Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

S.I.T.


TheSongRemainsTheSame
 Share

Recommended Posts

George,

I didn?t read it, but I can concur.

Outside TWI, most of the claimed-to-be SIT I saw was either stupid, gibberish, or something worse. I would expect the same with MOST ?miraculous? claims of understandable languages uttered by SIT practitioners would fall in the same category of un-together idiocy.

When genuine SIT is genuinely understood by someone, it?s a miraculous intervention by God. I know that God operates in such a way as to elude 5-senses researchers and skeptics. God protects their free will believing (or NONbelieving) by leaving few unambiguous traces of His interventions. There is coming a time when He will deal with unbelief, but not yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 217
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Jerry:

It was my observation, and your incident bears this out, that tongues wasn't a "proof", or a "sign that it came from God" to unbelievers, but that it got their attention.

It got my attention the first time; I thought it was cool. Peoples responses varied however.

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

Oakspear icon_cool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by George Aar:

Quite some time ago a Dr. William T. Samarin spent several years studying SIT practitioners.

Here's a quote from his subsequent book:

"It is extremely doubtful that the alleged cases of xenoglossia (miraculous speech in real languages) are real. Anytime one attempts to verify them, he finds that the stories have been greatly distorted or that the 'witness' turns out to be incompetent or unreliable from a linguistic point of view" (Tongues of Men and Angels, MacMillan, 1972, pp.112-115).

Anyone read the book?

geo.


Xenoglossia...hmmm... yepper... I thinks I will do a little more reading the subject besides KJV memories and pfal experiences...

Any one who would take several years studying sit practitioners must have something to say...

the added plus is the 3-4 years its publication prior my completing the 12th session...

Thanks George Aar

Song

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for SIT and proof, let?s go back to the books we all mastered. On pages 125 and 126 of TNDC we can see that twice Dr mentions the proof of SIT in the context of proving TO ONESELF the indwelling of holy spirit. Seeing someone ELSE speak in tongues can definitely be an attention getter, but it?s the properly executed interpretation that can really speak to their heart.

Below are those pages, from the chapter on ?How to Speak in Tongues.? I want to point out the SELF proof value of SIT in this passage. Look for these sentences (with my ALL-CAPS highlighting:

...YOU have the proof now in the senses-world that YOU have Christ within...

...YOU now have proved TO YOUR SENSES that Christ is in you...

*******

TNDC pages 125-126

If you can speak one word, you can speak ten thousand words; because if you can speak one word, you have the power, the God-given ability, to speak more. Every time you speak remember that you are edifying yourself spiritually, building yourself up. You are speaking the wonderful works of God; you are magnifying God. You have the proof now in the senses-world that you have Christ within, that you are a joint-heir with Him.

In a moment I want you to speak again; to speak once more so that you become fluent and confident from experience. To learn another language by using your mind would take months; but to speak in unknown tongues happens instantly. God knows the tongues, so He gives them to your spirit and you speak them forth.

Anybody who knows even the slightest bit about languages knows that ?beep, beep, beep, boop, boop, boop? would not be speaking in tongues. Speaking in tongues is speaking a developed language. Now once more I want you to speak in tongues. Just get quiet. Move your lips, throat, and tongue, and start speaking again. Keep on speaking. You are speaking the wonderful works of God, magnifying God. You now have proved to your senses that Christ is in you and that you have the power of the holy spirit. This is the greatness of God?s wonderful power to you as a believer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

supercalafragilisticexpialadoloshanto

whoops...

Um-deedledeedledeedle um-deedleday

Um-deedledeedledeedle um-deedleday

Um-deedledeedledeedle um-deedledeedle

Um-deedledeedledeedle um-um um-um um-um

For example...

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious

If you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

Um-deedledeedledeedle um-deedleday

Um-deedledeedledeedle um-deedleday

Um-deedledeedledeedle um-deedleday

Super-super

Supercali

Super Supercalifragi

So when the cat has got your tongue there's no need for dismay

Just summon up this word and then you've got a lot to say

But better use it carefully or it can change your life

For example...

Yes?

One day I said it to me girl and now me girl's me wife

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious

If you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious

If you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious

If you say it loud enough you'll always sound precocious

Supercalifragilistic

Supercalifragilistic

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

[This message was edited by TheSongRemainsTheSame on January 08, 2004 at 13:52.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

Re:"I know that God operates in such a way as to elude 5-senses researchers and skeptics. God protects their free will believing (or NONbelieving) by leaving few unambiguous traces of His interventions."

So would you say then that God has a soft-spot in his heart for the gullible?

geo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

I'm saying that gullibility and skepticism ARE far removed from each other; they're opposite extremes of a spectrum. There is a healthy balance somewhere between them of experimentally believing in something, and THEN collecting the verifying data.

Science proceeds this way, with the emphasis on skepticism. I do it too, when the subject is science. But with spiritual matters (which I see in what I think is a good understanding of God's Word) I emphasize a little AWAY from skepticism.

Locked-on total believing takes me many, many years and much verification before I participate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Mike, you HAVE no data. At least you've yet to share any. Just suppositions, statements, anecdotes but no data.

If there were real, verifiable, repeatable evidence of any spiritual matters, then skeptics would believe in them as well.

There is not.

The fact that some people have convinced themselves (over many years, maybe) to believe in the veracity of crop circles, Bigfoot, UFOs, astrology, or perpetual motion machines does not make it so. It only shows that they have a penchant for believing in the paranormal. Its not proof of anything else.

geo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

One last thought before I dash off to work:

Can you name one thing that?s been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to you? I?ll bet that you can?t name many, or that if you think you can, with proper examination, you?d see that there are many little leaps of ?faith? involved.

The more well proved an assertion is, the more trivial the asertion must be. Geometry comes to mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by Mike:

Come to think of it, in addition to my own copyrighteously, non-plagiaristic, self made up nonsense words, I also used supercalifragilisticexpialidocious in excellors sessions.


hmmm interesting that I would have a super natural sence about such an event in your life...

Rok On Mike

Song

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Being eager with skepticism leads nowhere."

On the contrary, I think the case could easily be made that a strong skeptical mindset is what made it possible to walk on the moon or send rovers to Mars. You don't do that kind of science without a strong attachment to reality.

Rockets don't travel to the moon because you believe they will. They make it because someone took the time to PROVE it was possible.

geo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

The technology of moon walking is impressive, whether it?s done by Neil Armstrong or Michael Jackson. But compare that technology to "love" or "spirit" and it melts into the trivial.

The science that went into all that technology came in many bundles, extending back 400 years. Experimental believing was involved in every bundle.

.

.

.

Hi ho. Hi ho. It's off to work...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by Mike:

George,

One last thought before I dash off to work:

Can you name one thing that?s been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to you? I?ll bet that you can?t name many, or that if you think you can, with proper examination, you?d see that there are many little leaps of ?faith? involved.

The more well proved an assertion is, the more trivial the asertion must be. Geometry comes to mind.


Geometry is truth. The leaps of faith are the realisations of truth and not to be confined by leaps of faith. Truth has evidence that the v-8 can be made.

Whoops George ... could not resist... your turn of thot

icon_cool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

"Can you name one thing that?s been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to you?"

And who said anything about a "shadow of a doubt"?

There's all sorts of things that I accept as true that may well be erroneous - in fact it's almost a dead certainty. I THINK that the earth's about 23,000 miles in circumference, that it's core is molten nickle, and that it's the third planet from the sun. I don't have any proof for any of that. But it's what I learned in school and there's been no credible person to ever refute it AND it doesn't have any profound effect in how I live my life anyway, so the ramifications of believing falsely are pretty minor. And if someone has better data regarding any of it and can set me straight where I'm misinformed - no problem, I'll listen.

That's not what we're talking about though. We're talking about a belief system that has very substantial effects on how I handle my life. What I do for a living, who I deal with, who I marry, how I raise my children, what I do with my money, my own and my family's healthcare, ad infinitum. The effects in one's life of their religious beliefs are VERY profound.

So if those beliefs are based on something as squishy as SIT and other charasmatic goings on, it's only logical (and responsible) to check into it a little deeper, no?

But no, that's not what the true believer usually does. All too often he adopts the idea that his beliefs - despite the dearth of any proof - are the (only) true ones, and wants to stop his ears and hum if anyone questions his reasoning.

That's not skepticism. That's blatant credulousness.

geo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mike,

Re:"The science that went into all that technology came in many bundles, extending back 400 years. Experimental believing was involved in every bundle."

Again on the contrary, there was no shortage of religious belief during the dark ages, yet there was zero advancement in science.

It wasn't until man finally started to shake off the over-bearing religious/superstitious mindset that real science and technological advancements started to take place.

It wasn't monks locked away in cloisters, praying their lives away (or speaking in tongues) that made any headway in improving man's lot in life. It was the cold, unemotional - often godless - "scientist" who was incredibly concerned with undeniable, verifiable, REPEATABLE proof that paved the way for man to creep out of the shadows of ignorance, pestilence, poverty, and superstition and live the life of comparative comfort,health, ease, and rich culture that we enjoy today (at least in the western world).

Superstition is a waste of time, life, and resources. And if you can't prove it, it's likely that's all that it is...

geo.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...