WordWolf

If you have one, take it.

Romeo + Juliet Brian Dennehy Cocoon

Only knew Shelley Winters was in it from a line a comedienne said some time ago, when doing a show where the ceiling had an air vent really high up. IIRC, it was Paula Poundstone.

"What did my approach to the discussion say?" Strategies in discussion are like strategies in a courtroom, and certain gambits play to certain strengths and minimize certain weaknesses. Just like there's other posters who will show up on a thread and completely change the subject-because they can't refute the thread and can't silence it, so they try to divert it. It becomes a "tell" and actually tells you why they're posting. I saw what I consider a "defensive" strategy. If I was an attorney defending a guilty client (one reason I refused to consider law as a career was this was a possibility), I would use this strategy. Discredit the expert analysis, fog the issues, all to try to win the case by blurring the lines. I saw some amazing digressions where the meaning of language was challenged, and report results were creatively reinterpreted, and so on. It was the natural strategy for someone trying to "win on points" and not on the facts. That's what it told me. And I wasn't going to get into it, but you did ask. "I don't accept carrying the blame for your decision on my approach." I said it HELPED convince me. You were unable to provide a logical "argument" for the side I wanted to see win. Neither was I. Furthermore, you fell on strategies used by those who don't have the facts on their side. To me, that lampshaded the same points. "My "approach" from my perspective is that tongues for me is / was / will be faith based. Part of a Christian's private prayer life if they choose. " That's your PERSPECTIVE. In the thread, you approached it in a specific way, and THAT's what I noted. A) I did make a posting error. My example was my point-it was not identified as a known language. I meant to say that, but it was late and I was tired. But the pauses, again, would characterize something like :"free vocalization" just as much as the samples. B) Yes they did. C) Yes they did. You kept selectively referring to parts of their checklist while skipping the other parts. And again here- the trick is not to distinguish between animal communication "baa baa" and human communication, but between a real human language and an absence of a human language underpinning the sounds. Anecdotes are NEVER proof. I'll get into that when I have time.

Then what about "The Poseidon Adventure"?

I like you, chockfull, really I do, but your posts on that long thread helped convince me my previous position was wrong. Your approach to the discussion said quite a bit. Others can read the thread to their satisfaction. As concerning languages and the recorded examples, I came away with the following: A) At no time was an actual language produced ("He's speaking Ukranian! He's praising Jesus!") B) At no time was a recording identified as qualifying as a language unknown to the expert ("I've never heard this language, but this meets all the requirements of a language, so it is one nonetheless!" ) C) Recordings were never found to match ALL the criteria of a language-and ALL would have to be met to confirm it's a language. Recordings were found to have SOME of the criteria of a language- but so would an actor doing "free vocalization." It's not noteworthy that the recording was out loud, had syllables, and pauses. We all communicate out loud with syllables and pauses, so even an attempt to fake a language should have THAT property. In other words, the recordings met the same criteria as free vocalization would, and failed the same criteria that free vocalization would. (As someone who believed in SIT at the time, I found that rather telling-and annoying. It undermined the position I held at the time. I think further rehashing will hit the same reefs as before, but I'm willing to let the new guy pick which reef he wants to hit.

I wasn't. I'm just amazed it took you this long to ponder this. I was asking about this back in the 1980s while IN twi. Raf should remember me asking, in fact. My personal conclusion at the time-which I have never articulated until this moment was: The tongues would not appear in any non-verbal, non-vocal language. So, no "tongues" in writing, no "tongues" in sign language. The person could still SIT but it would only be "spiritual" and not observable. Prophecy could be done in a sign language, but with no audible "tongue", I would have expected no TIP interpretation for a "silent tongue." Looking back, that's as good an answer as any I ever got in twi. And makes about as much sense. or as little.

"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.

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.

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.)

"

"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.....

Since we're going around in circles on SIT again, I thought it made sense to have a fresh, new thread in which to rehash the same points without anyone changing their minds on anything. So, here it is. As for the previous threads, they can be reread for hours and hours of discussion, much of which made legitimate points that were worth posting and reading. For those who want to know about the secular activity named "free vocalization" (important if you want to discuss the modern practice called SIT, there's a separate thread just for that here: If one feels the need to actually get back into the discussion of what a language IS and IS NOT, and how they work, we had this thread: The discussion of SIT from the skeptical perspective is here: The very long thread in About the Way had most of the discussion. An attempt at restarting that thread was also made. Finally, there was an original thread in Doctrinal about this one. Anyone who wants to reference the material from those threads can certainly do so.

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.

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?

Yes. I was getting ready to cite Dracula, Saruman, and Count Dooku if nobody got the current list.

Dr Fu Manchu Grigori Rasputin Mycroft Holmes Jonathan Blair Bernard Day Chris Lewis Sir Felix Raybourne Georges Seurat Harry Cooper Lt Cdr Dick Raikes, RN Karaga Pasha John Preston Franz Vermes Gil Rossi Charles Highbury Marquis St. Evremonde Sir Henry Baskerville Dr. Pierre Gerard Prof. Alan Driscoll Paul Allen Capt. Wolfgang von Kleinschmidt Mephistoles Count Ludwig Karnstein Prof. Karl Meister Franklyn Marsh Sir Matthew Phillips Philippe Darvas Godfrey Hanson Lord George Jeffreys John Reid Col. Charles Bingham James Hildern Sir Alexander Saxton Lord Summerisle Dr. Stephen Hayward Martin Wallace Charlemagne Francisco Scaramanga Dr Catheter Dr Wilbur Wonka The Jabberwock Sherlock Holmes

No, and I'll be a tiny bit surprised if you've NEVER seen ANY of the movies in which he played those roles. I'm hoping that I can add roles tomorrow that are better-known without giving it away completely.

Here's how the quotes went: "Hold it! You'd never last five minutes in a New York subway!" *WHAM* *WHAM* "Now, THAT's how it's done!" MadDog, during the fight with the biker gang at the road closing. "You go find a doctor. Get me Dr. Kildare. Get me Dr. Livingston. Get me Dr. Frankenstein. Just get me a doctor!" "I'm Nikolas Van Helsing, professor of proctology and other related tendencies. A graduate of the University of Rangoon. And assorted night classes at the Knoxville Tennessee school of faith healing." "You may be a little over-qualified for this job." "I'm sure that doctor's a very sweet man, basically." "Oh, thank you." "But don't you EVER tell me where you found him. EVER." The ambulance needed a new doctor at the last minute. They got Jack Elam as a really weird MD. " I'd like to welcome you all to an event that's sometimes been called the Automotive counterpart to the Bay of Pigs." The exposition dump at the beginning of the race began with this line-said by the man whose race the movie was based on. "I just want to thank you for informin' them about us back in Missouri. You know, how we're flashers and sex maniacs." "Well, I was just repayin' you for what you and the chocolate monk did back in Ohio." The 2 "priests" in the Ferrari, and the ambulance, their crews talking over sabotaging each other during the race. "Oh, what is there to understand? I'm looking at my son, Seymour Goldfarb, Jr., son of Seymour Goldfarb, God rest his soul, and heir to the Goldfarb Girdles fortune. And what is he doing? Walking around, acting like he was some goy movie star named Roger Moore. And for this I sent you to the best schools? For this I'm spending eight thousand on orthodonture work? For this I'm going broke paying that Beverly Hills analyst?" A movie with a man deluded into thinking he's Roger Moore? How many of those do you know? (Played by RM, of course.) "Come on! 1000 miles on one wheel? We're trying to win a race, not set a record! " The motorcycle, with the fat guy in back, causing the cycle to operate in a continuous wheelie. "Of course you know certain skeptics note that perhaps 10,000 of the nations's most elite highway patrolmen are out there waiting for us after we start, but let's stay positively: Think of the fact that there's not one state in the 50 that has the death penalty for speeding... although I'm not so sure about Ohio." Finishing the exposition dump preceding the race. (Same speaker, still speaking.) "I wonder why that guy parked his truck in the lobby?" "Only in America! Get me 12 suites, better yet, the entire floor!" The sheik, upon arriving at the hotel, the night before the race. "Why'd he call me Shorty?? "'Cause you're small. Small. S - M - all." The 2 "priests", Dean Martin and Sammy Davis Jr. I thought I was going to have to quote titular lines soon.

Yes, the Cannonball Run.

"Hold it! You'd never last five minutes in a New York subway!" *WHAM* *WHAM* "Now, THAT's how it's done!" "You go find a doctor. Get me Dr. Kildare. Get me Dr. Livingston. Get me Dr. Frankenstein. Just get me a doctor!" "I'm Nikolas Van Helsing, professor of proctology and other related tendencies. A graduate of the University of Rangoon. And assorted night classes at the Knoxville Tennessee school of faith healing." "You may be a little over-qualified for this job." "I'm sure that doctor's a very sweet man, basically." "Oh, thank you." "But don't you EVER tell me where you found him. EVER." " I'd like to welcome you all to an event that's sometimes been called the Automotive counterpart to the Bay of Pigs." "I just want to thank you for informin' them about us back in Missouri. You know, how we're flashers and sex maniacs." "Well, I was just repayin' you for what you and the chocolate monk did back in Ohio." "Oh, what is there to understand? I'm looking at my son, Seymour Goldfarb, Jr., son of Seymour Goldfarb, God rest his soul, and heir to the Goldfarb Girdles fortune. And what is he doing? Walking around, acting like he was some goy movie star named Roger Moore. And for this I sent you to the best schools? For this I'm spending eight thousand on orthodonture work? For this I'm going broke paying that Beverly Hills analyst?" "Come on! 1000 miles on one wheel? We're trying to win a race, not set a record! " "Of course you know certain skeptics note that perhaps 10,000 of the nations's most elite highway patrolmen are out there waiting for us after we start, but let's stay positively: Think of the fact that there's not one state in the 50 that has the death penalty for speeding... although I'm not so sure about Ohio." "I wonder why that guy parked his truck in the lobby?" "Only in America! Get me 12 suites, better yet, the entire floor!" "Why'd he call me Shorty?? "'Cause you're small. Small. S - M - all."

"So now you'd better stop, and rebuild all your ruins. For peace and trust can win the day, in spite of all your losing." How soft your fields so green. Can whisper tales of gore. Of how we calmed the tides of war. We are your overlords."

Dr Fu Manchu Grigori Rasputin Mycroft Holmes Jonathan Blair Bernard Day Chris Lewis Sir Felix Raybourne Georges Seurat Harry Cooper Lt Cdr Dick Raikes, RN Karaga Pasha John Preston Franz Vermes Gil Rossi Charles Highbury Marquis St. Evremonde Sir Henry Baskerville Dr. Pierre Gerard Prof. Alan Driscoll Paul Allen Capt. Wolfgang von Kleinschmidt[/b] Mephistoles Count Ludwig Karnstein Prof. Karl Meister Franklyn Marsh Sir Matthew Phillips Philippe Darvas Godfrey Hanson Lord George Jeffreys John Reid Col. Charles Bingham James Hildern Sir Alexander Saxton Lord Summerisle Dr. Stephen Hayward Martin Wallace

Not Alan Rickman. And I'll be posting more obvious names soon. I wanted to establish he's had a long career, and one of you MIGHT have recognized something off that list already.

Dr Fu Manchu Grigori Rasputin Mycroft Holmes Jonathan Blair Bernard Day Chris Lewis Sir Felix Raybourne Georges Seurat Harry Cooper Lt Cdr Dick Raikes, RN Karaga Pasha John Preston Franz Vermes Gil Rossi Charles Highbury