Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

Recommended Posts

Expecting a linguist to be able to determine whether someone produces a language during SIT is no different, not even a little, than expecting a doctor to confirm that someone who has been miraculously healed is indeed disease free. If that's not how God works, maybe it should be. I mean, if I have ocular cancer on May 1, and you heal me on May 2, I should show no signs of ocular cancer on May 10. Now, I know that sounds an awful lot like getting someone smarter than I am to verify the evidence. But shoot, you make a testable claim, you should look forward to the opportunity to test it with enthusiasm.

Instead you make excuses and by this point, it's becoming transparent AF as to why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raf said:

This whole "Raf is being unfair by setting arbitrary criteria" trope is really, REALLY old by now.

You sure pride yourself in wanting to think this is about you, or that you're "the problem" diligently and faithfully drawing out and exposing uneducated, illogical, and slithery mumpsimus. 

But it really isn't about you, Raf, or I would have simply walked away from this matter (even as I did a year ago). Given it might make more sense to some if addressed in some other way, the problem is a failure to accept the fact that the main reason and purpose of SIT simply isn't to bring forth or produce some objectively "testable" thing to "prove its spirituality."  And if you (or anyone else) thinks it is, then I'm suggesting that it appears there's a problem with your hermeneutics (which is to say, how you're interpreting scripture.)  However, you're so personally hung up and insistent upon it's "biblical meaning" being some kind of objectively testable proof to someone (or anyone) other than the individual doing it, that it seems that you've blinded yourself to any and all other possibilities.  Which, strangely enough, may not be far removed from the very reason Paul wrote to the Corinthian church in an effort to set them straight about what it's purpose really was...  as it was not designed nor intended to show or to prove their "spirituality" one to another (which they were evidently using it for.)     

Edited by TLC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say it was about me. I said the trope is about my being unfair by setting arbitrary standards. Anyone could be unfair by setting arbitrary standards.

And don't be so hard on yourself. You're not being slithery.

Quote

 

Given it might make more sense to some if addressed in some other way, the problem is a failure to accept the fact that the main reason and purpose of SIT simply isn't to bring forth or produce some objectively "testable" thing to "prove its spirituality." 

And I, of course, never said that was the purpose of SIT. I said that was a characteristic of Biblical SIT, which it is, and it is a testable characteristic, which it is. Really, I don't see why this is so difficult to follow. The Bible says A. I'm just saying A too. But you insist A is not really A, and I'm being unreasonable by insisting that it is. 

2 hours ago, TLC said:

And if you (or anyone else) thinks it is, then I'm suggesting that it appears there's a problem with your hermeneutics (which is to say, how you're interpreting scripture.) 

I think it's not a matter of me misinterpreting scripture. We've been over that. I'm the only one holding the Bible to its claims. You sure aren't. I do, however, see a persistent pattern of you misrepresenting ME. But that's deliberate, and we all know it.

Paul, in I Corinthians, reproved the congregation for thinking that SIT made them more spiritual, not for thinking SIT actually produced a language. He was reproving them for saying "look at how spiritual I am! I speak in tongues!" You know, like you're doing.

But he never questioned the sincerity of what they were producing. He even defined it: Speaking in tongues. Which are languages. Which is a testable claim.

You can dance around the Biblical claim all you want, but the way I see it, you're talking yourself out of what the Bible clearly says in order to hang on to a practice that makes you feel good but doesn't produce anything distinguishable from someone who admits faking it. You're faking it because it feels good.

You're not faking it? Then according to the Bible, you're producing a language. And that language is...?

I thought not.

2 hours ago, TLC said:

You sure pride yourself in wanting to think this is about you

No idea where I'm getting that impression. Ooh, looky here at your previous post...

Quote

 

According to who or what ...PFAL? ...Hoyle? ...Raf

You have but one (and only one) criteria that you have all your trust and efforts pinned to.

 

 

 

ADD

I have one and only one criteria that I've pinned all my trust and efforts to, he says.

This, he fails to realize, is a consequence of the earlier conversation. You see, unlike the other side in this "debate," I have actually set forth criteria that can prove the claim I am making is false. When it comes to the statement "speaking in tongues is genuine," you guys have gone to tremendous lengths to make the claim non-testable. You are suddenly better linguists than every linguist out there. The failure of any linguist anywhere to ever verify that the product of SIT is a language, ever, doesn't impress you because no one can ever prove something is not a language. "Goo-goo-goo-ga-ga-ga" could mean "Jesus is Lord, Hallelujah" in a language that has not been heard since Cain and his wife built a city in the land of Nod. Well how do you know that's not how they spoke? Were you there?

Ok, fine. I can't prove any sample of any SIT is a fake. None. I can't prove any of them are fake personally, I think the other side in that debate is being ridiculous at that point, but I'm not a linguist and I'll even accept that ridiculous handicap because I don't need it to demonstrate my point.

I, on the other hand, am not worried about being wrong. My "faith" doesn't crumble if you speak in tongues. In fact, I happily accept the likelihood of the supernatural... IF you actually speak in tongues and produce something I can't produce when I'm faking it. See, when it comes to the statement "all modern SIT is faked," I cannot PROVE that statement, but you can disprove it. Science refers to that form of hypothesis testing as "falsifiability." It basically means that you only need to find one example of me being wrong to shoot down my hypothesis.

See, that's the beauty of this. You don't even have to prove YOU'RE not faking it. You just have to prove someone, somewhere isn't faking it. But the only way to do that is by producing what the Bible predicts: an identifiable language.

But but but... ONE. I need ONE example. Just one.

So this whole objection to my sole criterion for buying your claim is predicated on the fact that you can't find a single person on earth who speaks in tongues and produces a language. Unless, of course, you stack the deck by having the story hinge on anonymous strangers who live on the other side of the planet.

One. Anywhere on earth. Just one, and I'm wrong.

And you can't even do that. And I'm the one being unreasonable.

Edited by Raf
Edit and add preferred to new post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you believe there are an infinite number of alternate universes, any noise is a language somewhere.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...