirmative side of the argument that SIT works as the Bible describes." But, SIT doesn't work the way the Bible describes. That's the whole point of this thread, isn't it? If SIT worked like the Bible describes, there would be understandable languages being produced by the speakers. That isn't happening. If it is happening and I'm not aware of it, please call my attention to it.

" Samarin shows in his study that glossa samples have the same construct as languages with respect to the cadence and linguistic breakdown into sentences, phrases, sub-phrases, and words." ............................................................................................ Quite the contrary. What Samarin's studies show is that glossolalia does NOT have an established syntax as would an actual language.

There's not much to tell. It's part of the hands-on training that takes place in improv. class. It's not a textbook sort of thing. The director will instruct you to make up a language and sell a prop or have a conversation with another actor, etc. Earlier, I posted a of Andy Kaufman (as Latka) telling a joke to Danny DeVito (as Louie). You've probably seen similar things if you have ever watched Whose Line Is It Anyway? It's not much different than session 12 or an excellor session in that you just "let yourself go" and do it. The difference is in the context it's placed in and the sort of coaching you're given to overcome your inhibitions.

I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all answer. There are general recommendations that might apply but every situation is unique.

"So what I'm getting from WordWolf is that if you have experience in acting, faking interpretation and prophecy isn't that hard. OK. So those with acting backgrounds could more easily fake it. I don't have an acting background. So I couldn't easily fake it. The vast majority of people in TWI don't have acting backgrounds (except for trying to act like they were happy). So for the vast majority, faking it would be exactly like I describe it." ....................................................................................... This is a false conclusion. Session 12 of PFAL and the Intermediate Class provide all the necessary "background" to make faking it rather simple. Specifically, they provide the culturalization that facilitates it. You do not need specialized theatrical training to do it. What specialized theatrical training has done for me is to help me recognize what I was seeing.

"An accurate statement from the evidence seen to date would be that all the evidence is inconclusive trying to prove that SIT produces a language." No, it's not inconclusive, it's nonexistent. There is NO (zip, zero, none) existing evidence that speaking in tongues produces a language. That's a far cry from "inconclusive".

"I don't know who waysider studied under." I served an apprenticeship with a well known Equity company. (Which means I exchanged my services in the set shop for an opportunity to study under the tutelage of veteran actors and play bit parts.) BTW...Dinner is served.