There were no signs, miracles and wonders given to Israel. Those are made up stories, as reality-based as the myths of Perseus, Pandora, Hercules and Icarus. To call them miracles is to call them history, and they are not history. The evidence that would be there if they WERE history doesn't exist, and it is not merely an absence of evidence, but evidence of absence.
And, uh, yeah, proof of the supernatural -- objective, indisputable proof -- would actually "end" atheism, since lack of belief in the supernatural based on lack of evidence for it is a major reason people are atheist.
It all boils down to this: You are making a claim, Speaking in Tongues.
All I'm asking you to do is prove your claim, and all you're doing is coming up with one excuse after another why you can't.
Me thinks you're biased by your experiences of skin-encapsulated mechanosensory receptors transmitting electrochemical signals to your brain.
Methinks you're trusting fictional accounts of things that never happened above actual historical accounts and records of things that did.
Tell me, on what basis do you dismiss the accounts of the history of the western hemisphere contained in the Book of Mormon?
Apply the same reasoning, and you HAVE to conclude that Genesis and Exodus, at the very least, were works of fiction (not all of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, though. Some of that likely did happen).
But if you're going to cite signs miracles and wonders as proof, it'd be best not to use those contained in debunked histories of events that never took place.
Here's how it works: You make a claim, you have to prove it. That works for history as well. It IS somewhat different in that field, as in history, you can never know for certain every detail of what happened, but you can make logical determinations of what most likely happened. So I'll never rely on history to prove a miracle did not happen (because the method is biased against it). BUT! If you say a miracle took place that came after 10 other miracles that resulted in the exodus of a.5 million people from Egypt at a certain time period, and there is no historical record of such an exodus (and the story conveniently fails to pinpoint the name of a Pharoah during which this would have happened) and there's no record of the loss of the army in the Red Sea and no trace of a million or so people living for 40 years in the wilderness near... you start to get the picture. The events recorded in Genesis and Exodus would have left evidence behind. Not small traces of evidence either. Big ones. Like evidence of a worldwide flood. Or evidence of a regional flood large enough to land a boat on the mountains of Ararat. No such flood.
So please, don't come here and throw your illogical comments at me and then accuse me of being small minded because I go where the evidence takes me and you refuse to.
The argument that A didn't result in B, so C won't result in D is invalid if A never happened in the first place. And if you can't establish that it did, then the failure is YOURS, not mine.
Back to topic (from which you are desperately and transparently trying to deflect): Demonstrate the language you're producing or STFU.
With disease, I chose "my faith healed myself". I think there's something more subtle there . . . I understand you are looking for a more testable framing.
B,
I appreciate your comments and thank you for them. There's a lot to unpack on the subject of healing, arguments that are out of place on this particular thread. I'm sure you picked up that I was drawing a parallel about how claims are defended, not seeking to debunk faith healing on a thread that's not about faith healing.
Boy, when a man of God tells you that your doubts are of the devil, the sure helps you overcome them inhibitions, don't it? (Ignore the creepy guy on the left, who's there to make fun of JAL. Or enjoy him. I don't care).
For those who don't know, the speaker in the video is John Lynn, former hoity toity for TWI. What he teaches is pretty much what TWI taught. It's where he learned it.
I appreciate your comments and thank you for them. There's a lot to unpack on the subject of healing, arguments that are out of place on this particular thread. I'm sure you picked up that I was drawing a parallel about how claims are defended, not seeking to debunk faith healing on a thread that's not about faith healing.
I think it entirely relates to why we argue about SIT. Or, why we don't argue about SIT. Meaning I intended it as on topic, if that was issue. But yes clearly their is another conversation here.
That conversation appears to be about God of the Gaps. Also, of doubt. Which I feel is best illustrated by infinite nature of fractals.
Another cool video (not affiliated past or present with TWI). I really started paying attention around 13:20, where he talks about Pride being a stumbling block. You wouldn't want to be proud, would you?
“Pride keeps people from praying in tongues, because they’re afraid of how they might appear.”
You wouldn't want to be afraid, would you?
"Stop being afraid that it's not God."
"Don't fight it."
"Let the sound come out."
"Don't overthink it."
Notice how much time is spent getting you to overcome your fear of SIT. Why would anyone be afraid of speaking in tongues? Seriously, are you afraid of dessert? Are you afraid of your favorite meal? Why would anyone be afraid of SIT?
I'll tell you what they're afraid of: when it's time to start, nothing's going to happen until they make a decision to fake it, and these teachers lay some pretty decent groundwork convincing people that they're not faking it before they even start speaking.
That's how you get people to fake it without realizing they're faking it. You convince them that the fake is the real thing.
Except, of course, the product is not a language. But hey! 9,000 dialects, PLUS the tongues of angels, right JAL?
Raf I'll just tell ya that not everyone before they speak in tongues is afraid of it. You had a bad experience with SIT which I get but thats just your one subjective experience which you erroneously project to be true for everyone because its true for you. Step outside yourself and ask yourself if it makes sense that just because you experienced something thats true for you that its true for everyone or true at all. There is nothing that I can say or show you to prove that SIT is possible like there is nothing I can say or show you to make you believe in God again. Your mind is clearly made up on both situations. Theres not much discussion that can be had with someone who has their mind made up on something. So I'll leave it at that. But if it is possible for you not to project your experience on to others, and not assume that just because you were faking or your experience with God sucked that God doesn't exist because you were in a cult. Then perhaps a discussion could be had, but your mind is made up so I don't think there can be much progress made one way or another.
I had the same experience you had: Wanted it to be true, faked it and later realized it was a three-dollar bill. The only difference between your experience and mine is that I admit it.
There IS something you can say or show me to prove that SIT is possible. Document the language you produce in front of a disinterested third party.
That's what kills me. You guys are acting like I'm the stubborn one, when I'm the only one who has said over and over and over again that evidence will change my mind. Can you say the same? If I showed you that it could be faked, how it could be faked, how it could be done without the person involved realizing it was being faked, what the product of fake SIT would look like, that it looks exactly like what you produce, if I even got you to admit while trying to refute me that it was possible for someone to THINK they were speaking in tongues but have the "spiritual connection" turned off and thus be faking it without realizing it BY YOUR OWN ACCOUNT, would you THEN believe that maybe, just maybe, you aren't producing what the Bible says you should be producing, which is a language?
Because I've covered my end of that deal. But none of you who insist I'm the stubborn one has produced actual evidence that you're producing the Biblical result of SIT, which is a language.
So spare me the "nothing's going to change your mind, Raf" trope, because it's demonstrable nonsense. Produce a language, prove it (and that means not using a decades-old anecdote involving anonymous people half a world away as "proof") and I will change my mind.
You won't change your mind under any circumstances. I think I'm not the one being stubborn here.
P.S. I changed my mind about SIT years before I changed my mind about God, so I would sincerely appreciate it if you would stop trying to mix the two issues, because they are not related. And I've said that multiple times. And your continued insistence on mixing the two issues makes your debate tactic dishonest. And I'm tired of defending my position against dishonest arguments.
P.P.S. I'm not atheist because I was in a cult. I'm atheist because I concluded that the evidence for a god is lacking. It's not because Wictoh Pao Wiewille huwt mah feewings. It's because when I look at god claims, I do not see substantiation that I find compelling. If I were to say the only reason you're still a theist is because a cult damaged your critical thinking skills beyond repair, you would be insulted. So understand, when you say I'm an atheist because a cult hurt me, the only appropriate thing to do afterward is wipe it and flush. Because that's what that comment is.
P.P.S. I'm not atheist because I was in a cult. I'm atheist because I concluded that the evidence for a god is lacking. It's not because Wictoh Pao Wiewille huwt mah feewings. It's because when I look at god claims, I do not see substantiation that I find compelling. If I were to say the only reason you're still a theist is because a cult damaged your critical thinking skills beyond repair, you would be insulted. So understand, when you say I'm an atheist because a cult hurt me, the only appropriate thing to do afterward is wipe it and flush. Because that's what that comment is.
Yet the evidence was the same while you were a believer and the same while you became an atheist. The evidence didn't change you did.
The evidence didn't change. My understanding of and analysis of the evidence changed. STOP MAKING THE THREAD ABOUT ME. The evidence was the same 20 years ago that it is today. You are not my shrink, you are not my counselor, and you are not my friend. Your faux psychoanalysis is not accurate and is not welcome. It's rude and you need to stop. Got it, pal? Knock it the f- off. I've outlined my reasons for changing my mind, and those reasons do not include being hurt by a cult. You may want to stay stuck in the cult mindset, defending doctrine, evidence-be-damned, but I am free.
This is the last time I'm going to be remotely polite about those of you who have chosen to make this thread about your amateur and incompetent armchair psychology of me. The last time.
Evidence will change my mind. Nothing will change yours. You're being the stubborn ones here, not me.
This thread is about SIT. If you want to start a thread about RAF, you are welcome not to. Thanks.
Raf, As you describe the video "How to Pray in Tongues", I would call that bullying.
Someone else might call that love. Or tough love.
So which is it?
If SIT was proven true, or not, would that decide which it is? (Bullying or Love) . . . Probably not?
Did you review the video? Because that's why I posted it.
You choose the words "bullying" and "tough love" and that somehow binds me to accept one or the other if SIT is proved true? That's nonsense. Do you know how to argue your point? Because it seems to me you really, really don't.
If SIT is true, then it's persuasion. If it's not true, it's persuasion. That is not bullying. You can make the argument that it's manipulation, if you insist on being negative. But it's neither bullying nor "tough love." I don't even think it's necessarily malicious. I mean, I don't accuse these people of not believing the crap they're selling. I just think they're selling crap.
They're almost certainly sincere. But it's not about them. They're not liars. They don't realize they're teaching free vocalization and calling it SIT. Listen to JAL. He is CONVINCED it's a language. That's nice. It's not a language. Saying it is doesn't make it so. Blaming the devil for your recognition that it's in your head doesn't make it the devil's fault.
Produce a language or we have nothing to argue (well, we could argue whether a language should be the expected result, but we've already been there and back again on that subject too. You're welcome to try).
Apologies for projecting my frustration onto you, Bolsh. I stand by my comment, but not the snark. I still had Dr. Frasier Crane on my mind and I projected that frustration on to you. You did not deserve that.
This is a day (or 3) late and a dollar short. It addresses an issue that was recently raised on a previous page.
-----------------------
Phoneme is not an obscure word. In fact, it's rather a commonly used word.
One of the first things a language student learns is the list of phonemes associated with the language they are studying. In essence, they are the particular sounds used in a language. They are not the individual letters of the alphabet. In English, for example, the letter C can have several sounds, some when it is used by itself and more when it is combined with the letter H to form CH. In addition, identical letters can produce different sounds. French provides a good example. The CH combination in French does not sound like the CH combination in English.
I am currently a (mostly casual) student of one of the Asian languages. One thing I find somewhat interesting is that a phoneme from one language can be injected into another language and seem to fit when, in reality, it does not. It only sounds like it does. I think this somewhat explains why we can hear a "tongue" and think it sounds like a legitimate language.
Yet the evidence was the same while you were a believer and the same while you became an atheist. The evidence didn't change you did.
Perhaps it's this "while you were a believer" part that is so confusing. Can a person genuinely believe anything beyond what is (or can be) known by our five senses, or might it be limited to some form of mental ascension... an illusion, so to speak. In other words, they only "think" they believe it. What we believe is the cornerstone of reality (i.e., what we know is real.)
Initially, Adam had a choice. But once he made that choice, there was no reversing or nullifying the effect of it. Which is why the essential criteria in this day and time for "a believer" is not whether one does or doesn't SIT. Nor is it whether one says or thinks they believe in God. The distinction is in whether one believes in the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. NOTHING about that "fits" with what science and/or our five senses tells us. Quite the opposite, in fact. But, once that "jump" (if it can be said or thought of as such) is made, there is a change that occurs within the mind that allows for a new perspective on how "reality" can be known and defined. Which will undoubtedly be seen or thought of as being crazy or insane by anyone not ever having experienced the same, deep, heartfelt commitment (or repentance, as the case may be.)
SIT is little more that an afterthought. Or aftereffect, if you want. It's a mere little side dish. Way, way, WAY too much emphasis and significance given to it in PFAL, and in all TWI, to put it bluntly. Though, as much as that was, it still probably pales in comparison to the misplace emphasis that VPW and all TWI put on the "gift ministries."
So, argue all you want about the lack of proof there is for "modern SIT" being the same as the SIT written about in scripture. Relatively speaking, I don't think it makes a hill of beans difference. If "the effect" of it equates to what is written of it in the Corinthian epistles, then there is no reason to give it any more thought or attention than what was given to those (spiritually weak, rather carnally minded) men of Corinth back then. Which, a great many Christian of today seem to have lost (or perhaps never had) any sort of reasonable or mature perspective on.
If you were actually producing a language, you would agree that it does indeed make a hill of beans of difference. But whatever you need to tell you to comfort yourself of the implications of failing to produce a language is fine by me.
Raf, the reason... and namely, the effect of it... is for my private prayer and relationship with the Lord. It is not, nor have I ever seriously thought of it as, anything but that. And if it has never failed in serving that purpose for over 40 years, I could care less whether you or anyone else thinks its a "language" that was or can be known by any man. Matter of fact, it's so "out there" on the scale of oddity, I'd be surprised if anyone (that's ever heard it) has ever thought it were a language, much less anyone being able to prove it was. So aside from what it does for and means to me... yeah, it's useless babble. Powerful... yet apparently useless. What a conundrum.
If you were actually producing a language, you would agree that it does indeed make a hill of beans of difference. But whatever you need to tell you to comfort yourself of the implications of failing to produce a language is fine by me.
So you think when paul said he will pray with understanding and also with the spirit, by spirit he is saying a language that he doesn't understand yet is a known language? If hes saying he will pray with understanding then it follows that praying in the spirit means praying without understanding whats hes saying. We have only one example of SIT where people could understand what people SIT were saying. But I don't see any verse or the way paul talks about speaking in tongues in the epistles to think that it must be a decode able known language or fit under known language rules.
You really don't seem to be able to have a discussion on this topic without thinking someone is attacking you, yet most of your posts are just attacks on others and you take offense at the tiniest slight which is just a disagreement but no intention to offend you. Lower your defense mechanisms, and a reasonable discussion can be had here, but until you do, you are just going to create a hostile environment where you think everyone is attacking you so you attack a perceived threat that doesn't actually exist.
Here's what I (absolutely) know is true, Raf. That (from my previous post)... "there is a change that occurs within the mind that allows for a new perspective on how 'reality' can be known and defined."
Evidently what I know and perceive as being "real" is different than how you think of it.
Every relevant biblical reference to glossa is language. I never said the speaker understands it any time. I never said the heater understands it every time. But it is a known language every time. It's not computer code. It's not COBOL. It's not Klingon. It's a language, glossa, as Paul would have used and understood the term. So his inability to discern the language he spoke didn't suddenly make it not a language.
Honestly, if it's just babble, then how is it a manifestation of the spirit? That would be like passing gas is a manifestation of the spirit, because I said so. Never mind that anyone can do it (though I confess, it's harder to fake than SIT). Now, if you told me it smells like citrus, that would be a manifestation of the spirit. But then you would have to prove it.
I'm not creating a hostile environment where everyone's attacking me. You're doing that with your amateur and unwelcome psychoanalysis. I'm not the one raising defense mechanisms here. That would be those who keep coming up with excuse after excuse after excuse as to why you're not producing what the Bible promises when it comes to SIT. If you do, I will accept that evidence. But you won't even TRY. You'll convince yourself there's no way to test the claim. But there is. And you know there is. So stop projecting your defensiveness onto me and stick to the topic of discussion rather than the participants.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
95
23
22
27
Popular Days
Mar 23
59
Mar 14
36
Mar 20
32
Mar 13
16
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 95 posts
WordWolf 23 posts
waysider 22 posts
chockfull 27 posts
Popular Days
Mar 23 2017
59 posts
Mar 14 2017
36 posts
Mar 20 2017
32 posts
Mar 13 2017
16 posts
Popular Posts
Bolshevik
The purpose of Speaking in Tongues is to loosen people minds, or, reduce critical thinking enough that they will accept TWI doctrine and direction. It aids in building non-coherency. It is a sig
Bolshevik
I had thought for a time people who'd never heard SIT would be impressed. Isn't that why we're trying to get them to TWIG? To be wowed by what we take for granted? . . . what? . . . THAT didn'
Raf
It's almost impossible to believe this is an honest question. What good would it do to objectively prove the supernatural? He seriously asked that question. First off, it would win the
TLC
Me thinks you're biased by your experiences of skin-encapsulated mechanosensory receptors transmitting electrochemical signals to your brain.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Methinks you're trusting fictional accounts of things that never happened above actual historical accounts and records of things that did.
Tell me, on what basis do you dismiss the accounts of the history of the western hemisphere contained in the Book of Mormon?
Apply the same reasoning, and you HAVE to conclude that Genesis and Exodus, at the very least, were works of fiction (not all of Samuel, Kings and Chronicles, though. Some of that likely did happen).
But if you're going to cite signs miracles and wonders as proof, it'd be best not to use those contained in debunked histories of events that never took place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Here's how it works: You make a claim, you have to prove it. That works for history as well. It IS somewhat different in that field, as in history, you can never know for certain every detail of what happened, but you can make logical determinations of what most likely happened. So I'll never rely on history to prove a miracle did not happen (because the method is biased against it). BUT! If you say a miracle took place that came after 10 other miracles that resulted in the exodus of a.5 million people from Egypt at a certain time period, and there is no historical record of such an exodus (and the story conveniently fails to pinpoint the name of a Pharoah during which this would have happened) and there's no record of the loss of the army in the Red Sea and no trace of a million or so people living for 40 years in the wilderness near... you start to get the picture. The events recorded in Genesis and Exodus would have left evidence behind. Not small traces of evidence either. Big ones. Like evidence of a worldwide flood. Or evidence of a regional flood large enough to land a boat on the mountains of Ararat. No such flood.
So please, don't come here and throw your illogical comments at me and then accuse me of being small minded because I go where the evidence takes me and you refuse to.
The argument that A didn't result in B, so C won't result in D is invalid if A never happened in the first place. And if you can't establish that it did, then the failure is YOURS, not mine.
Back to topic (from which you are desperately and transparently trying to deflect): Demonstrate the language you're producing or STFU.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
B,
I appreciate your comments and thank you for them. There's a lot to unpack on the subject of healing, arguments that are out of place on this particular thread. I'm sure you picked up that I was drawing a parallel about how claims are defended, not seeking to debunk faith healing on a thread that's not about faith healing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Special emphasis on timestamp 3:05.
Boy, when a man of God tells you that your doubts are of the devil, the sure helps you overcome them inhibitions, don't it? (Ignore the creepy guy on the left, who's there to make fun of JAL. Or enjoy him. I don't care).
For those who don't know, the speaker in the video is John Lynn, former hoity toity for TWI. What he teaches is pretty much what TWI taught. It's where he learned it.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
I think it entirely relates to why we argue about SIT. Or, why we don't argue about SIT. Meaning I intended it as on topic, if that was issue. But yes clearly their is another conversation here.
That conversation appears to be about God of the Gaps. Also, of doubt. Which I feel is best illustrated by infinite nature of fractals.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Another cool video (not affiliated past or present with TWI). I really started paying attention around 13:20, where he talks about Pride being a stumbling block. You wouldn't want to be proud, would you?
“Pride keeps people from praying in tongues, because they’re afraid of how they might appear.”
You wouldn't want to be afraid, would you?
"Stop being afraid that it's not God."
"Don't fight it."
"Let the sound come out."
"Don't overthink it."
Notice how much time is spent getting you to overcome your fear of SIT. Why would anyone be afraid of speaking in tongues? Seriously, are you afraid of dessert? Are you afraid of your favorite meal? Why would anyone be afraid of SIT?
I'll tell you what they're afraid of: when it's time to start, nothing's going to happen until they make a decision to fake it, and these teachers lay some pretty decent groundwork convincing people that they're not faking it before they even start speaking.
That's how you get people to fake it without realizing they're faking it. You convince them that the fake is the real thing.
Except, of course, the product is not a language. But hey! 9,000 dialects, PLUS the tongues of angels, right JAL?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImLikeSoConfused
Raf I'll just tell ya that not everyone before they speak in tongues is afraid of it. You had a bad experience with SIT which I get but thats just your one subjective experience which you erroneously project to be true for everyone because its true for you. Step outside yourself and ask yourself if it makes sense that just because you experienced something thats true for you that its true for everyone or true at all. There is nothing that I can say or show you to prove that SIT is possible like there is nothing I can say or show you to make you believe in God again. Your mind is clearly made up on both situations. Theres not much discussion that can be had with someone who has their mind made up on something. So I'll leave it at that. But if it is possible for you not to project your experience on to others, and not assume that just because you were faking or your experience with God sucked that God doesn't exist because you were in a cult. Then perhaps a discussion could be had, but your mind is made up so I don't think there can be much progress made one way or another.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I did not have a "bad experience" with SIT.
I had the same experience you had: Wanted it to be true, faked it and later realized it was a three-dollar bill. The only difference between your experience and mine is that I admit it.
There IS something you can say or show me to prove that SIT is possible. Document the language you produce in front of a disinterested third party.
That's what kills me. You guys are acting like I'm the stubborn one, when I'm the only one who has said over and over and over again that evidence will change my mind. Can you say the same? If I showed you that it could be faked, how it could be faked, how it could be done without the person involved realizing it was being faked, what the product of fake SIT would look like, that it looks exactly like what you produce, if I even got you to admit while trying to refute me that it was possible for someone to THINK they were speaking in tongues but have the "spiritual connection" turned off and thus be faking it without realizing it BY YOUR OWN ACCOUNT, would you THEN believe that maybe, just maybe, you aren't producing what the Bible says you should be producing, which is a language?
Because I've covered my end of that deal. But none of you who insist I'm the stubborn one has produced actual evidence that you're producing the Biblical result of SIT, which is a language.
So spare me the "nothing's going to change your mind, Raf" trope, because it's demonstrable nonsense. Produce a language, prove it (and that means not using a decades-old anecdote involving anonymous people half a world away as "proof") and I will change my mind.
You won't change your mind under any circumstances. I think I'm not the one being stubborn here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
P.S. I changed my mind about SIT years before I changed my mind about God, so I would sincerely appreciate it if you would stop trying to mix the two issues, because they are not related. And I've said that multiple times. And your continued insistence on mixing the two issues makes your debate tactic dishonest. And I'm tired of defending my position against dishonest arguments.
P.P.S. I'm not atheist because I was in a cult. I'm atheist because I concluded that the evidence for a god is lacking. It's not because Wictoh Pao Wiewille huwt mah feewings. It's because when I look at god claims, I do not see substantiation that I find compelling. If I were to say the only reason you're still a theist is because a cult damaged your critical thinking skills beyond repair, you would be insulted. So understand, when you say I'm an atheist because a cult hurt me, the only appropriate thing to do afterward is wipe it and flush. Because that's what that comment is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImLikeSoConfused
Yet the evidence was the same while you were a believer and the same while you became an atheist. The evidence didn't change you did.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Raf, As you describe the video "How to Pray in Tongues", I would call that bullying.
Someone else might call that love. Or tough love.
So which is it?
If SIT was proven true, or not, would that decide which it is? (Bullying or Love) . . . Probably not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The evidence didn't change. My understanding of and analysis of the evidence changed. STOP MAKING THE THREAD ABOUT ME. The evidence was the same 20 years ago that it is today. You are not my shrink, you are not my counselor, and you are not my friend. Your faux psychoanalysis is not accurate and is not welcome. It's rude and you need to stop. Got it, pal? Knock it the f- off. I've outlined my reasons for changing my mind, and those reasons do not include being hurt by a cult. You may want to stay stuck in the cult mindset, defending doctrine, evidence-be-damned, but I am free.
This is the last time I'm going to be remotely polite about those of you who have chosen to make this thread about your amateur and incompetent armchair psychology of me. The last time.
Evidence will change my mind. Nothing will change yours. You're being the stubborn ones here, not me.
This thread is about SIT. If you want to start a thread about RAF, you are welcome not to. Thanks.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Did you review the video? Because that's why I posted it.
You choose the words "bullying" and "tough love" and that somehow binds me to accept one or the other if SIT is proved true? That's nonsense. Do you know how to argue your point? Because it seems to me you really, really don't.
If SIT is true, then it's persuasion. If it's not true, it's persuasion. That is not bullying. You can make the argument that it's manipulation, if you insist on being negative. But it's neither bullying nor "tough love." I don't even think it's necessarily malicious. I mean, I don't accuse these people of not believing the crap they're selling. I just think they're selling crap.
They're almost certainly sincere. But it's not about them. They're not liars. They don't realize they're teaching free vocalization and calling it SIT. Listen to JAL. He is CONVINCED it's a language. That's nice. It's not a language. Saying it is doesn't make it so. Blaming the devil for your recognition that it's in your head doesn't make it the devil's fault.
Produce a language or we have nothing to argue (well, we could argue whether a language should be the expected result, but we've already been there and back again on that subject too. You're welcome to try).
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Apologies for projecting my frustration onto you, Bolsh. I stand by my comment, but not the snark. I still had Dr. Frasier Crane on my mind and I projected that frustration on to you. You did not deserve that.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
This is a day (or 3) late and a dollar short. It addresses an issue that was recently raised on a previous page.
-----------------------
Phoneme is not an obscure word. In fact, it's rather a commonly used word.
One of the first things a language student learns is the list of phonemes associated with the language they are studying. In essence, they are the particular sounds used in a language. They are not the individual letters of the alphabet. In English, for example, the letter C can have several sounds, some when it is used by itself and more when it is combined with the letter H to form CH. In addition, identical letters can produce different sounds. French provides a good example. The CH combination in French does not sound like the CH combination in English.
I am currently a (mostly casual) student of one of the Asian languages. One thing I find somewhat interesting is that a phoneme from one language can be injected into another language and seem to fit when, in reality, it does not. It only sounds like it does. I think this somewhat explains why we can hear a "tongue" and think it sounds like a legitimate language.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Perhaps it's this "while you were a believer" part that is so confusing. Can a person genuinely believe anything beyond what is (or can be) known by our five senses, or might it be limited to some form of mental ascension... an illusion, so to speak. In other words, they only "think" they believe it. What we believe is the cornerstone of reality (i.e., what we know is real.)
Initially, Adam had a choice. But once he made that choice, there was no reversing or nullifying the effect of it. Which is why the essential criteria in this day and time for "a believer" is not whether one does or doesn't SIT. Nor is it whether one says or thinks they believe in God. The distinction is in whether one believes in the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. NOTHING about that "fits" with what science and/or our five senses tells us. Quite the opposite, in fact. But, once that "jump" (if it can be said or thought of as such) is made, there is a change that occurs within the mind that allows for a new perspective on how "reality" can be known and defined. Which will undoubtedly be seen or thought of as being crazy or insane by anyone not ever having experienced the same, deep, heartfelt commitment (or repentance, as the case may be.)
SIT is little more that an afterthought. Or aftereffect, if you want. It's a mere little side dish. Way, way, WAY too much emphasis and significance given to it in PFAL, and in all TWI, to put it bluntly. Though, as much as that was, it still probably pales in comparison to the misplace emphasis that VPW and all TWI put on the "gift ministries."
So, argue all you want about the lack of proof there is for "modern SIT" being the same as the SIT written about in scripture. Relatively speaking, I don't think it makes a hill of beans difference. If "the effect" of it equates to what is written of it in the Corinthian epistles, then there is no reason to give it any more thought or attention than what was given to those (spiritually weak, rather carnally minded) men of Corinth back then. Which, a great many Christian of today seem to have lost (or perhaps never had) any sort of reasonable or mature perspective on.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
If you were actually producing a language, you would agree that it does indeed make a hill of beans of difference. But whatever you need to tell you to comfort yourself of the implications of failing to produce a language is fine by me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Raf, the reason... and namely, the effect of it... is for my private prayer and relationship with the Lord. It is not, nor have I ever seriously thought of it as, anything but that. And if it has never failed in serving that purpose for over 40 years, I could care less whether you or anyone else thinks its a "language" that was or can be known by any man. Matter of fact, it's so "out there" on the scale of oddity, I'd be surprised if anyone (that's ever heard it) has ever thought it were a language, much less anyone being able to prove it was. So aside from what it does for and means to me... yeah, it's useless babble. Powerful... yet apparently useless. What a conundrum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ImLikeSoConfused
So you think when paul said he will pray with understanding and also with the spirit, by spirit he is saying a language that he doesn't understand yet is a known language? If hes saying he will pray with understanding then it follows that praying in the spirit means praying without understanding whats hes saying. We have only one example of SIT where people could understand what people SIT were saying. But I don't see any verse or the way paul talks about speaking in tongues in the epistles to think that it must be a decode able known language or fit under known language rules.
You really don't seem to be able to have a discussion on this topic without thinking someone is attacking you, yet most of your posts are just attacks on others and you take offense at the tiniest slight which is just a disagreement but no intention to offend you. Lower your defense mechanisms, and a reasonable discussion can be had here, but until you do, you are just going to create a hostile environment where you think everyone is attacking you so you attack a perceived threat that doesn't actually exist.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You'd be surprised if anyone thought speaking in languages produces languages.
Listen to yourself. You have to know that's not true, TLC.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Here's what I (absolutely) know is true, Raf. That (from my previous post)... "there is a change that occurs within the mind that allows for a new perspective on how 'reality' can be known and defined."
Evidently what I know and perceive as being "real" is different than how you think of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Every relevant biblical reference to glossa is language. I never said the speaker understands it any time. I never said the heater understands it every time. But it is a known language every time. It's not computer code. It's not COBOL. It's not Klingon. It's a language, glossa, as Paul would have used and understood the term. So his inability to discern the language he spoke didn't suddenly make it not a language.
Honestly, if it's just babble, then how is it a manifestation of the spirit? That would be like passing gas is a manifestation of the spirit, because I said so. Never mind that anyone can do it (though I confess, it's harder to fake than SIT). Now, if you told me it smells like citrus, that would be a manifestation of the spirit. But then you would have to prove it.
I'm not creating a hostile environment where everyone's attacking me. You're doing that with your amateur and unwelcome psychoanalysis. I'm not the one raising defense mechanisms here. That would be those who keep coming up with excuse after excuse after excuse as to why you're not producing what the Bible promises when it comes to SIT. If you do, I will accept that evidence. But you won't even TRY. You'll convince yourself there's no way to test the claim. But there is. And you know there is. So stop projecting your defensiveness onto me and stick to the topic of discussion rather than the participants.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"there is a change that occurs within the mind that allows for a new perspective on how 'reality' can be known and defined."
AND THEY WONDER HOW PEOPLE CAN FOOL THEMSELVES INTO THINKING SOMETHING IS GENUINE WHEN THEY'RE FAKING IT!
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.