Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe
Sign in to follow this  
TheSongRemainsTheSame

S.I.T.

Recommended Posts

..."Also the tounge was of men or angels yet we all must have spoken the tounges of angels because no one I know ever spontaniously spoke Russian or any other language of man."

Georgio J.

Yeah, I always hoped that someone would understand my tongue. What a proof that would be to me if an angel said to me ..."Hey th's angelic. Thus sayeth thy Lourde." Well, i suppose Gab is a little busy proping up the messengers feet when he ahant whalkin on tha whata..."

Uhmmm... GJ, you do know there are several dialects of the Brittish tongue... maybe you you were double speaking in tongues... were there any Brits in your twig that knew the old language according to To King James???

icon_biggrin.gif:D-->

[This message was edited by TheSongRemainsTheSame on January 05, 2004 at 21:21.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plots,

You said: "I seem to still want to...

but it is no longer any conscious part of my faith life...

it's kind of a habit.

I occasionally offer it up the Lord.

But would much rather pray with my understanding..."

I just got thru reading 25 books written by Oral Roberts and here are some interesting facts about his life and ministry of healing.

He started his healing crusades in 1947 and than on TV thru the 50's.

During the first half or starting point of his healing ministry he ministered to multiple thousands of people, with signs, miracles and wonders, some instantly, some taking time; but all were witnessed by thousands and by many ministers, possibly even by VP himself. (Remember the Tulsa, OK meeting, where vp spoke in tongues. Oral was there too)

In that first half of Oral's ministry, he had not outwardly spoken in tongues. He says that in 1935, when he got born again, he felt these foreign words forming, but never spoke in tongues outloud and didn't manifest SIT until years after the start of his ministry.

He ministered healing to so many and never spoke in tongues or practiced speaking in tongues.

He states and implies that because of his great healing he received in 1935, on his deathbed, healed of TB and a speaking disability; and later the glorious message from God, calling him to a ministry of healing, that praying for the sick was easy for him. He had faith to do these things and it was very easy for him to believe that God would heal, if he prayed.

In 1935, when God healed him and called him to bring healing to his generation, God also told him that he would build a college, blending faith, prayer and the healing arts.

Oral said he had absolutely no faith to build a college, but tons of faith to heal the sick.

In the mid 60's God impressed on him to start the college. Oral didn't have a clue how to do it or even how to start. This is when Oral says that he was led into Speaking in tongues; and via SIT, God was able to build his faith and direct him to seeing this project accomplished.

Maybe now I understand more of how or one way of building our faith is via speaking in tongues.

Lord knows that there are things of faith that you, plots can believe for that do not need this tool.

Lord knows, with my weak faith and lack of action, S.I.T. can benifit me.

The comforter, the Holy Spirit is given to us, with various evidences to do a wonderful thing, while on this earth, and that is to help us become more Christlike and help us accomplish

Gods purposes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started SIT long before my time with TWI, and I didn't stop afterward either. I still do it to this day.

During the "practice" manifestations at the first intermediate PFAL class I attended, someone told me that I had spoken Russian. I wouldn't know Russian from Chinese, so I had to take his word for it. He went on to say that my interperetation was genuine, although he did not translate it for us.

At the second IPFAL I attended as a student, we were doing the "practice" manifestations, and the guy next to me got up, SIT, and interpereted. During his interperetation, he quoted an obscure passage from Psalms (Psalms 19:10 to be exact).

Up 'til then, I had never faked the interperetation. However I figured, if he could get away with it, why can't I? So when I was called to SITWI, I pretty much recited 2Tim 1:7. James, the moderator, looked me straight in the eye and said something like, "...you faked that, didn't you." I fessed up and he told me not to do that again - and I never have to this day.

I have to agree with Lightside, "...if we only knew what power we have!!!!" Most of us were never exposed to that side of things because our teachers didn't "get it" themselves, but pretended they did. It's a crying shame on TWI's part, because they had a habit of pushing people into leadership positions before they were really ready.

BTW Lightside, wasn't Oral Roberts the one who threatened his own death if someone didn't contribute some really large amount of money to his ministry (give me $1.4 million or the "lord" will take me home)? It was back around '87 or '88. A friend of mine described it as, "...Your money or my life!"

Just a thought.

Steve.

¥

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to dispute whether speaking in tongues is or isn't real, but I don't believe that just because you do it and aren't consciously faking it, that's it's necessarily anything supernatural.

People have been engaging in speaking in tongues, or, if you prefer, in something that to the observer looks remarkably like speaking in tongues, for a long time. It pre-dates Christianity, and still goes on outside Christianity.

In TWI, and even in churches that elevate the importance of SIT, there is a great pressure to perform (SIT). There is nothing necessarily supernatural about being able to spout out a string of unintelligable syllables when under that pressure, or even when affected emotionally. Your brain will not freeze up when you tell yourself to speak in tongues even if God is not involved.

As far as the interpretation goes, even if there is no conscious faking, it is not impossible to shoot out a quasi-biblical pronouncement if your mind is steeped in "The Word" day in and day out. Ever notice how, in general, interpretations were roughly equivalent in complexity to the level of bible (or Way doctrine) people had? Ever have someone in your twig who always said the same thing, or whose interpretation was painfully simple? Or reflected a misunderstanding of scripture or Way teaching?

A few people brought up the practice sessions where you would start with the letter "A" and move through the alphabet. How many folks every thought that not every language uses the same alphabet, let alone the same sounds? How about starting a word with the letter ?, or maybe ÿ, or even ?. For a long time my tongue sounded vaguely Asian and contained sounds like pops and clicks. It was described once as a cross between a Thai sportscaster and a Klingon. Also the whole concept of deciding what sound to start a word in tongues in seems to go against the whole "God gives the utterance" concept. So didn't anyone who did this "fake it" by definition?

This is not to say that any of you who speak in tongues are faking it or deluded or anything, just that there are alternate explanations. I think that it is possible to be not consciously faking anything without the result being anything supernatural.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is

Oakspear icon_cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by dmiller:

PS -- as a bluegrass banjo picker, the letters SIT usually meant Stay In Tune! icon_smile.gif:)-->


Try Thomastik-Infeld bluegrass banjo strings. Once you tune them, they STAY tuned...

God bless!

Zix

(who just started with his new Deering)

The Secret Signature of the Day has been cancelled by the HTML Police.

Or so the Germans would have us believe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's funny! Years ago, I used to use those SIT strings, and that's what I always thought of when I'd see SIT! icon_smile.gif:)-->

Rick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, well...

I suppose we should all start playing banjo's using Thomastik-Infeld bluegrass banjo strings to stay in tune...

Dig it...

icon_biggrin.gif:D-->

ps... yo Bluzeman I think i owe ya a pt...

icon_cool.gif

[This message was edited by TheSongRemainsTheSame on January 06, 2004 at 19:18.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I certainly can "SIT". At least I know how to babble in a manner that sounds like I'm speaking a foreign language. I also believe it doesn't take a Christian to do it. I also believe it is of no basic benefit to anyone, except those who believe it to be so.

It doesn't come naturally to me, heck, in fact I can barely even get myself to do it at all. It sounds so ridiculous. And to think that we were taught this is PERFECT prayer?? What? "Well, it's the spirit that's praying to God, after all, SIT cannot be understood by men". Does the spirit find it necessary to utter strange sounds into the natural realm when it prays? You know in your own mind what your needs and your praises are. I find SIT relatively an unnecessary gesture. To me, SIT is purely a mechanical function. I fail to see anything spiritual about it.

I can't say for sure what that mircale was a Pentecost, but I'm sure the disciples weren't just babbling a bunch of words that came to their mind at random. It turned out they were speaking in the languages of the locals. This "toungue of angel" is just a cheap justification for something that clearly makes no sense whatsoever. Besides, angels are spirit beings, they don't have tongues, so they have no audible language anyhow.

Chuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fluency and faking.

Yes, I speak in tongues just about every day. And I agree,it is my rock solid connection with God. These days, it's the main reason I still believe in God and Christ. It's a physical proof of the presence of spiritual power.

When I speak in tongues, it gives me peace and joy and comfort, just like VP said. I think this is one of the major benefits,if not THE major benefit of TWI. VP may have plagiarized Stiles or whomever, but I'm convinced that he did a good job of speading the news in this regard.

Some have said that if you can go through the alphabet that you're faking it in some sense. I don't see it that way. If the idea is for us to speak and God to supply the words, there's nothing wrong with our deciding what letter we're going to start with. Or what part of you mouth you're going to form the words in. (Forming words in the back of the mouth brings up an Asian sounding tongue).

I know there were some who faked it. There was a sweet lady in Huntington, WV who always said the same phrase. Sounded like "many, many, just as many". That was it over and over again. Her interpretations were equally brief. No one ever pressured her to do more. Maybe that wasn't her ministry. Maybe not every Christian can speak in tongues. If it requires "pure believing" and not everyone has the same level of faith, then it stands to reason that there are some children of god who just don't have the faith for it, just as there are some who can't believe for healing and some who can. That doesn't mean the manifestation is counterfeit; merely that it some do it fluently, some do it not-so-fluently and some just don't.

I was going to add something about interpretation, but I've rambled enough.

Peace

JerryB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like we were just discussing this over in Doctrinal. icon_biggrin.gif:D-->

I wonder if the apparent fact that some people spoke in tongues with ease, some had trouble and some admit to faking is because Wierwille's teaching that "anyone who is born again has the ability to speak in tongues" is wrong.

It says that the manifestation (singular) of the spirit is given to every man to profit withal. Isn't "manifestation" synonymous with "evidence"? In other words, ever man will be given evidence of that holy spirit?

Then verses 9 & 10 go through the "for to one is given..." and the "anothers". It took Wierwillian scriptural gymnastics to get those verses to say that everyone should speak in tongues, everyone should interpret, everyone should discern spirits, with his teaching that it really meant for to one (profit)...to another (profit)...to another (profit). Seems kind of a stretch.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice...but in practice there is

Oakspear icon_cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Jerry B , I agree that it's not for everybody. That was one of the major flaws of the TWI's SIT thing. They pretty much made it required of everyone. But it's not for everyone!

As for the woman you mentioned with the limited tounge: she was probably faking it to fit in. But whoever it is that was calling on her was obviously not getting that message from God.

When I ran a teen twig, I ran the believers meeting and God never once told me who to call on. But the pressure to not screw up was intense. I mean, did any twig leader ever say "We're not having manifistations tonight because God hasn't told me who to call on".

The whole approach was bad.

And this is how you know I was brainwashed: I KNEW I was faking it, yet when I was having a crisis I would SIT to myself. I'm not crazy, but how crazy! I remember being on a plane and having anxiety during take off. I started SITing, and the fear stayed. hahaha.

Glow-ry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry,

quote:
Some have said that if you can go through the alphabet that you're faking it in some sense. I don't see it that way. If the idea is for us to speak and God to supply the words, there's nothing wrong with our deciding what letter we're going to start with. Or what part of you mouth you're going to form the words in. (Forming words in the back of the mouth brings up an Asian sounding tongue).


Let me get this straight. God suppies the words, but you form the words. BUT you can decide to form the words the way you would like to, like from the front or back of your mouth or an "A" or "G" sound. Isn't that a little contradictory?

It is up to us to speak but God gives us the words. What is speaking but saying words? They're one in the same in my book.

American Heritage Dictionary:

Speak:1. To utter words or articulate sounds with ordinary speech modulation; talk.

2a. To convey thoughts, opinions, or emotions orally. b. To express oneself

I don't understand how one can formulate words but not conciously or subconciously decide what they are saying. It does become second nature though eventually. Just the same way normal speaking does.

I can see SIT as a way of relaxing and or focusing by freeing yourself from the static of your own thoughts...like meditation. I do remember SIT helping me relax or and help me remember "the Word" or God and that was helpful at the time.

I don't see it as proof of a connection with God or proof of anything. The only way to do that is to believe the Bible is the Word of God in a literalist sort of way and to be convinced, for some reason that what you are doing is exactly the same as what those guys two thousand years ago were doing. The only way to believe that is by faith which has nothing to do with proof.

In short, to believe something is proof based on faith is not proof at all.

Of course I could be wrong and SIT could at times be related to a god or some sort of connection, but there is no proof of that.

It don't mean a thing, all you gotta do is swing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never been fully convinced that I was "speaking in tongues" in the manner that the disciples did on the day of pentecost. In fact, most of the time, I seriously doubted it.

But I do distinctly remember being born again. It was while I was watching a Billy Graham televison crusade at the age of eleven. I could actually feel the spirit entering my body. It was the strangest sensation I've ever experienced, kind of like a power surging through my core---it's hard to describe. Suffice it to say, I've never experienced anything even remotely like it since.

Certainly, nothing like that happened when I supposedly "spoke in tongues" for the first time. I moved my lips, my throat, my tongue and sounds did indeed come out. But it just felt like I was babbling. It left me feeling extremely bewildered. There were a bunch of people standing around me, who got so excited when they heard me "manifest", you would have thought I'd just walked on water. But I just kept thinking, "is that it?" I was "lead into tongues" even before I took the class. But I always felt somewhat unsettled, no matter how many times I "spoke in tongues" or how fluent I became---and I did become quite fluent. It was sometimes fun to listen to myself make the sounds, but it also seemed to take a lot of energy to do it for long periods of time. So I could never understand why people said it was "rest to the soul". I always felt like I needed rest after doing it for a while.

Another thing which I desperately wanted to do, was to speak in tongues silently to myself. I have never been able to do this no matter how hard I tried. It always just sounds in my mind like a radio signal breaking up. So, it has to be tongues aloud or not at all. That always made me feel so inadequate.

What really got to me by the time I threw in the towel and left the ministry, is the way manifestations during fellowship began to sound so terribly generic. There as practically NO variation from meeting to meeting. Just people saying the same things over and over again. It often echoed the latest Martindale teaching or Way Mag article being rehashed, too---usually with the exact same wording. So much for inspired utterance...

But what seemed to bother me the most were those Intermediate Class "exceller sessions". It just didn't seem right that something supernatural from God would require so much intervention from man. Like some here, it really bugged me when they insisted that we practice by going through the alpabet in order to "increase our fluency". I kept think, "chapter and verse. Where in the bible did the believers of the first century church need to do such a thing?" I also wondered what a person who's tongue did not have certain english aphabet sounds was supposed to do. Many Asian languages do not have an "r" sound for instance. That's why chinese speakers have such a difficult time with words like, "rice". But nobody ever seemed to question the logic of these practices. But I did all the time.

Now, several years after having left The Way, I very rarely attempt to speak in tongues, and when I do, it just doesn't feel right---still. I can pray with my understanding and feel that I've had a conversation with God, but, I've pretty much given up on genuinely speaking in tongues. I'm OK with it though. I know I'm one of God's cherished children---I was even before I ever attempted to speak in tongues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me abs this thought.

When I think of SIT now, I get that picture in my head of Robert DeNiro doing it at the end of "Cape Fear." Right before he dies!

Granted, the director took liberties by, yet again, stereotyping Christians into a fanatical character. But it's creepy nonetheless.

Do I? Must confess I haven't in years. Although this thread got me to thinking about starting up again.

corrydj

NEVER KICK A COW CHIP ON A HOT DAY!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Zixar -- Thomasik strings are GREAT for fiddles -- (I use them on all the ones I have -- 3 working ones at present)

Black Diamond, or John Pearse strings are the absolute best for the 5-string. John Pearse strings work best on my dobro too. SIT (staying in tune) is an on going stuggle, as I am sure you are aware of!!!!

I used to have a Deering, and it was not at all a worthy instrument. Perhaps yours is better. As for me, and my house, we will stick with Gibson Mastertones. LOL

Shoot low. They are riding Shetlands icon_smile.gif:)-->

[This message was edited by dmiller on January 07, 2004 at 2:43.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jbarrax wrote:

quote:
Some have said that if you can go through the alphabet that you're faking it in some sense. I don't see it that way. If the idea is for us to speak and God to supply the words, there's nothing wrong with our deciding what letter we're going to start with. Or what part of you mouth you're going to form the words in. (Forming words in the back of the mouth brings up an Asian sounding tongue).

I'll play devil's advocate here a bit.

SInce the scriptures do not detail the mechanics of S.I.T. Then how do you know that what you are doing is the real deal?

If God gives the utterance then how can you decide what sound the utterance is going to begin with by going through the alphabet ? Isn't it God's job to determine the sounds?

I do not see anywhere in the scriptures where it can be inferred or implied that the speaker chooses the first sound in a tongue "word" and that God supplies the rest of the word. What if that partiucular language does not have that sound ?

Neither do I see at all where the "idea is for us to speak and God to supply the words ...." where one beforehand mentally determins what the word is going to sound like. If God is supplying the words then I would think that He would supply the entire word inculding the first syllable. When you predmeditate beforehand with your mind what the first syllable of the word is going to be, then you are at best limiting God to supplying only a word that begins with that particular sound. At worst it is not the manfestation of tongues at all.

Now, what if the word God want to give goes not begin with that sound? By doing this questionable practice, you are in effect telling God that the only word you will allow Him to give is one that begins with that sound.... Does God then honor your limmitation of Him .... I kind of doubt it.

Language is more than just individual words. A single word is pretty much meaningless. It takes a sentence or a phrase to form aniIdea or a precept that can be communicated. So if you premeditate the beginning sound of each word in a sentence, then you are limiting God to supplying a sentenece that can have only words that begin with certain sounds, and in effect limiting what what the idea or thought is that is being communicated.

Ok, now let's presume that what you are saying is true, that we we can decide beforehand what sound the word is going to start with. -- What then prevents us from also deciding what the ending of the word also sounds like -- and just let God supply the middle syllables? Or better yet, why not let God supply be beginning sound of each word and you supply the rest -- ever try that?

Jerry, you usually think things through pretty well, but on this one I don't believe that you have thought it through very well at all. Your reasoning seems pretty shaky to me.

Goey

"Most of my fondest memories in TWI never really happened"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...