chockfull

The debatable conclusion to me on that topic is whether or not an "accent" in speaking another language (like Texican Spanish for example) would account for minor variations or vocabulary possibilities in like consonant selection or not. I saw Samarin try to prove that, then concede that his consonant tree would also hold true for six other languages. Not really. I believe no linguist has understood the tongue natively in a setting yet. Or heard a language they were familiar with. And there are a lot of living and dead languages. The incompetence I see from the linguists stems from inability to define spiritual sources, and issues with their stats methods. And I'm still saying we are getting nowhere with the proof side of this. There is inability to prove either side. And so conclusions from attempts to do so are disingenuous at best, hypocritical and lying at worst with full understanding of it. Look I can't even agree in peace with the definition of "free vocalization" as a meaningful term at all. It encompasses SIT (maybe if it ever WAS experienced in a lab), faking, and conversations between a medium and their spirit guide. If this is an innate human ability, it is an innate human ability in the sense of how being stupid is an innate human ability. It means nothing. Just like the term I made up to illustrate that point. I agree it's not worth debating, but for an entirely different reason. Well, Samarin proved nothing, and had tons of opinionated conclusions. That were opinion. So saying he proved something is BS. Or show me the hypothesis test and all the numbers.

Well, I said what I believe about it above. As far as instruction from the Bible, I would be at a complete loss as to how to explain it to you guys scripturally like instructing on how to do it. I mean I don't see how I could and avoid all the tentacles of TWI doctrine on it, which would probably sour the experience to everyone. We need to avoid the leaven of the Pharisees, not start another splinter ministry that can produce 80% counterfeits of Wierwille's ministry. Or stated this way, I think it occurs naturally to believers in prayer. So a snake oil salesman sold us SIT as a snake oil remedy. Step right up, ladies and gentlemen. Here's something you can do that will cure all your ailments. If you have a bad foot, SIT. Cavity, SIT. Lack of sleep, SIT. You don't even need sleep if you SIT, as it builds up your inner man. You won't get sick if you SIT. Problems in your marriage? Don't talk to your spouse, just SIT. Challenges at work? SIT. With relationships with your boss? SIT. All you have to do is SIT to make sure you're spiritually big and strong. Then you'll be able to lift huge miracles with your little pinky, just like Ah-nold. No, a better approach would be to state that SIT replaces NOTHING, except for maybe a little of your time praying with your understanding. It's a token, it's a down payment on a better future. It's a little taste of a connection by spirit now that all of life will be based on when Jesus comes back. It's what God left in place of the ashes of a water-soaked offering to Baal. Is this all opinion as it pertains to the scientific method and statistical analysis? Sure it is. Or it's speaking what's in my heart on the topic, from study, knowledge, practice, experience. It's what I've got to share.

I don't immediately assume the claims to be true. I just think it highly likely that a medium who says they are talking to a spirit guide, who has others observe voice and accent changes during a séance, probably is. Unless he is also a ventriloquist. Then he's probably not. My discussion of "proof" is always couched in the current tools we have to use in our day and time. These are the statistical tools of math that are used in the scientific method and (many times) involve hypothesis testing (the official technical stats definition). In hypothesis testing "proof" is described in terms of what is called a "confidence interval". Scientists select the "confidence interval" with which they can prove something (usually 95% or 90%). This also is described in terms of "standard deviation". I had one stats teacher in college that would every day bring in a statistical study from current news, and comment on the mathematical accuracy of it or the issues with it. I think in one semester I saw a representation of 2 or 3 only that she said was completely mathematically accurate. I would say about 60% or even 70% of the cases she examined there were problems with the sample space being pointed out. Those methods are used today to prove studies in the softer sciences like psychology or sociology. Also, for the FDA in drug approval. What do I mean by all of that? That 100% proof doesn't happen. 95% proof happens as the most common measure. And even with 95% proof, you're not really certain, you just have a certain confidence interval with the data given. So I tend to look at accounts and individual records with a view towards what type of confidence I could have in asserting their story, fact, presentation. In this discussion I find more than the normal amount of problem with studies. Terms are defined such that opposite spectrum experiences are defined under the same descriptive term, and then that is called an "innate human ability", which circularly defines the term with the outcome you are looking for. I see proving your side as next to impossible as you have to prove a negative that the tongue sample for every person taken has never been understood at any time on Earth. Proving the positive or my side is so much easier, but all it would require is God consuming an offering with fire like against the prophets of Baal in the Old Testament, and I have verses where Jesus describes of people asking "what sign is given that this is true?" and him answering that he was the only sign they'd ever see. So I don't think we have or are going to get very far proving anything. And that's why it really gets me bent when you falsely claim things to be proven.

Well, see if he brings it up in the book you ordered. And please post quotes. I didn't get the read that the actual conversation was recorded, just Le Baron talking about it. Which would more support him faking it than if the conversation itself was recorded. I'll read over it again and see if I can find and online reference. I found it in the library. On xenoglossia, I still can't get past the definition. I've read about 4 contradictory ones now, including the first reference which was in conjunction with automatic writing. That first reference has really nothing at all to do with SIT, so I'm not really sure what to do with that term. Look, this spiritual stuff - and proving it. I see it proven in my life on a consistent basis. I can't prove it to you, and IMO that's for the same reason God isn't going to come down in flames and consume an offering the prophets of Baal have water soaked. It's A.D. not B.C. meaning "after the death of Jesus", not "Before Christ". But yes, in terms of our public conversation, that would be as you state presenting my opinion as fact. Well if TWI was instructing you how to tie your shoes it wouldn't surprise me to see your right ankle being worn around your left ear. And because of the controversy we are highlighting I would not recommend to send you to another human being on the face of the earth for instruction on this. So in my opinion, this is to be worked out between an individual believer and God. Pray. Ask about it. Read. Study. And if you find yourself one day where your prayer life takes a turn that's different, maybe try it rather than immediately ruling it out or associating it with TWI doctrine. If you feel like singing when praying, sing. Or dancing. Or punching a heavy bag with mitts. Or throwing back your shoulders and screaming loud outside with nobody around. Or crying. Or yelling at God. Will all of that get you to SIT? I don't know. But IMO SIT is just a prayer thing. No more. No less. Just develop a relationship, and be a human. That's more important than speaking perfect words of praise in high Klingon ever will be.

And when you're a liar, I guess you keep lying no matter what. I guess it's not really a surprise to me that people who lied about SIT when they were in TWI are now lying about it not being available.

Why do people have such a vested interest in stating publicly that they used to be a fake, but now they aren't and that you should really, really believe them? And they still do follow. Jesus isn't dead.

No, the difference between you and I is when someone claims to have operated the power of God, my reaction is to hear the story to investigate the detail of it. Your reaction - "I don't believe it, unless it took place in a lab with a known scientist and the people involved are available in perpetuity for questioning about their account and background". I mean there was a time in Bible history where God put up with people needing to see proof of the miraculous before believing Him. He accommodated Elijah and the prophets of Baal bringing down fire to consume a waterlogged offering. But when Jesus Christ came, that changed. He was the sign. And he told others signs that would follow them that believed in him.

Yeah - so many like this. I mean I never knew I cared whether Jesus died on a Wednesday or Friday, whether he carried his own cross or not, whether 2 or 4 were crucified with him. I mean I never cared so much how he died, more I cared that I could live through Him. I never really cared that much about the mechanics of prayer either. I just cared that I could talk to my Father through JC, and feel loved by Him and answered by him. Then I heard all sorts of BS and was force-fed a formulaic approach for being happy with my prayer life in TWI. Now I've got people dedicated to proving to me how I'm a faker and have been for decades because what I read in the Bible I could do they say isn't possible today. I mean I love God. And He loves me, just like a little child. People though, they really suck.

Why would you rule out genuine SIT there? I mean I agree with you that he was possessed and the spirit guide likely DID produce a language, then translate it, and then Le Baron identified it. I can't prove that, as Samarin or ANY OTHER LINGUIST did not study the messages that Le Baron wrote down, only read about them. Le Baron could still be lying about it. However, he was a known psychic, and conversations with his "automatism" were present for just about anyone to experience. You see, this is a sample space problem. Any account I bring up that falls short of God performing a miracle right in the scientist's lab and there having the person doing the speaking and the one understanding it both present indefinitely for questioning by anyone who doesn't believe runs into the account being summarily dismissed and it stated "I don't believe it". Other accounts could be genuine SIT, or a faker, or devil spirit possession. No discrimination between them, and the scientists all lump them into the same category. Their categorization is their proof. Their invention of their own terms to describe it - "free vocalization" - that is their proof. I mean, I'm sticking with my own proof. "Free mouthnoiseization". It's an innate human ability. All those guys who claim to be SIT, they are just "free mouthnoising it". And you can't prove they are not. After all, they fit the definition I just made up.

And what does that have to do with anything? Samarin himself could have not included that account on the basis of the source being biased. But he didn't. In fact, he chose the psychic studies as the only ones he DID reference in detail. My challenge to their inclusion is that unless you can PROVE they were faking, you are studying something else, not glossolalia.

Yes the fact that TWI leaders who haven't received revelation from God ever since they sold their soul to be a false prophet and run things by spying, deceit, and informant use is sickening. It was also something I saw in-residence consistently, and saw operated in TWI leadership consistently through decades. And if people want to use that to live life completely by the five senses and reject everything spiritual, then there is absolutely nothing I can do about it, including reason with them. But I'm not going to let them, or fatalistic logic, dictate my faith. There was a movie made about this a while ago, starring Steve Martin, called "Leap of Faith". Steve was a con man working the revival tent scene to make money. He faked everything. Then a little boy got healed in the midst of this, and Martin's character couldn't cope. I guess in the ex-TWI GSC version of this, the boy dies of polio and Steve Martin goes on to bilk millions more? Sorry guys, although I see the dark side of humanity, my faith in God is yet still greater. You guys believe what you want.

Certainly one tactic or approach can be a complete state of unbelief concerning anything supernatural. And unfortunately it is one I encounter far too often among ex-TWI people. The psychological trauma from being in the organization so pervades their entire mind and belief system that to obtain relief the mind utilizes a defense mechanism and summarily rejects anything not based in the senses. Look - the psychics of that day pretty much all described their psychic powers as "spiritual gifts from God". Were they charlatans, were they possessed, or were they a combination of both? I guess you get into the same kind of dilemma there that you do talking about SIT in general. Was it a "genuine" devil spirit, or a "fake" devil spirit? I mean for the sake of this argument to me it would be better to say "who cares?" and remove séances from your sample space just to eliminate the possibility. But I'm finding all sorts of scientific proof related issues with these approaches. You ASSUME your own conclusion that everyone is faking it, thus lump all the occurrences including devil-inspired, God-inspired, faker-inspired under the same label of "free vocalization". I guess my conclusion is that I haven't read an unbiased study of this topic yet.

He must have been quite an exceptional one, then. He convinced a leading psychologist of his time, William James, to submit his account to the Society for Psychic Research and stake his reputation on his conclusion that something spiritual was going on. That is why we can read it today.

Wow - try to hold it together here Raf. I'm not misrepresenting anything you said. I just am asking you questions. Most modern Christians would accept Le Baron's account as possession. Not just the charismatic ones. Yet you are violently reacting and calling me names like gullible. You have to admit, it does lead you to ask questions concerning bias there. So once again, do you believe possession is possible? If so, under what circumstances? Other readers who Raf is not upset at, does this seem like an Inquisition to you?

Wow. That's awesome. In the very least he will find companionship with others that have a similar experience with the disease, and an ongoing membership in a group that helps them prove they beat the disease.

The account itself did not have the entire conversation in another language recorded. By Le Baron's account, he wrote "some of the terms" down on a piece of paper, then looked them up later to identify the language. I don't believe Samarin ever saw the terms recognized to corroborate that they were or were not known languages. OK, for reals. Let me ask you this - do you believe that there are really spirit beings out there that are devil spirits? Do you believe it is possible to be possessed? You know, I'm really glad we are having this part of the conversation. It is showing a side to your spiritual beliefs that obviously is influencing your position that I never identified before, and neither did other readers if I had to guess. It's good that it's coming out.

Wow. Le Baron, who describes his experience as talking to a "psychic automatism", you are saying "did not operate a devil spirit". And you're not saying "in my opinion". So this is proven, right? Have you actually read the interaction? It reads like a conversation back and forth between two people in English. Le Baron's account, which was written. Him talking to his "psychic automatism", and it answering him back. Then on one day, it changed to being another language, but the automatism translated it into English for Le Baron. He wrote down the words later, and said they were from two known languages. This type of experience is the polar opposite of anyone saying "lo shanta" in a prayer meeting. I believe this account shows Le Baron had a spirit guide, which was devil spirit. It was one he was used to having a conversation with as a separate and distinct entity from himself. But believe what you will. I suppose the rejection of ALL THINGS in the spirit realm is one way to deal with post TWI integration. Too narrow. There was a conversation back and forth between two "people". It was in English. Then one morning it was largely in another language, except after a while the other "person" translated it. The first person (Le Baron) wrote down some of the words, not the entire messages. He then identified the languages involved. However, this experience was different than modern accounts of glossolalia, and Samarin notes this in the opening p. 50 of the article. Why? It's highly likely that they were not born again. I am, so labeling an experience conversing with a spirit guide to me is a lot different than SIT. I don't have the bejeezus frightened out of me. Even if I was there in the room, I'd note it, and label the information coming from the conversation as questionable as to it's contribution to my overall well-being. I guess I won't recount to you the time I had going to a séance with a girl friend of mine, sitting quietly in a chair and SIT to myself without saying a word, and having the medium go absolutely bat-$h1t crazy saying she couldn't read anything. Her German shepherd was pacing back and forth whining at me. Then we left, looked at each other, and said "wow, that was weird". Now from a spiritual perspective, her dog housed her spirit guide, the "airwaves" between them was disturbed by God via me spiritually, and the result was clouded. Well, if you don't want to acknowledge or deal with things in the spirit realm, I guess I see how you would have that perspective. Maybe Samarin too.

It's a problem that many of the splinter groups face. Their ordination certificate is filed at the state, and the supporting org no longer supports that. So the splinter groups have some issues, and TWI communicates to the state the ordination is no longer supported by the org. The fact that you can get ordained by sending in two Cheerios box top pictures on the Internet nowadays kind of makes that a moot point. And also, the Cheerios offer version will probably make you a whole lot less of an @$$h0l3 too.

Socrates told Plato at the beginning of their philosophical discussion "if you are I are going to converse together, we must first define our terms". If the terms in a logical premise are problematic, then the premise itself is problematic. I see using a term as the major descriptive noun in a logical premise that is imprecise to the extent that it allows polar opposite experiences under the same definition as problematic. Thus I see the major premise it helps define as problematic. I can see where that might be a challenge to you with what you consider "logic".

Hey, I can make up a term too. Let's call it "free mouthnoiseization". Since it's my term, I can both declare it as an "innate human ability" and define it to mean whatever I want. I say it applies to discussions with spirit guides, arguments with relatives, making up child-like languages (and I will include pig latin because I like it), and blowing bubbles in a swimming pool IF you are using your vocal chords. So from here on out, because I am not only so spiritual for making up the term "free mouthnoiseization", but I am also so scientific, I am going to refuse to discuss SIT any more without re-labeling the term "free mouthnoiseization". Free mouthnoiseization has been proven as an innate human ability. And any logical conclusion that you arrive at that leads you to conclude otherwise is a demonstrably false conclusion. :confused:

OldSkool, I get a little bent when I see people using the same tactics as I saw used in TWI leadership. Repeating their position, which is opinion, as fact over and over and over page after page. It's like TWI indoctrination. Sketchy research, made-up words, and when their BS gets called out by logic, resorting to name-calling and an arrogant look-down-the-nose attitude being unwilling to converse on the topic any more. To me, it reminds me of trying to have a conversation with Rosalie on the topic of debt. It tees me off.

Do you mind untwisting the little logic going on in your skull here that produced this mini-victory dance celebration that reminds me of the Iraqi minister of defense? Samarin is labeling conversations with devil spirits, people making up gibberish languages, and modern SIT THE SAME THING. And saying in his opinion we should accept them all as the same thing. Note his use of the word "opinion" there. I know it's hard for you. I know you really want him to use the word "proven". Hmmm. The Catholic account where the guy came up and spoke Persian to the SIT speaker expecting him to understand because he spoke perfect Persian in his tongue didn't seem to think the tongue lacked components that qualify it as a "language".

Free vocalization was just fine as a "given" in this conversation until I started reading closely what was meant by the definition. The closer I looked, the sketchier the definition looked. The fact that you were happier when it was a "given" in the conversation than you are now calling it into question to me illustrates that you are really not seeking for the truth here. You are seeking for your premise to be proven, that everyone like you was and is faking it SIT in modern times. And you will sacrifice definitions, accounts, terms, whatever to end up justified on that in your own mind. But honest investigation? Nowhere near. Rationalization? Pretty much fits what I see in that psychological term.

And just to illustrate my point one more time, here's Raf to the rescue. "To deny the demonstrated, proven existence of an innate human ability that a linguist sympathetic to the possibility of SIT has labeled free vocalization...." Look, the term labeled "free vocalization" has been proven to include SIT, fakers, and conversations with mediums. Proven. Not opinion. Proven. Now if a rational human being wants to conclude that all 3 of those things are the same and they represent "an innate human ability" then I say that's their problem. But it certainly isn't anything "proven".

Here's the last 6 lines quoted from Samarin p. 50 P2. word for word. This way we don't mix in your opinion and toilet paper. "In this clinical self-analysis we read that Le Baron had been getting messages from what he called his "psychic automaton" in English; then even carried on conversation. Then one Sunday morning, during one of these private conversations in his hotel room, another "language" replaced English. Because he wrote down many of the messages he got on subsequent occasions, along with their translations (from the same psychic automatism), we are able to compare Le Baron's glossolalia with samples from Americans today. They are, in my opinion, so much alike that we must accept all as manifestations of the same linguistic phenomenon". So here, we have a medium and his spirit guide talking to him in another language. And Samarin's conclusion? IT'S THE SAME AS SIT. I provided another quote of Le Baron's complete account, where he identified two non-Aryan languages in the message from his spirit guide. Samarin here doesn't mention anything about those languages. Did he check them out? We don't know. All we know is that Samarin states an opinion on it. Here, we can give Samarin so much more credit than we can his main proponents like Raf. When he is stating his opinion, mostly he uses the words "in my opinion". So in Samarin's opinion a conversation with a devil spirit in another language has to be the same thing as all the other phenomenon. Sorry Samarin. I DON'T ACCEPT YOUR OPINION ON IT. I think a conversation with a devil spirit is far different than SIT.