waysider

One documented example of someone producing what is presented in the Acts incident doesn't seem too unreasonable a request. That's my opinion.

What the heck does this mean?

I see we've returned to the "burden of proof" dilemma. There seems to be more energy wasted on meta discussion than the actual subject. Pity.

...

Theatrical training frequently includes exercises in improvisation. In one type of improvisation, the actor invents a "language" (on the fly) and has his/her character use that language in a conversational context. I posted an example of Andy Kaufman doing this in one of my earlier posts. It's not Biblical, it's not spiritual, it's not evidence of anything other than a latent ability of the human mind. It's not difficult to do. It can, however , present a stumbling block for participants who have inhibitions that impair their ability to do it. That's why it's included in improvisation classes. I personally saw this being done by a wide variety of subjects, some of whom I am quite sure were not Christian. (Oy Vey! Am I being vague enough on this point?) Decidedly, not everyone can overcome their inhibitions to do it but, the possibility to do so is still there.

Fifty nine pages in and still no explanation of how Non-Christians are able to speak in tongues or why the practice predates Christ by a thousand years. Unless, of course, the answer lies in Man's innate ability to perform free vocalization. Could it really be that simple? I, for one, think so.

You give a guy/gal who is skilled in carpentry some materials and tools and they can build something..... a doghouse, a birdhouse, a breadbox, a coffin for your dead dog Rover. If it's a familiar object, you can identify it. If it's not, you can't identify it.... but, you know it's SOMETHING. On the other hand, you give a guy/gal who is ignorant of carpentry the same materials and tools and you never know what you'll get. Suppose they cut the boards up into random sizes and start pounding nails and attaching hinges willy-nilly until they run out of parts. What is it? Who knows? It's got boards. I recognize those. Nails... ditto. Hinges... ditto. So, I recognize the parts but not the finished product because it hasn't been assembled in a conventional manner. Now consider tongues. The person starts speaking. "Leche", he says, as your ears pick up. And then there's a "pimiente" sprinkled in. Something that sounds remotely like "caliente" randomly finds it's way into the mix. Hmmmmmm....His tongue must be Spanish. Well, sure, those are Spanish words but, they aren't arranged in any logical sequence. So, he has put together parts that you may be able to identify individually but it's all randomly assembled so, even though he said SOMETHING, it hasn't communicated the message, "Hey, look at me! I'm a birdhouse!" Language communicates messages. Even if you don't understand the actual message, you should be able to understand that there is some sort of message being conveyed, just as you may not understand what it is the carpenter built but, you will recognize that it is SOMETHING..

I'm not so sure it's too much to ask for....but it might be too much to expect.

Wiki is a handy place to start. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syntax

You know he wasn't really a "Dr.", ....don't you?

SIT is not a "language". Why not? It's not because no one understands it. That point is moot. Rather, it's not a "language" because it fails to meet the critical criteria of syntax. A language must have syntax. There is no discernible syntax associated with SIT. That's not my opinion. That's the straightforward reality of the issue.

There are many types of sign language. They, for the most part, are not interchangeable. People using American Sign Language don't understand people using German Sign Language who don't understand people using British Sign language who don't understand people using Australian Sign Language and so on. So, my question is this: Can someone who speaks American Sign Language, "speak in tongues" in Argentinian Sign Language? If it was real, doesn't that sound plausible? edited for spelling

D.C. al Fine

I thought it might be interesting to take a peek at some of the characteristics typically used to define a "language". "All languages rely on the process of semiosis to relate signs with particular meanings. Oral and sign languages contain a phonological system that governs how symbols are used to form sequences known as words or morphemes, and a syntactic system that governs how words and morphemes are combined to form phrases and utterances." SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language "All languages rely on a..........syntactic system." (This element is missing in speaking in tongues.)

We had great success with a motion simulator. It's a little vibrating motor that fits up under the crib. Our pediatrician used to lend them out. I'm sure there's probably a "new and improved" version out there somewhere.

Soooooo (flogging the equine yet one more time).....If it's holy spirit doing the energizing when Christians speak in tongues, what is it doing the energizing when Non-Christians speak in tongues? I propose it's the innate human ability to operate free vocalization.

Which is why I previously said.......You can take God completely out of the picture and still test to see if genuine languages are being produced. It doesn't have to include any sort of "spiritual" aspect whatsoever...

Here's the difference, Chock. You can't disprove the resurrection, the ascension, the new birth. You can, on the other hand, for all practical purposes, disprove that speaking in tongues (as we know it today) is a language-producing-action, on a par with what is described in Acts 2. Not 100%, mind you, but, with a very high level of certainty.

Yikes!

I'll say this, if SIT represents real languages, Wierwille's tongue must have been from a very primitive people. What sort of language only has 6 or 7 words?

"Why am I doing this again?" I saw a man beating his head against the wall. I said, "Doesn't that hurt?". "Yes", he said, "but it feels so good when I stop".

Not really....You can take God completely out of the picture and still test to see if genuine languages are being produced. It doesn't have to include any sort of "spiritual" aspect whatsoever.

I think I see the disconnect. In the first example you gave, it's God that's being tested. In the second example, it's not God being tested, it's tongues.

That sounds more like a rationalization than rationale. Based on that, one could argue that prayer is tempting God. I'm not saying it is. I'm saying one could argue that premise.

What rationale could there be for God refusing to cooperate and assuming an elusive position? Doesn't that seem to fly in the face of the scriptures that declare He never changes? What about the scriptures that say He never lies? It seems like He would be contractually obligated to deliver what was offered.....unless we're misunderstanding whatever it was that was offered.