WordWolf

It's what's called a "FALSE DILEMMA." =============== https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma#Black-and-white_thinking "A false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice, black-and/or-white thinking, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses) is a type of logical fallacy that involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option. The options may be a position that is between the two extremes (such as when there are shades of grey) or may be a completely different alternative. False dilemma can arise intentionally, when fallacy is used in an attempt to force a choice (such as, in some contexts, the assertion that "if you are not with us, you are against us"). But the fallacy can also arise simply by accidental omission of additional options rather than by deliberate deception." ================== Nobody on this thread has said "Since modern SIT is not Biblical SIT, then there's no modern miracles, God doesn't work in people's lives, etc." What's been said is "Modern SIT is not Biblical SIT." Period. NO "therefore." It's rather DIShonest that this thread has been treated NOT as an honest discussion about the modern phenomenon of modern SIT, but rather as a referendum on the power of God in people's lives nowadays. I mentioned something to this effect and the poster doing it completely blew it off and continued to do it. The whole thing is based on "If I believe God acts miraculously in people's lives now, then I have to believe modern SIT is the same as Biblical SIT, and I have to swallow all claims of supernatural as actual supernatural occurrences." The reasoning is flawed, as one can see as soon as that's stated outright. It's not all or nothing.

They'd agree he was CLAIMING possession. But with no other evidence, any good actor could produce the same results. Here's what we got: -We have a man who claimed to be in supernatural contact with something. (Anyone can CLAIM anything.) -He carried on a monologue that looked like a dialogue-2 voices, 2 methods of speaking, 2 attitudes, etc. (ANY actor should be able to pull that one off. I've pulled that one off, and it was by request. And I'm really not much of an actor.) -He claimed to have produced a foreign language. (Anyone can CLAIM anything.) -He produced some non-English words. (Anyone can do that, too.) -When the non-English words were examined, they were determined to be nonsense and NOT the claimed language. (Anyone can produce nonsense.) So, there is no need to suppose possession here. Any actor could manage this. The only difference is, the actor does it on stage, and the conman does it offstage. Never begin by supposing some fantastical result happened. First, suppose something everyday happened, then see if you can eliminate all the normal possibilities. After they're gone, THEN you can suppose something fantastical happened- and you'll be more sure of your answer. twi pulled this all the time. Right after vpw died, geer knew about the conferences the top guys at hq had- and they ALL began IMMEDIATELY thinking Divine Revelation told him. Then one guy in the room laughed and stopped them- he had spoken to geer on the phone. Nobody suspected either someone informing him (the obvious answer) or something like him bugging the rooms (also a mundane answer but less likely.) I wouldn't be proud of that leap if I was them.

If true, that tells us nothing. Ever read some of the other accounts for things submitted before the Society for Psychic Research? The organization was a product of its times. "Educated" people of that day were expected to discard all claims of anything religious, devout or holy. They were instead expected to make leaps of faith concerning the "psychic" or anything involving a "medium". All such claims were submitted to rooms of people who WANTED to believe them and prepared themselves TO believe them. That's why Houdini was such a oontroversial figure in his time. He called them all on their fakery the same way "the Amazing Randi" does nowadays. (Where do you think Randi got the idea?) And Psychology has had many respectable people in the field down the centuries- and a number of fools and fanatics, just like any other field. That A Psychologist said something was true would make me look into it, but I'd have to evaluate the evidence. I won't make a leap of faith about it before doing that. EXCEPTIONAL fakers and charlatans have been around for centuries. Stage magician Dan Korem has put forth an "argument" that Pharoah's magicians in Exodus were ALL stage magicians, and gave examples of how to do what they did using simple tricks and simple tools, dressed up as supernatural. Looking it over, I think he was right.

It is occasionally disturbing for me to discover the heights to which some Christians will elevate the reputation of satanic powers in the absence of anything approaching credible evidence. I've had Christians claim that possession and things like that can produce Hollywood-like effects, people floating around rooms, people slamming into walls, people transforming and producing functional claws, reaching into someone's guts and removing a curse, etc. I once was aware of an incident that happened at my old high school. One teacher there taught for her entire professional career. I met someone who was in her very first year of teaching, and someone who was in her very last year of teaching. I sat in her class, and of course knew other people that did so. Once, the guy who sat in her FIRST year told about an incident DURING his class. The students were unruly, and refused to settle down. A few threw paper airplanes. Apparently, she raised her voice like them, and threw a paper airplane like them, and thought she could reason with them- how do you feel with someone else throwing a paper airplane at you, and yelling. It didn't work. The next day, same class, the principal of the time came in and asked her to come out into the hall to speak with him. That was the last that student ever saw of her. Decades later, his son went to the same school and got the same teacher. "This is the crazy woman I told you about!" She even recognized him. Michael (the Dad) went in for parent-teacher conferences. "Oh, I remember you, Stanley. What year?" (She forgot his name but knew he was a student from long ago.) About 2-3 years later, I heard from a different student that they'd heard that she'd been taken out of the class for jumping on her desk, ripping her clothes off, and barking like a dog. I corrected them in detail. What was the difference between the 2 accounts? Someone who wasn't there added lots of dramatic detail to what actually happened. (Probably several someones over several retellings.) I've seen 20/20, where John Stossel convinced a voodoo witch doctor to put a death curse on him (Stossel.) They filmed the whole thing. The guy had a HECK of an act. He put lots of drama into it. The guy put forth his best effort into it. That was back in the 80s, and Stossell's still alive as of this posting. There's lots of reasons to hear wild accounts of dramatic supernatural things happening nowadays. Sometimes people were there and choose to lie because it's a LOT more interesting. (That happens with different types of eyewitness accounts of EVERYTHING.) More often, what they saw was what they THOUGHT they saw. Prime an audience to believe you're going to do something supernatural, then do something and produce a physical effect. Many gullible people will think it was supernatural. I've seen mind-readers who used hidden microphones, curse-breakers who palmed an object and "made it appear", and other things. It's all based on how good a stage-show they did, and how gullible the audience was. vpw was uneducated in general, at least compared to a lot of us. He saw a number of the same things. He either was gullible and uneducated enough to think they were all actually supernatural, or he knew it was all faked and lied to us in order to get us to fear and circle the wagons closer. ========================= Religion seems to be a fertile ground for those who produce such effects, or who claim to produce such effects, and for people who believe they did it. There's a man (dead now) who claimed he received a special set of gold plates from God Almighty. He claimed they were written in "reformed Egyptian". He was able to read them due to some miracle involving some miraculous stone he wore in his hat, but that the plates were actually in Egyptian, and claimed he sent them to a linguist who confirmed it. Naturally, he refused to let anyone SEE the plates other than that. When the linguist was asked, he said he saw the plates, and their contents were a mix of Egyptian and a few other things, and that it was nonsense, gobbledegook, words strung together from one language or another and failing to make coherent sentences even if all translated into English. Some people to this day still believe in these gold plates. There's a man (dead now) who claimed he spoke by operation of some spirit, and produced a specific, current, obscure language he did not speak-proof of the supernatural origin of the words. When an actual linguist looked over his claim, he concluded there was no such production of words in that language. In other words, the man made wild claims of the supernatural, insisted he did it, and insisted it was real- and an expert confirmed the opposite, that he made things up instead. Some people will still believe the man spoke in some other language and that it had a supernatural origin. Everyone else will conclude he faked it and lied a lot. Whether he really thought it was real, or if he knew it was a fake, is a different subject and has nothing to do with whether it was real or a fake.

Exactly. Amazing how a product can rescue us from the horror of static cling, for example. I remember someone posting about rock climbing or rappelling at LEAD, and saying they were shouting "All I wanted was a class on the Bible!"

Or a "waste management artisan", in Bloom County. Or saying someone is supposed to be "sanctioned" when the job is an assassination.

Not Batman. And Batman's gadgets are different-rarely does he use sonics or gas-especially on TV. Spock claimed it was an ancestor of his who made Sherlock's famous quote. He never actually said Sherlock WAS the ancestor. He probably meant the ancestor made the same quote. (That's actually not impossible- given trillions more people than on the Earth, certain comments are more likely to be invented more than once.)

This OTHER hero is a relative of the Lone Ranger. Really. And had his own television show. And a side-kick. And cool gadgets...including a sonic one and a gas one.

If you really think "burden of proof" is a "FALLACY", you really have been going on without TRYING to understand what you're talking about. Burden of Proof is an important part of discussion, debate, and legal proceedings for a very, very long time. The claim was made decades ago. vpw put forth that the modern SIT is the same as the Biblical SIT and is supernatural. We all bought into it for decades, and some of us still do. Decades later, Raf said "Wait a minute" then said "PROVE Claim A. PROVE that modern is the same as Biblical and is supernatural." That means the burden of proof is on the side making the extraordinary claim. This is easy for most people to get. This thread began DECADES after Claim A was made, and challenges Claim A. Claim A came first. It was "the big fat claim" that we were all doing something supernatural and equal to that done on Pentecost despite them not resembling each other. That was before THIS THREAD ever entered. One side has made an extraordinary claim. The other side said "Prove it." The side claiming Biblical SIT=modern SIT has the burden of proof.

THAT's how it's done. twi will never understand that. Some people who were in twi had Christian compassion IN SPITE OF twi. twi "training" is training in LOYALTY, shutting OFF compassion, and giving dry Bible lessons when someone needs love and compassion. For those who don't know, it started with vpw. lcm documented an example in his own book. Someone on-grounds in twi's corps program had some sort of neurological problem and had some sort of attack. twi had NO emergency contingencies, and did nothing for this person. vpw CONFRONTED the person DURING THE ATTACK FOR HAVING AN ATTACK. That's like finding someone on the floor with heart trouble and confronting them for having heart trouble. When the person was able to function, vpw SENT HIM HOME. Not to A HOSPITAL, he sent him home. And not "we're taking you to your front door and calling your family", not "We're putting you on a plane and your family will meet you at the airport", not "we're driving you home and someone will sit with you while we drive." No, they PUT HIM ON A BUS in his condition. lcm actually cared that another human being was in such a state, but vpw insisted he learn to shut off compassion. He told lcm to FORGET ABOUT HIM, and that the guy would get home "EVENTUALLY." A WEEK OR MORE later, the guy turned up. We never did find out what happened to the guy- most of the country can be reached within 4 days. (NYC to Los Angeles is under 3 days in either direction-I just checked. Ohio is closer to either coast and should make it about 3-4 days, tops, except to Alaska/Hawaii.)

The Lone Ranger! BTW, "kemo sabe" means something in 3 "native" languages. In 2 of them, it means "white shirt." The Lone Ranger DOES wear a white shirt in what I've seen. In the other one, it means "soggy shrub." (My source for that: "Lightning Never Strikes Twice (and other false facts)".

So, you're claiming the absence of you having posted that. The burden of proof is on chockfull to link to even one post where you said exactly that. If chockfull can do that, it's a slam-dunk. Really, burden of proof, in principle, is easy to understand. We have an accidental example of it right here.

I think most of the rules are more "conventions" and "customs" more than approaching laws. It's much the same as me having several "Doctor" titles- all of them granted here (on the GSC), and all of them worth the ink they were printed on. I don't have an ACCREDITED Doctor title- THOSE have lots of rules. We have posters who got those. The IDEA is that ministers are supposed to MINISTER, to SERVE, not BE SERVED. It would help if going over what "ministering" means was mandatory to all Christian groups. Naturally, in twi and offshoots, that's glossed over lightly if it EVER comes up. "PASTOR" is another term that isn't understood so well. It's from the word for "shepherd." People in Jesus' time in Palestine understood when Jesus said he was the Good Shepherd who gives his life for the sheep. Nowadays, people don't understand what a shepherd does when the sheep are lost, hurt, or threatened. If they did, they'd have higher expectations for those who claim to "PASTOR" them.

Actually, I think I'll wait a month or so before starting a thread that looks over that premise from the verse-by-verse end. (A Doctrinal thread in that forum, of course.) If the results go that way, I reserve the right to dispute it- but I'll wait until I have something more substantial than "I don't like your conclusions and I like my conclusions", which is pretty much all I have to go with today. "I'M Spartacus!" "I'M Spartacus!" I may point this to the Mrs and see if she wants to reply to that one! On a serious note, Paw's met us both face-to-face, as have a few other posters down the years. (Paw's met me and Raf, not me and my Mrs)

Any acting student will encounter these exercises-and sooner rather than later. (I encountered them, and my acting studies were very short-which means they're pretty much around the beginning exercises.) I've been in classes where it was done. I've seen stand-up comedians do it on television. I've seen SMALL CHILDREN do it for entertainment- which they came up with on their own. None of them CALLED IT "free vocalization", but that's what it was. Any acting teacher (and most students), for that matter, could set up an exercise where the students set up a skit, setting it in a religious revival, church meeting, or whatever, announce the holy speaker, and have the actor do free vocalization. With enough props, it would look and sound exactly like any modern SIT church usage. With a different setup, the same exercise would be indistinguishable from a twi meeting complete with "manifestations." For that matter, lots of people who do things CLAIM they do them "supernaturally." Some of them-who are non-Christians, claim to "speak in tongues" (by that name or another) and do free vocalization dressed up to look special and holy. It's no different than the actors doing it-except this person MIGHT actually THINK it was supernatural and not mundane. This doesn't make it any less mundane. There are, of course, undocumented and unconfirmed claims that some of THOSE people produced an actual language they didn't understand. Hokum. When it comes to claims of the superstitious and occult, the vast majority have been nothing more than wishful thinking, showmanship, and gullible people seeing what they expected to see or WANTED to see. So, really, here's what that looks like. "I don't want to believe we were deceived and I'm being deceived now. I insist SIT accounts really ARE supernatural and produce languages. Since non-Christians are supposedly doing the same thing, instead of saying it's not supernatural in either case, I will insist it's supernatural in BOTH cases! So, non-Christians who do that are tapping into a devil or are possessed!" Most of us think it's more likely that: small children, acting students, televangelists, witch doctors, and devout Christians are all doing the same mundane activity, each for different reasons, than small children, acting students and witch doctors are all getting possessed (or partly possessed), while televangelists and devout Christians are tapping into God, and it looks EXACTLY THE SAME and works EXACTLY THE SAME as the children and the acting students. Not getting that doesn't make you more devout or steadfast. Getting it doesn't make us any less devout.

[Actually, by the rules of formal discussion and debate, this is simple. The subject is as follows: Side A: "Modern SIT is the same thing as Biblical SIT- a supernatural thing impossible to do without supernatural assistance." (I might also call that "Pentecost SIT", or "original SIT.") Side B: "Modern SIT is nothing like Biblical SIT- it is something any person can do, and those doing it THINK they are doing something that requires supernatural assistance like Biblical SIT, when they are not." Thus, Side B is stating, simply put, that Side A is making an extraordinary claim that has been unproven. Side A is making an extraordinary claim that must be proven if it is to stand. It's the same thing when some people claim Astronauts walked on the Moon. Side B claims they did not, so Side A then has to prove the Astronauts DID. Claims about evidence being faked or news reports being faked are secondary to the initial claim. (If they DID walk on the Moon and that's proven, nobody cares if someone faked a news report about a real event.) Therefore, Raf has provided evidence that supports the idea that all modern SIT is not what is claimed. However, he doesn't HAVE to do that- his side can be represented just as well by saying "Prove the claim." However, he's shown why the claim should be doubted-as if any claim shouldn't be required to be proven to some degree, partly because all of us at one time DIDN'T doubt it. Perhaps I skipped over something. Raf posted-over 100 times- that "modern SIT is not a language" AND "that is a proven fact and undisputed"? I'd gotten the impression that he keeps asking for evidence TO dispute that, evidence that modern SIT IS a language. That's your claim, I for one would be thrilled to see some hard evidence of it. I really do WANT to agree with your position, but there seems to be nothing to support that stance. I can't, in good faith, take a position when I can find evidence disputing it and no evidence supporting it.

It would certainly end the discussion and produce a slam-dunk for one side. The other side, by definition, can't prove a negative, so they can't produce a slam-dunk. What they CAN do is show that there's evidence for the negative, and no evidence for the positive. That's already happened here. So, we have one side saying "modern CLAIMS of SIT are nothing of the kind. They are free vocalization, and are produced by people who were taught they're doing the original SIT, want to do the original SIT, and care about godly things. So, they want to believe the 2 are the same, and were taught they are the same. So, they believe they are the same. However, there's no evidence to support this belief." That side's shown that there's evidence to support this, and there seems to be none supporting the claim that they ARE the same. That means it's up to the other side to either say "Based on the evidence, I'm forced to agree, or at least withdraw from the discussion since I can't honestly refute them" or "They are the same, and I shall provide the proof as follows". Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

That's the next question. He gave no source, so that's not so much a "quote" as a "rumor", though, so I want to know if he made it up or if I can see it's legitimate. Further, there's occasional wikipedia vandalism, so I wanted to check if it was legitimately posted THERE if it was ever there. THEN I'd like to know what relevance it has to this discussion-if any.

"quote from wikipedia" How about at least telling us what page that was from so we can find it in the original without a long search for the relevant paragraph on a dozen related pages? If you tried, you could post a direct link to the page, but you can post its name without any skill at posting.

No, saying that he did his own singing told me who it is. "Go to commercial! Go to commercial! Cheer if you love DYNAMO! ================== Ok, now who else was in the movie. I can't remember what movies Richard Dawson did, and I don't know if Dweezil Zappa did anything else. And so on. So, I'm going with the obvious connection. Arnold Schwarzenegger Twins D.... Oops, skipped a step. THE RUNNING MAN Arnold Schwarzenegger Twins

Ok, I checked and confirmed I was correct, so we can move on. ================================== "I used to rule the world. Seas would rise when I gave the word. Now in the morning, I sleep alone, Sweep the streets I used to own. I used to roll the dice Feel the fear in my enemy's eyes. Listen as the crowd would sing: "Now the old king is dead! Long live the king!""

I'm a big fan of a lot of positive things. I'm a critic of sycophantic advertisements or outright lies. Actually, I wandered by at that moment and you REQUESTED responses. Now that you have them, you're upset because you didn't get the response you WANTED. And there's that FICTION again that it was something "GOOD." There's plenty "GOOD" in cyberspace and I can tell the difference. I have a life. If you'll check your dates, one of your posts I responded to recently was months or years old. I happened across it recently. Have I become your enemy because I tell you the truth? Heh. "Ï want your honest opinions. Unless you disagree with me-then I want people to ignore your opinion."

BTW, chockful.... In case you're wondering if Raf is being fair with you... I asked him earlier to take it down a notch or 2. Initially, he disagreed, but obviously he reconsidered, since for several days he's been VERY nice about all this. He took it down so many notches I can't see where it fell, so to speak. In other words, I've been monitoring how nice he's been posting, and he's been a lot nicer with you than you have with him, which is not what I was expecting. Please take a few deep breaths, wait and come back to the thread, and please reconsider there might be nicer ways to make the same points. You've been disagreeing with him, but you can disagree without being "disagreeable." It weakens your position in the eyes of the readers if you're responding to his points with name-calling. Honestly, I'd LIKE to agree with you, but you need to bring more substance to the table and less reacting before I can even consider it. You're not giving me any reason to agree.

The third one is a plagiarized ripoff. vpw was NOT the first person to preach on The Red Thread, and it was taught better by the person who actually studied and produced it. The second one might actually have something, as it isn't just photocopies of someone else's work. (At least, not at first glance.) The first one is silly. It's got a highly fictionalized account of vpw's life on it, with many details wrong AS REPORTED BY HIM. However, it sounds like it was written by someone who thought vpw had an "OVERabundance of brains and brawn" and "where he walked, the earth shook." That's the one that thought that pfal and vpw's stuff replaced the Bible. Those are my INITIAL feelings on this. If I have time later, I may itemize the gross fictionalizations and blatant lies and contrast them with what is known and how it is known.

You can select the option for "another English version" and post about the version. Since you brought it up, is that version louder than other versions?