SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession
SIT, TIP, Confession
39 members have voted
-
1. What do you think of the inspirational manifestations/"gifts"?
-
I've done it, they are real and work the way TWI describes14
-
I've done it, they are real and work the way CES/STFI describes1
-
I've done it, they are real and work the way Pentecostals/non-denominationals describe2
-
I faked it to fit in, but I believe they are real.1
-
I faked it to fit in. I believe it's possible, but not sure if it's real.6
-
I faked it. I think we all faked it.15
-
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
713
115
291
409
Popular Days
Oct 18
114
Sep 19
102
Sep 20
93
Nov 7
80
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 713 posts
geisha779 115 posts
waysider 291 posts
chockfull 409 posts
Popular Days
Oct 18 2012
114 posts
Sep 19 2012
102 posts
Sep 20 2012
93 posts
Nov 7 2012
80 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
Raf very honestly my behavior on this thread earlier caused me to look in the mirror and re-evaluate some things. I also was not pleased with the reflection. I'm thankful for the personal growth tha
geisha779
No? You really kind of are if you demand Raf prove his point....funny how that works. How about any reasonable standard? I have to wonder, as I have inadvertently strung two words together that Freud
Steve Lortz
I believe that SIT is real, but not what it is described as in either Pentecostalism or TWI. I believe that SIT is always thanksgiving (giving proper credit) to God. I believe there were lots of times
WordWolf
The last page has been pretty slow, but based on the dates, it hasn't "died" except for the last day,
which is what it looks like you're suggesting (which you may not be.)
I'm ok with getting recappy with some cut-and-paste of highlights from months of discussion,
for those who arrived late and are too lazy to catch up.
For just a discussion of "free vocalization", why it has that name, what it is,
and what relevance it has to our experience, we split off a discussion into
Open here:
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outandabout
I'm SOOOO confused! I thought I was speaking in tongues all this time and now I'm wondering if I've been faking it! But it works sometimes, perfect prayer and all that.
Oh well......
Last post? To quote Jim Morrison, This the end, my friend...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
I'm gutted too Out n About !!! To finally have it pointed out to me I was faking it all these years lol....I guess the Apostle Paul and all the first century church folk were master fakers as well ( or taught wrongly ) ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
It's interesting that you bring up "free vocalization!"
Deuteronomy 16:10 says, "Then you shall keep the festival of weeks to the Lord your God, contributing a free-will offering in proportion to the blessing that you have received from the Lord your God."
On the day of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2, the blessing people received was the gift of the Holy Spirit. The people who spoke in tongues that day were offering back to God in proportion to how He had blessed them, praying by means of the Holy Spirit. Since Deuteronomy calls for a free-will offering, then free vocalization would perfectly fit the criteria called for in Deuteronomy 16:10.
If you judge me to be lying, Raf, because you lied, then you are being as presumptuous as Wierwille ever was!
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Prayer works.
What twi peddled was often at odds with what God said.
What twi peddled was often labelled as what God said-while being the opposite.
What twi taught was something atheist actors and small children do.
All twi did was slap a pious label on it and convince people it was the
same thing that was introduced at Pentecost- despite having virtually
nothing in common with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
See, there's 2 mistakes you're making.
1) You're "Guessing" and not EVALUATING.
When this thread began, I was firmly in the "it's the real thing" category,
but I EVALUATED and it failed to hold up under scrutiny.
I certainly didn't change my opinion out of peer pressure or anything else.
2) You're lumping the mechanical process we were taught in twi ("modern sit")
with what was done at Pentecost and by Paul ("Biblical sit.")
Stop for a few minutes and compare what the actual Scriptures say on the subject
rather than what you were told they say on the subject.
IF what you're doing is a fake compared to something real they did,
wouldn't you really want to know that sooner rather than later?
IF what you're doing is real rather than a fake, some honest scrutiny and
evaluation would only REINFORCE that rather than UNDERMINE that.
In this particular case, the thing we were taught only resembles what we were
told it was in that it was LABELLED as the same thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
*sigh*
Steve,
the thing was assigned the name "free vocalization" because it is spoken (vocalized) and because it is undirected
(free as in a free market, not as in free beer for all.) So, it was given that name to call it something.
The name carries no power in and of itself other than to separate it from other terms that came before and
meant different things (like "gibberish", which is what actors call it because they're not concerned with
substance or giving their exercise too much thought-but the exercise is the same.)
So, saying that it's Biblical because it's "free vocalization" is silly. If it had been given a true
placeholder name like "semprini", it would have meant exactly the same concept. Would you, then,
try to say God Almighty promised "semprini" in His Holy Word?
Yes, it is possible to assign the same word or phrase to a number of different concepts.
We don't do that because we want to communicate MORE clearly, rather than LESS, so new concepts tend to
get their own names whenever possible.
Examples of what happens when people assign one word for different concepts rather than separating them:
A) I once was talking about an old myth about faeries stealing children and replacing them in their
cribs with a faerie disguised as them. That was called a "changeling." When I explained that to
someone, as soon as he heard the word "changeling", he stopped listening to the description, and
began rewriting what I'd said already- because he knew I must have meant a shapeshifting alien like
Constable Odo from Star Trek:Deep Space 9.
B) In college, I tried to expound to a friend about "spirit" and the absence thereof as taught in twi.
He interrupted, because he was an excitable fellow who felt he had plenty of "spirit"
(as in "school spirit") so he thought there was something wrong with the explanation right there.
================================
Whether or not the speaking in Acts 2 on Pentecost COULD be called "free vocalization" or not is
open to discussion-although this is the wrong thread for it.
What IS wrong is deliberately assigning it that name NOW when we're already using that phrase
specifically for something else in order to make the distinctions BETWEEN THEM clearer.
In continuing to assign them the same name, you'll end up accidentally (I hope) confusing them
one for another by default rather than actually discuss whether they might be the same thing
(they're not, not by a reasonable doubt), or whether they are actually the same thing only
performed by different people at different times (they aren't.)
The thing twi taught was not the Acts 2 speaking-it was only labelled so.
If the Acts 2 speaking-true Speaking In Tongues- is available now,
I haven't seen it- and I'd sure like to! (Seriously- it would mean a lot to me and end this
cycle once and for all.)
I know what it isn't-and that's what twi taught.
It benefits no one to confuse the two- and, if anything, provides fuel to those who think
there's no power of God in people's lives-
if glossalalia/"free vocalization" is the best anyone can offer as supposed Power of God,
I could see why some people would conclude it's all a hoax.
Just a wild guess,
but I'm betting that you just read the LINK and the opening
I posted, and didn't actually CLICK on the link and read the
(very short) thread at the other end,
is that right, Steve?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Ok, I was just going to leave the other thread as a link,
but apparently, I was expecting too much from my fellow posters
to think they'd READ SOMETHING BEFORE COMMENTING ON IT.
(Proverbs 18:13King James Version (KJV)
13 He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.)
So, I'll text-dump some of the contents here.
This is about the mechanics of "free vocalization", what it is and is not.
I think this is a subject worth discussing by itself- that got buried in a previous discussion
addressing a lot more. So, I've meant to start this thread for some time.
Ok, first of all, how we get the names for things.
All names, as far as it goes, are made up. Someone finds a new concept and starts using a new name.
Sometimes the new name catches on, sometimes a different name catches on, and sometimes nobody
uses it and it fades into obscurity. So, if someone has a new idea or discovers something new,
it's fair to try to come up with a decent name for it. For that matter, bad names become famous,
too- the "googol" is 1 followed by 100 zeroes, and exploring caves is "spelunking", from
"speliation" (cave studies) and a sillier ending for the word.
So, the phrase "free vocalization." It wasn't a phrase coined to promote a specific agenda.
When studying different things and discovering they were the same thing with different window dressing,
someone coined the phrase in order to discuss it better.
The name "free vocalization" refers to a speaking, thus, a vocalization. It is a speaking that is not
directed in any formal sense of speech, thus it is "free" (unguided) in the same sense as free verse.
So, what, exactly, is it?
Free vocalization is actually a pretty common practice, used under a number of
concepts. When children pretend to be speaking and pronounce nonsense syllables,
they're doing this. (No, not when babies are starting to speak- when older
children know they're not speaking a language and intentionally PRETEND to do so
to amuse themselves and their friends.)
Actors do this as well when studying acting. They will study how to move, and
how to intone, and that can be studied independent of dialogue. Much can be
portrayed by tone, movement, and gesture even if no language is held in common-
or no language is used at all. My study group surprised our acting teacher
with how complicated a concept we conveyed in such a scene-where 5 people got
together, decided the scene, and acted it out- all speaking without actual words
but with lots of speaking, intonation, movement and gestures. But that's
drifting off-topic...the point is that actors will do this very thing while
learning- as practice with other things, and it is not difficult once you get
the idea.
Some people have pointed out similarities between those practices and each other-
because they differ only in intent, and are the same activity concerning
language and cognition (thinking.)
Vern Polythress:
"In short, it seems that the capacity for free vocalization is a normal, God-given human capacity. The person who was unable to do it would be unusual. We regard free vocalization as abnormal only because, in our modern Western cultural milieu, people usually cease to do it after childhood."
"Can the average person be taught to produce free vocalization?
Yes. Learning to free vocalize is easier than learning to ride a bicycle. As with the bicycle, the practitioner may feel foolish and awkward at first. But practice makes perfect. Moreover, though at first a person may feel self-conscious, after he has learned he may sometimes forget that he is doing it. It is something that he can start or stop at will without difficulty.
One easy way for a person to learn is to pretend that he is speaking a foreign language. He starts speaking, slowly and deliberately producing syllables. Then be speeds up, consciously trying to make it sound like a language would sound. Once he is doing well, he just relaxes and does not worry any longer about what comes out."
"Picture this...You're in improvisation class and the director hands you a prop. He says, "Make up a language and sell this to Joe." Can it be done? Yes. I've seen it and done it myself. Is it really a language? No, but, it sounds like one."
"Theatrical training frequently includes exercises in improvisation. In one type of improvisation, the actor invents a "language" (on the fly) and has his/her character use that language in a conversational context.
I posted an example of Andy Kaufman doing this in one of my earlier posts. It's not Biblical, it's not spiritual, it's not evidence of anything other than a latent ability of the human mind. It's not difficult to do. It can, however , present a stumbling block for participants who have inhibitions that impair their ability to do it.
That's why it's included in improvisation classes. I personally saw this being done by a wide variety of subjects, some of whom I am quite sure were not Christian. (Oy Vey! Am I being vague enough on this point?) Decidedly, not everyone can overcome their inhibitions to do it but, the possibility to do so is still there."
"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."
"Please note that in acting, it's referred to as "gibberish." There's no OFFICIAL, FORMAL name,
but "free vocalization" works better for discussion. Some people disagree as to the meaning
of "gibberish", and will count it as gibberish only if it is obviously nonsensical,
or meant only as a child's game, and will mean something else when discussing it.
So, it is important to know what is MEANT by a term as well as the actual word.
(It's like the word "spirit"- does the person mean an alcoholic beverage,
or emotion, or some entity?) "
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Human without the bean
Ala shasta be, alonda bonacarta, vilenta, nacarta, venbona nacarsta, ocosta vileeta, no bora sodota, fomableena, nacropa suata, vable sepdona saharta, kepecka donetta, sobobwa.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
"Unfortunately, our interpreter overslept this morning."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Steve, I can take the insult that I'm as presumptuous as Wierwille ever was, seeing as it is ad hominem and completely without basis, so it rolls off my back.
But I trust that if you cannot rebut my argument and demonstration without burying your message in a sea of equivocation and definition shifting, I must be onto something.
Challenge to everyone who claims not to be faking it: Identify the language. No excuses. No "but look at this scripture that says blah blah." You claim to speak in a language you've never learned. Identify the language. Pass go. Collect $1 million.
You can't do it, and it's not for any reason more complicated than what I have laid out in this thread.
You can compare me to Wierwille, Satan or Hitler: pick your method of demonizing me. By all means. Go for it. It does not affect me in the slightest.
Identify the language. Prove your claim, or stop criticizing me for declining to believe it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
My personal opinion, if a thread hasn't received a new post in over a year, it's pretty much done for. Nothing against resurrecting it, if you guys want to discuss it again.
And obviously there are aspects I can no longer discuss because I no longer share a frame of reference with most of us involved in this discussion. Oh well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Kind of hard for me to identify the language Raf when the Word of God says it's an unknown language isn't it ??!! Tongues of men /angels...I must say though that I've heard tongues from a person that contained words from a pacific Island language, german, Italian ( languages that I know reasonably well )all rolled into one...who says the spirit of God can't do that either ??!! TBH I couldn't care less what you think of what I think anymore than I care that you felt the need to fake it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Raf, how can you say that assuming I am lying simply because you did is not presumptuous?
Who is making an hominem attack on whom here?
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
I guess Jesus isn't/wasn't real either because we weren't actually there to verify it either ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Excuses excuses. They understood the languages in Acts. All sorts of anecdotes about people from China or the Middle East visiting and understanding the SIT and then disappearing, but suddenly, conveniently, scripture demands no one will be able to understand it. How convenient.
Listen, pick a position and stick with it. Either the Word of God says it's an unknown language (it doesn't, by the way, but you knew that) or Allan is uniquely qualified to recognize an amalgamation of a single language that contains elements of "a Pacific Island" language (name it. I thought not) German and Italian. All rolled into one.
Yeah right.
If you can't prove it's a language, you can't blame me for believing it's nothing more than free vocalizations. If you want me to believe it's more than that, it's your burden to prove it.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Comparing me to Wierwille is rude, so don't expect politeness in return.
I will tell you what I told everyone else: identify the language, or you have given no reason for ANYONE to believe you are doing anything supernatural.
You want presumptuous? "It's genuine because I say so" is presumptuous.
Wierwille was right about one thing: sincerity IS no guarantee for truth. I do not challenge anyone's sincerity. But when it looks like a counterfeit, sounds like a counterfeit, is produced in the same way as a counterfeit, and produces the same result as a counterfeit, it is not presumptuous to conclude it IS a counterfeit. It is presumptuous to insist on any other explanation without evidence to support it.
So you're the one being presumptuous here.
Want me to change my mind? Identify the language and knock off the but, but, but excuses that Allan couldn't resist for a single post.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
With the word "unknown" in ITALICS, the word you're relying on was added by a translator.
Even vpw said you could discount what the translator added.
(Then skipped that when it suited him.)
In a number of accounts in Acts, there were people present who understood them.
Unless Scripture is unreliable-which means you can't trust it at all and we shouldn't try to
understand it- then your understanding of the Corintians verses obviously are in error,
since they'd BLATANTLY contradict MULTIPLE accounts in Acts.
The whole doctrine of "tongues of angels" upon which almost all of the modern practice
seems to hinge upon (all of it I've ever seen or heard, live or recorded) is centered around
ONE VERSE. Whenever vpw taught an entire doctrine around one verse, you should go back and
check if you were being hosed, because I've found it was common that he contradicted the
rest of the Bible with his single-verse doctrines.
The one reference was hyperbole, a legitimate figure of speech. We discussed this years ago
and I'll lay it out again simply when I have time.
I'll say it- and I will be clear so that misrepresenting me will be obvious and dishonest.
I say that if you're hearing a message that is supposedly of God,
and the speaker is speaking in a melange of languages mashed together,
that the person's simply doing exactly what it looks like-
they're mashing words together from languages here and there.
"A bunch of words from a bunch of languages rolled into one sentence"
is nobody's definition of a tongue of men or "a tongue of an angel."
Frankly, I think you're strengthening the case that the person MEANT to speak
from God but the actual practice was a content-free jumble, either with bits
from things heard here or there, or bits of things cobbled together,
but all from either the hearing or the construction of the speaker.
We discussed this all at great length for months. Really, if you read it over,
you'd find some fascinating stuff.
You care what SOMEBODY thinks because you're replying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
You've really got to stop GUESSING about the things of God- the stakes are too high,
and you're treating them glibly, flippantly, rather than as life-or-death issues.
You're using a fallacy of a False Equivalency, and it's silly.
The claim is that the supposed modern practice is the same as the Biblical practice
that actually produced LANGUAGES.
That claim was challenged- that is, it's challenged that THAT claim is invalid,
and the modern practice is not the same thing and thus never produces A LANGUAGE.
How is that proven? Very simply.
If you can speak in a LANGUAGE, then speak in a LANGUAGE in front of a linguistics expert.
They can confirm, with a sufficient sample, whether or not something is an actual language
whether or not they understand the language or can recognize it.
That's something YOU can do NOW, WHENEVER YOU WANT.
As to the historical proofs of someone we don't have in front of us now,
that's proven or disproven in a historical fashion because it's not something
that can be demonstrated now like the supposed "speaking in tongues" is.
The supposed tongues, they're supposedly here, now, for us to hear- and thus, for us
to examine. Doing so in front of a linguistics expert for an evaluation is definitely
possible now (during the week, at least.) You, supposedly, can do it.
So, rather than making casual dismissals of discussing it, go ahead and do it.
It certainly would strengthen your case once the expert comes up and says
"I've never heard this language before, but it is definitely a discrete language."
Link to comment
Share on other sites