SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[modcat5]

I signed in under the moderator ID to change the poll responses without affecting the results. I did not add any new poll categories, which would skew the responses, but I removed references to "lying" and removed the accusation that "only liars won't admit it," which was the cause of considerable grief. The substance of each poll response, I think, remains unchanged.

[chockfull]

After considering how to respond to Chockfull’s recent post (1742) requesting proof of fakery, I have decided that I must decline to answer. I decline in large part because there is no way to respond without quickly inviting another round of contentious namecalling. I will reduce the response I would have given to these brief points:

First, there is no parity between an admission of fakery and an assertion of a true demonstration of miraculous spiritual power. The former is an ordinary claim that requires ordinary evidence. An admission by the speaker suffices, in my opinion. This is firsthand testimony of the person doing the faking. No greater authority exists. The latter is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. An assertion is not good enough, especially one coming from neither the speaker nor the person or persons who understood the utterance, and especially considering we can’t even get the same story told the same way twice on the same thread by the same person. If you really believe the requirement for proof is equal in both cases, I humbly but firmly disagree with you.

“I saw someone else do something impossible without direct divine intervention. Couldn’t tell you who it was, but wow, it left such an impression on me!”

“I believe you, because you said so.”

VS.

“I didn’t do anything extraordinary.”

“PROVE IT!”

Let me simplify this for you. socks made a claim. you made a claim. you imposed a burden of proof on socks. that burden of proof then applies to you by proxy to keep things fair.

Understand yet?

Second, this thread has shown, on one side, a steady refusal to accept the legitimacy of free vocalization as an innate human ability, the mechanism of fakery. Proving fakery without being able to cite the mechanism for such fakery is not possible, because a crucial “given” is taken away by fiat.

Ah yes, the old "define the terms as a mechanism of fakery" to prove fakery. That's the problem with that logical fallacy. When you remove the term, the proof is gone.

Third, this thread has shown, on one side, a steady refusal to accept the capacity of the field of linguistics to determine whether any utterance, including gibberish, is or was a language to someone, somewhere at some time. Any string of sounds uttered by anyone under any circumstances is impossible to “disprove” as a language, or so the argument goes.

I remain optimistic about the field of linguistics. I enjoyed reading about the substance of how they try to identify languages through consonant maps and measuring statistics. I saw far too few studies with that level of detail. I saw one on brain waves that had a good scientific research writeup. They bit off a small chunk and proved it, as opposed to biting off a large chunk, not proving it, and expressing a lot of opinionated conclusions.

I'm still waiting for the following to see in linguistics around this topic:

1) Someone putting together an organized database of glossa samples that multiple research articles could access and use for research.

2) More statistical analysis like Samarin started in the '70's that utilizes some of the modeling and compute power we have today.

3) Other language identification methods in use and the detail of them.

It is true that a coded message using language as a vehicle is a very effective encryption tool, as shown by the movie "Wind Talkers", depicting the use of the Navajo language for WWII transmissions that was never broken throughout the duration of the war, despite the continued efforts of linguists and cryptologists.

Proof? No, not an ounce of proof. But humanly possible to fake? Absolutely, the protestations of those who insist it's impossible notwithstanding. I do not ask anyone to prove their words of interpretation and prophecy were genuine, nor can I prove they were not. All I can do is demonstrate that faking such messages is far from impossible. I believe I have done that here.

Well, the conversations with mediums if included in the same category would be a proof its possible to fake. And possibly trained actors could fake TIP. I find it not impossible, but improbable that the common man with the instruction I've seen given could fake as well as I see happening.

[Raf]

Let me simplify this for you. socks made a claim. you made a claim. you imposed a burden of proof on socks. that burden of proof then applies to you by proxy to keep things fair.

Understand yet?

Yes. The claims are qualitatively different. Clearly you do not understand that, and I am through trying to explain it to you.

Ah yes, the old "define the terms as a mechanism of fakery" to prove fakery. That's the problem with that logical fallacy. When you remove the term, the proof is gone.

No, when you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge a basic human capacity as defined and recognized both by laymen and those with training in both linguistics AND Christian theology, you have stubbornly pretended that the mechanism doesn't exist when it does. That does nothing to detract from my argument. It only gives you a false confidence in yours. I have employed no logical fallacy. You have manufactured one, and you are the only one to study this issue to pretend I am wrong here.

I remain optimistic about the field of linguistics. I enjoyed reading about the substance of how they try to identify languages through consonant maps and measuring statistics. I saw far too few studies with that level of detail. I saw one on brain waves that had a good scientific research writeup. They bit off a small chunk and proved it, as opposed to biting off a large chunk, not proving it, and expressing a lot of opinionated conclusions.

Not proving it to your satisfaction, but only because you are willing to believe anything, including admitted fakery, is a language until proved otherwise, which is a bass-ackward application of the burden of proof.

I'm still waiting for the following to see in linguistics around this topic:

1) Someone putting together an organized database of glossa samples that multiple research articles could access and use for research.

2) More statistical analysis like Samarin started in the '70's that utilizes some of the modeling and compute power we have today.

3) Other language identification methods in use and the detail of them.

And then he'll accept it. I promise!

It is true that a coded message using language as a vehicle is a very effective encryption tool, as shown by the movie "Wind Talkers", depicting the use of the Navajo language for WWII transmissions that was never broken throughout the duration of the war, despite the continued efforts of linguists and cryptologists.

SIT is not "code. You are retrofitting the Biblical definition of glossa to suit your own argument.

Well, the conversations with mediums if included in the same category would be a proof its possible to fake.

They were not mediums. They were frauds. You're the only one here who still thinks they were mediums.

And possibly trained actors could fake TIP. I find it not impossible, but improbable that the common man with the instruction I've seen given could fake as well as I see happening.

Your experience is irrelevant. The fact is that TWI trained us all in the improv techniques needed to produce convincing-sounding interpretations and prophecies. The training was right there. You helped provide it.

[chockfull]

Yes. The claims are qualitatively different. Clearly you do not understand that, and I am through trying to explain it to you.

To you maybe. I have no way of verifying your claims about faking. Neither do any other thread readers. And I would hate to be accused by you of naivety for accepting claims without proof.

No, when you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge a basic human capacity as defined and recognized both by laymen and those with training in both linguistics AND Christian theology, you have stubbornly pretended that the mechanism doesn't exist when it does. That does nothing to detract from my argument. It only gives you a false confidence in yours. I have employed no logical fallacy. You have manufactured one, and you are the only one to study this issue to pretend I am wrong here.

I already clearly refuted this as a "basic human capacity" by inventing a word called "self mouthnoiseization". I enacted the exact same logical fallacy and showed how it plays out. For the readers wondering about this, by defining a word to be the meaning of what you are trying to prove is a logical fallacy. It proves nothing other than your creativity for defining terms.

SIT is not "code. You are retrofitting the Biblical definition of glossa to suit your own argument.

All language is a "code". You understand a message if you understand the language, the key to the code. This is very ably documented in the movie "Wind Talkers". If language was not a code, then it couldn't have been used to encrypt transmissions in WWII that couldn't be detected by the enemy.

They were not mediums. They were frauds. You're the only one here who still thinks they were mediums.

I don't know one way of the other. I was just using the same terms regarding the group Samarin did.

Your experience is irrelevant. The fact is that TWI trained us all in the improv techniques needed to produce convincing-sounding interpretations and prophecies. The training was right there. You helped provide it.

My experience as it relates to being an untrained actor is not irrelevant. And I find it hilarious that you're accusing me of being the improv technique trainer when I myself couldn't fake a 6 sentence improv of TIP to make it sound believable at all. Next up is me teaching people to be concert pianists when I can't play.

[geisha779]

No faking or group encouragement going on here.....must be the genuine article....as I am sure these people didn't ask for a stone.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/whpHwKlM_8M" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

[Raf]

That looks like free mouthnoiseization to me.

[geisha779]

I hope this little girl didn't ask for a scorpion! This too must be the genuine article.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/L3lTPtaDSDQ" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

[OldSkool]

I hope this little girl didn't ask for a scorpion! This too must be the genuine article.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/L3lTPtaDSDQ" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="420"></iframe>

That's scary.

[Raf]

The whole "free mouthnoisization" refutation, if it can be called that, is not a refutation at all. It is a dodge and a smokescreen that does nothing to refute the recognized, innate human capacity to string along a bunch of syllables with the conscious or subconscious intent of replicating what a language should sound like. You can call it a refutation, but it's not. Frankly, I consider it evidence that this discussion is not being treated seriously. It's a transparent dodge, and everyone except the perpetrator of it can see it as such.

Where is the Biblical instruction for producing interpretation and prophecy? Why does TWI's instruction, which has no Biblical basis, so perfectly match the instruction given to actors for improv purposes?

[geisha779]

How about we call it "scat" because it is a process similar to scat singing? Wind across the vocal chords. . . . . . wait someone already coined the term scat and we all understand what it means. Pig Latin? Nope, someone already made up that term. Vocal exercises? Nope...taken. Dang...what do you call fake SIT? Gibberish? Works for me as it is already a word and we know what it means.

Hold the phone.....I know I am the blond among us here, but how does coining a new term refute the reality of an innate human ability behind what we have chosen to coin free vocalization? Someone help me....I am confused. Seriously....this thread makes my head ache with some of the logic here.

Speaking of actors making up a language....I was watching The Fifth Element the other day....well, I had it on in the background as I was finishing a project....and Milla Jovoich did a nice job in creating a fake language. She kept it to a 400 word vocabulary and practiced speaking what they coined "the divine language". Sounds better than my SIT ever did.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/j8WLYzA0lCs" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

[geisha779]

Okay, I just went back and reread and now that I have stopped laughing I have to say....

Ya Raf, prove you were faking it and that you were not accidentally displaying the dynamic and life altering power and presence of All Mighty God....you know how that Holy Spirit can just sneak up on you when you least expect it. After all, it must be so difficult to distinguish the reality of God's power and faking it?

WTF?

[chockfull]

No faking or group encouragement going on here.....must be the genuine article....as I am sure these people didn't ask for a stone.

It's a bunch of people excited about something on a video. I have no idea what they are excited about because other than hymns at the end there is really no detail about what's happening.

So I respectfully submit nobody has a way of determining whether or not it is genuine.

But I'm glad you're having such a great time at my expense ridiculing the practice those people are involved in and laughing at my beliefs.

Okay, I just went back and reread and now that I have stopped laughing I have to say....

Ya Raf, prove you were faking it and that you were not accidentally displaying the dynamic and life altering power and presence of All Mighty God....you know how that Holy Spirit can just sneak up on you when you least expect it. After all, it must be so difficult to distinguish the reality of God's power and faking it?

WTF?

Or more likely he believed what he was doing then, has since changed his beliefs to doubt the experience, and now feels it was a lie. Kind of like you.

So if you have anything to share besides ridicule and profanity, like how possibly you could prove that you were faking back then, I'm all ears.

Or I guess you could go back to the laughing hyena action. That behavior looks so good on you.

[Raf]

Your request for proof of fakery is unreasonable by your own ridiculous standards. Tell me what proof you would accept, and not only will I provide it, but I will gladly put YOUR fakery to the same test.

[chockfull]

Your request for proof of fakery is unreasonable by your own ridiculous standards. Tell me what proof you would accept, and not only will I provide it, but I will gladly put YOUR fakery to the same test.

The "ridiculous standards" were introduced by you when not accepting anecdotes of accounts where tongues were natively understood in modern times. I'm sorry you find your own standards unreasonable when applied to you too.

I could recommend some word studies on "love without hypocrisy" if that would help you feel better.

[Raf]

Now, now, are you calling me a hypocrite? Because that would be namecalling. Wouldn't want to go there, now, would we?

YOUR standards are ridiculous. You do not accept the mechanism by which people fake SIT, nor do you accept the ability of linguists to call a glossolalia sample non-language. I accept both. So unless YOU provide me with some type of proof you will accept, your request for proof is ridiculous by YOUR standard, not mine.

[chockfull]

Now, now, are you calling me a hypocrite? Because that would be namecalling. Wouldn't want to go there, now, would we?

No, just suggesting a scriptural solution for the dilemma you are expressing. You are free to take it or leave it.

YOUR standards are ridiculous. You do not accept the mechanism by which people fake SIT, nor do you accept the ability of linguists to call a glossolalia sample non-language. I accept both. So unless YOU provide me with some type of proof you will accept, your request for proof is ridiculous by YOUR standard, not mine.

Let me see - the "mechanism by which people fake SIT". That would be "the mouth" for $500 Alex. I'm not so big on people making up fake scientific words for using the mouth and then trying to use their own definitions as proof. That's kind of like nailing your foot to the floor and trying to run a mile.

And linguists are free to call any gloss sample "non-language" - it's a free country and expressing their opinion in print is their right. I even understand when some of them explain what they mean by "non-language" is that it isn't considered in the same categories as conversational language. I don't consider it in the same category as conversational language either. And since it's a free country, I'm free to examine their methods on language determination, compare it to known methods for proving things when people are talking about what is "proven", and note the differences.

I don't think for one second any of that consists of proof that people SIT are not producing languages though. The evidence is simply lacking for that.

And lastly, I simply don't understand chaining yourself to the spotted owl habitat tree over whether or not real human languages are produced every time someone "prays in the spirit" or not. To me I can't find one scripture where that is important, and the exegesis I've examined on I Cor. 14:2 to date which contains the phrase "nobody understands" and other scriptures I find ample ground for considering the definition to be talking about a figurative representation of the human organ - at least as much ground there as I do defining the definition "languages". Even if I was 100% sure on the "language" definition, I don't see where that makes a huge difference. I guess it must be instrumental to rejecting the entire body of teaching or something.

Edited November 13, 2012 by chockfull

[OldSkool]

I hope this little girl didn't ask for a scorpion! This too must be the genuine article.

I can't quit watching this.

Edited November 13, 2012 by OldSkool

[Raf]

Whatever. If you have no way for me to prove I was faking, stop demanding that proof of me.

If you have some way for me to prove I was faking, subject your own glossolalia to that method as well.

It's really that simple.

OldSkool: That video is child abuse.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Raf

[OldSkool]

OldSkool: That video is child abuse.

I'm just trying to figure out what the h3ll everyone is doing. And what's up with all the gibberish...is that supposed to be SIT?

[chockfull]

OldSkool: That video is child abuse.

Yes, looking at Pentecostal practices that are emotional and not so decent and in order are a great scare tactic that has been used by generations by preachers against SIT. Pick the most inflammatory, like the snake handlers or this one, project guilt by association, and you have a winning mind picture. I have distant relatives that are Jehovah's Witnesses that are particularly adept at doing this to convince people that SIT is from the devil.

You don't even need logic doing all that.

Edited November 13, 2012 by chockfull

[chockfull]

I'm just trying to figure out what the h3ll everyone is doing. And what's up with all the gibberish...is that supposed to be SIT?

I've seen weirder practices in person associated with the Pentecostals. I went to this one tent revival meeting where there was a guy making noises like a goat in the corner all by himself, people sprinting in an entire circle around the tent during the middle of the teaching, elders smacking people in the forehead, similar gibberish sounds, and a preacher at 120db shouting on the mic about someone who "got the holy ghost" and "cut his hair" - all with what kind of sounded like a ska band as a backup. That experience was so shocking I didn't even wonder about anyone SIT or not, just about how quickly I could get the h out of there. All the men? Bowl cuts. Apparently the "holy ghost" in addition to inspiring them to try and SIT also was inspiring them to use the same bowl for haircuts thus giving up their former sinful long-haired ways.

Edited November 13, 2012 by chockfull

[chockfull]

Whatever. If you have no way for me to prove I was faking, stop demanding that proof of me.

One more time, I'm not demanding proof. I'm holding your claims of lying and faking to the standard of proof you introduced evaluating socks anecdote. Maybe if I repeat that a few more times you'll get it.

If you have some way for me to prove I was faking, subject your own glossolalia to that method as well.

If there was a clear way to prove ANY of this we wouldn't be having this argument. God requires faith or believing for any of His power to work. We live in a time after Christ where you believe first then see.

[Raf]

I will take that as an admission that you knew when you asked me for proof that there was no proof you would accept, and that you were just playing games with the thread topic.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

I will take that as an admission that you knew when you asked me for proof that there was no proof you would accept, and that you were just playing games with the thread topic.

Nope. Holding you to the same standard of proof you introduced on the thread.

[Raf]

Then again I ask, tell me what standard of proof YOU will accept as proof of fakery, and I will subject my glossolalia AND YOURS to the same standard.

I can do this all day.