SIT, TIP, Prophecy and Confession

[chockfull]

Look, you want to look at weird videos purporting to be SIT? Here's one where someone is using their mouth as a percussion section and saying it's SIT. I don't think so. But I can't prove it's not. It just sounds like a joke. I can't prove there were no ancient aborigines that did this kind of thing and invented the language all to speak with percussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdIqbaYPFqw

[Raf]

Right. ANYthing can be a language to you, so linguistics is out as an arbiter of who's faking.

So what's IN? How do I prove I'm faking it, which you asked me to do?

Whatever answer YOU come up with, BOTH our glossolalia can be subject to.

Or are you going to admit that you were never serious when you asked for proof in the first place?

[chockfull]

Or are you going to admit that you were never serious when you asked for proof in the first place?

I never asked for proof in the first place. You did, when rejecting anecdotal accounts of SIT being understood natively. Now you're struggling like a shark on a fish line when faced with living up to your own standard.

[Raf]

I can meet my standard. My standard accepts free vocalization as the mechanism and accepts the capacity of the field of linguistics to determine whether what I'm producing is a language. I cannot meet YOUR standard, because you have not provided one.

So, all you liars and fakers out there. Prove that you faked it. Explain to us exactly how it was you crafted long entire TIP messages for worship meetings [by the way, I did this: post 1775 (Raf)]. And prove that when you SIT in TWI, it did not produce a language.

Tell us again how you never asked me to prove anything.

Edited November 13, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

I can meet my standard. My standard accepts free vocalization as the mechanism and accepts the capacity of the field of linguistics to determine whether what I'm producing is a language. I cannot meet YOUR standard, because you have not provided one.

This is a false premise. God states in I Cor. 14:2 that you are speaking to God and others won't understand. I simply believe that verse.

Tell us again how you never asked me to prove anything.

The quote if you read it in its entirety is doing exactly what I said it was - holding you to the same standard of proof that you faked it that you are to those presenting anecdotal evidence.

[chockfull]

Right. ANYthing can be a language to you, so linguistics is out as an arbiter of who's faking.

The consonant mapping I saw Samarin with had promise - it was just very rudimentary. If you could plug that into computer statistical analysis such that you could run that on English samples to build up a database, then compare glossa samples consonant maps against known language consonant maps in English, with a large enough sample size of known language you could draw some more supported conclusions.

Possible null hypothesis test possibility:

1) Glossa sample is the same as speakers native language - alternative hypothesis could show marked differences in the percentages of the consonant maps. NOTE: for more conclusive proof it's not enough to say the native language consonants appeared - with native samples you can project the % occurrences of the consonants too. Like playing Scrabble you know that "e" is the most commonly used vowel. Vowels are notoriously harder to distinguish, which is why they use consonant maps. You could map native language appearance consistency % against the same consistency % in the glossa.

[Raf]

I do not accept your interpretation of I Cor. 14:2.

Your demand for proof suddenly became figurative when I started asking you for a standard you would accept. Your failure to see a qualitative difference between an allegation that someone witnessed a miracle versus someone admitting he faked it is your failure alone. Everyone else can see the difference but you. What you claim about holding me to a consistent standard is demonstrably false.

[Raf]

Why should anyone believe you will accept a scientific test after you JUST SAID you are going to retreat to your convenient misapplication of I Cor. 14:2 when you don't like the results?

[chockfull]

I do not accept your interpretation of I Cor. 14:2.

But of course you won't put forth an interpretation of I Cor. 14:2 that people could judge whether or not is more accurate....

Your demand for proof suddenly became figurative when I started asking you for a standard you would accept. Your failure to see a qualitative difference between an allegation that someone witnessed a miracle versus someone admitting he faked it is your failure alone. Everyone else can see the difference but you. What you claim about holding me to a consistent standard is demonstrably false.

socks has a claim about SIT. you have a claim about SIT. It is as equally likely that you did genuinely SIT and are now renouncing the practice due to a change in beliefs that it is that socks witnessed Asian speakers promulgating a fraud.

And we should trust you and not socks because you're such a nice guy, right?

... your convenient misapplication of I Cor. 14:2 ...

If it's such a misapplication then please by all means enlighten me and provide the correct interpretation of "no man understands" and I Cor. 14:2.

[Raf]

Are you serious?

[geisha779]

I have been known to drop the F bomb occasionally....sometimes it just says it all

I don't think I look like a hyena......a cougar maybe. Hyena? Nah

Edited November 14, 2012 by geisha779

[WordWolf]

Are you serious?

Either he's been serious the entire time,

or he's been messing with us the entire time.

If he's serious, his last claim just falls down when it comes to me-

because he's have to say I originally did the real thing, have then

said I faked it, followed the discussion, and after lots of thought,

THEN changed my belief about SIT entirely.

I'd be quite happy to SIT like God said.

First I have to find a real example in life. I have plenty of experience with fakes.

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?

I liked this post too much not to quote it.

[WordWolf]

(snip)

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.

I wanted to be specific.

AFAIK, the only posters posting on this thread with Theater experience are me and Waysider.

So, I'd like to point out Raf is correct here.

Improvisational actors are trained in a wide variety of skills that would affect their

ability to do this.

However, conmen can do it as well.

And anyone can learn to do it.

It takes longer when someone has to believe they're doing something spiritual rather than

something mundane, but it's easy if you have the right setup.

You need the right patter to prime them

(like when vpw says things for THREE FULL SESSIONS like

"Don't you want to speak the wonderful works of God?").

You need lots of people to provide social context and social pressure.

You need people over at least 3 nights (more is much more effective)

to demonstrate what it looks like "during manifestations."

Months of it is more effective than nights of it.

When Session 12 rolls along, the pigeon/student is primed to go,

and if they don't SIT on cue along with the entire room,

then someone comes over to them directly to get them going,

and takes them aside if that doesn't work.

With more time and practice with the first step, the next steps become easy.

The Intermediate spends a LOT of time on prepping people to believe that

the next thing is of God. One guy I know had been waiting to do for years,

and was complaining that several sessions went by without getting into it-

they just kept getting into "You can do it." "I know I can do it, show me how!"

Each Intermediate had groups where we did it and set up the new students perfectly

to expect to do the same and what it looks like. Instead of an acting instructor,

we had a class instructor, hours and hours of prep to prime our expectations,

then hours in individual groups where people learned more by observation and practice.

One of the most important things, which is easy for some people to forget, is all the

previous exposure to the stuff in meetings, and again there. So, the person knows what

the result is supposed to sound like.

I could design a class exercise for acting students to look the same. The only difference

is that the acting students would know they are faking it. (Ok, the 2nd of 2 differences

would be I'd do it in a fraction of the time because the acting students would know they

are faking it, and I could skip straight to the ingredients of the specific performance-

how to move, how to stay, how to make the SIT sounds, what components to place in the

"interpretation" and what components to leave out, etc.

The result would either look like an Excellors Session, or a full meeting, depending on

what I designed the thing to look like.

If you ever participated in an excellor (practice) session.....you made stuff up.

It's really that straightforward.

[waysider]

What is language?

language

A system for communicating. Written languages use symbols (that is, characters) to build words. The entire set of words is the language's vocabulary. The ways in which the words can be meaningfully combined is defined by the language's syntax and grammar. The actual meaning of words and combinations of words is defined by the language's semantics.

SOURCE

........................................................

Let's examine the key points, shall we?

A system for communicating.....There can be no communication if there is no system. SIT lacks a system.

The ways in which the words can be meaningfully combined is defined by the language's syntax and grammar....As there is no syntax or grammar involved in SIT, it follows suit that the words cannot be meaningfully combined.

The actual meaning of words and combinations of words is defined by the language's semantics....As SIT, the alleged language, has no defined semantics, the words and combinations of words have no actual meaning.

To make a short story long, SIT is not a language(s)

Edited November 14, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

Either he's been serious the entire time,

or he's been messing with us the entire time.

I just meant, asking me for what I think of I Cor. 14:2 as if I never addressed it before... I'm sorry, I know the rules of the forum, but how can he say that with a straight face? I mean, that's just a bald-faced... It's just... How can anyone ask for that as if I hadn't provided it on this thread repeatedly? And on the other thread... I mean... Seriously, how do I address this without breaking rules? Someone tell me, please.

[waysider]

All language is a "code".

SIT has no code.

Ergo, SIT is not a language.

Edit: Someone could prove me wrong by simply exposing and defining the code.

Edited November 14, 2012 by waysider

[Raf]

I just posted this in the doctrinal thread. I believe the subjects of both threads have converged on this point, so I am reposting here:

Raf, from post number 86 in the doctrinal thread on I Cor. 12-14, Posted 07 November 2012 - 04:26 PM

I Cor. 14:2 [The word unknown is not in the text. The person doing it is speaking to God, not men, IN A LANGUAGE the speaker does not know. It's still a tongue, and the meaning of that word has not changed. That "no man understands" is to be expected in an ordinary worship setting, which is the context of this verse. This says nothing about any other setting. It does not bar anyone from understanding in any setting. It is merely describing the normative, worship experience. It has no bearing on the language produced; only on the extreme unlikelihood of anyone in a worship setting understanding it. What is produced is still a human language].

Clearly there is disagreement on whether I Cor. 14:2 is a blanket statement that covers all situations (making SIT untestable) or whether it is, in context, the normative expectation of a worship meeting experience. I hold the latter view and believe it to be consistent with a plain reading of scripture. The former view, in my opinion, is a retrofit designed to explain why the people on earth best educated in the classification and identification of language have been unable to identify a language in any sample of modern SIT or to even classify modern SIT as language.

This is a difference of doctrinal opinion. Endlessly repeating this verse, by either side, is fruitless. It is here that our impasse is unresolvable.

At the risk of violating rules, I will make a statement that looks to the future instead of the past, including the recent past: any future assertion that I have not addressed this verse or provided an alternative explanation for the one offered above by Chockfull is a blatant, bald-faced, intentional LIE.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Raf

[chockfull]

I just meant, asking me for what I think of I Cor. 14:2 as if I never addressed it before... I'm sorry, I know the rules of the forum, but how can he say that with a straight face? I mean, that's just a bald-faced... It's just... How can anyone ask for that as if I hadn't provided it on this thread repeatedly? And on the other thread... I mean... Seriously, how do I address this without breaking rules? Someone tell me, please.

The last time I asked you to expound upon your views on scripture or to present what you believe related to this, you answered with a one word post - "No."

[chockfull]

Clearly there is disagreement on whether I Cor. 14:2 is a blanket statement that covers all situations (making SIT untestable) or whether it is, in context, the normative expectation of a worship meeting experience. I hold the latter view and believe it to be consistent with a plain reading of scripture. The former view, in my opinion, is a retrofit designed to explain why the people on earth best educated in the classification and identification of language have been unable to identify a language in any sample of modern SIT or to even classify modern SIT as language.

I don't find it a logical viewpoint that somehow SIT would have a "normative" definition and expectation that it would not be understood in a worship setting, yet somehow magically this definition would change if you removed the speaker and placed them in a lab setting.

I don't even find this to be a doctrinal difference of opinion. It simply is illogical.

And the attempts to make this illogical viewpoint seem more logical by attacking the straightforward logical explanation like it is some kind of retrofit is simply laughable.

I could design a class exercise for acting students to look the same. The only difference

is that the acting students would know they are faking it. (Ok, the 2nd of 2 differences

would be I'd do it in a fraction of the time because the acting students would know they

are faking it, and I could skip straight to the ingredients of the specific performance-

how to move, how to stay, how to make the SIT sounds, what components to place in the

"interpretation" and what components to leave out, etc.

The result would either look like an Excellors Session, or a full meeting, depending on

what I designed the thing to look like.[/b]

I'm sure a trained actor could set up an improve class to have people faking messages from God. I'm just more skeptical that you can do it without the participant knowing about it and effectively in a short period of time. And there's a whole lot of people doing this without trained actors involved.

I've seen people go through the INT class and with next to zero instruction or coaching do very well.

There is no proof involved in this, I guess it's an area where it is much more readily accepted that there is no way to prove it. I'm just including it in the discussion.

[Raf]

I have decided that it is against the interest of a constructive conversation to continue even reading certain posts. I tried to continue responding in the hopes that a dialogue could be saved and readers would see a healthy discussion of the issues. I do not believe that is what is now taking place, nor has it been for a very long time. Thank you for those who have followed this far. I'll keep reading, or you can DM me if you have questions you'd like me to address privately.

[chockfull]

I have decided that it is against the interest of a constructive conversation to continue even reading certain posts. I tried to continue responding in the hopes that a dialogue could be saved and readers would see a healthy discussion of the issues. I do not believe that is what is now taking place, nor has it been for a very long time. Thank you for those who have followed this far. I'll keep reading, or you can DM me if you have questions you'd like me to address privately.

See my post in doctrinal. It's time to end this foolishness. It's a poor Christian witness and we are not gaining anything learning wise.

[WordWolf]

The last time I asked you to expound upon your views on scripture or to present what you believe related to this, you answered with a one word post - "No."

He was tired of repeating himself, especially since you read his

previous points and circled them ad nauseum before that.

It was as pointless as the man born blind explaining, and re-re-re-explaining,

how Jesus opened his eyes.

After a certain amount of repetition, it gets ridiculous to keep trying.

[chockfull]

He was tired of repeating himself, especially since you read his

previous points and circled them ad nauseum before that.

I'm glad you have friends.

[WordWolf]

I don't find it a logical viewpoint that somehow SIT would have a "normative" definition and expectation that it would not be understood in a worship setting, yet somehow magically this definition would change if you removed the speaker and placed them in a lab setting.

I don't even find this to be a doctrinal difference of opinion. It simply is illogical.

And the attempts to make this illogical viewpoint seem more logical by attacking the straightforward logical explanation like it is some kind of retrofit is simply laughable.

It's not a doctrinal difference of opinion.

Since it's not a fair representation of what Raf said,

none of us, including Raf, would agree with it.

Also, trying to imitate his style while misunderstanding

his posts is not good by any meaning of the word "good."

I'm sure a trained actor could set up an improve class to have people faking messages from God. I'm just more skeptical that you can do it without the participant knowing about it and effectively in a short period of time. And there's a whole lot of people doing this without trained actors involved.

I've seen people go through the INT class and with next to zero instruction or coaching do very well.

There is no proof involved in this, I guess it's an area where it is much more readily accepted that there is no way to prove it. I'm just including it in the discussion.

The thing is, when people went/go through the INT class, it's NOT in a void.

They had months of "fellowships" with months of samples of what the "messages from God"

are supposed to sound like and look like. So, they know what to expect, and have social

conditioning that everyone else expects exactly that, too.

THEN comes the "you can do it" pep talks for a few sessions, THEN comes the "how to"

in the sessions/excellor sessions/ small groups.

Also, don't forget that any sampling of people will cover "normal distribution." Some

will lag behind (and may need private sessions on top of months of prep and sessions

of pep talk) and some will surge forward (and may do the stuff with only the exposure

from 12 sessions of pfal or from seeing a few meetings and following the instructions

in the books.) So, there will always be a few examples of people who need very little

exposure. We never really discussed the "slow cases."

What qualifies as a "short period" is different for people who know they're faking it

and people who would be convinced they were doing it supernaturally.

A class of actors could do it in one long session-provided enough examples of material

were provided. Faking a language, pious manner, those are easy. Most of it will be

details of the meeting, then samples of the "messages from God."

So, it COULD all have been faked.

I'm convinced at least some of it was NOT faked.

I'm not sure how much, but SOME.

(Much less than half. Maybe 5%, maybe 1%, maybe less.)

Edited November 14, 2012 by WordWolf

[Raf]

Those are guesses, WordWolf. No one has any way of knowing, and I have steadily acknowledged that proving or disproving interpretation and prophecy is impossible. It is an untestable premise, unlike SIT.

However, I was asked to explain how I faked lengthy messages. I believe I have answered that question to the satisfaction of the unbiased reader. Improv is not hard. Actors don't require PhD's to learn the trade. They're not smarter than the rest of us. They're simply taught techniques for improvisation -- identical to what we were taught in the Intermediate Class. The difference is, we weren't told it was improv. We were told it was a manifestation. And everyone got the same character: God. It's really easy, once you recognize what happened.

But I can't prove it, nor can anyone "prove" their messages were really divinely inspired. The natural explanation makes more sense to me than the supernatural.

Did anyone find the Biblical instructions on the manifestations of interpretation and prophecy? I mean the actual how-to instructions?

Edited November 14, 2012 by Raf