[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Apologies. I wasn't referring to Christian priests when I made my post.

No need to apologize, I assumed you weren't talking about Christian priests. I was just felt the need to make that statement.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by simonjames:

"Talking in tongues" doesn't sound very christian to me - much more pagan but then it probably has a good theatrical effect and therefore adds to the overall church going experience.

I haven't got any linkage to post here but AFAIK that is exactly where it originated - early pagan practices. As I've said before it's not a phenomena that is unique to Christianity, disassociation of the body and spirit is a common occurrence in almost all religions.

To give another example, the repetitive praying monks practiced, and still practice to this day, is a different way to achieve a similar result. Awareness of the spiritual is heightened with the express aim to ease communication with the divine.

[AKcrab]

Basically it's being "Drunk" in the spirit. You speak the language of the Holy Spirit. This is what is known as speaking in tongues. People also have seen visions/performed miracles under the influence of the Holy Spirit. This is the stuff that the worldly drugs we know try to copy cat. I have seen many people under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and they somewhat almost do act drunk.

I'm going to put a 'jesus fish' on my car, and if I ever get pulled over I'll just tell the nice officer I'm "driving in tongues".

I'm also starting a movement to make this "speaking in tongues" illegal, since smoking one of God's plants is.

[miykael]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
...

My friend Bryan is a perfect case. INCREDIBLY inteligent. The guy's just plain smart, way smarter than me. And he used to dable in quantum physics, he used to read every book on any subject, devised stratagies to beat friends at any game, all that stuff.

...

I find it funny that people often associate a high degree of intelligence or "smarts" with quantum physics.

This, of course, is not saying that people who study quantum physics or "know" the subject is low on that degree... I just find it funny.

Thanks,

[miykael]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
...

Funny that modern day fundamentalist christians would turn to a pagan tool, though I have no ideal if the catholic church practiced this; aside from the Latin, I mean .

BlackGriffen [/B]

I'm not sure I completely understand what you mean by "pagan tool," could you elaborate?

Thanks,

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by miykael:
I'm not sure I completely understand what you mean by "pagan tool," could you elaborate?

Thanks,

See Mastrap's posts.

BG

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
See Mastrap's posts.

BG

BG: do you know the christian origin of speaking in tongues? It doesn't seem like you do.
So far, you''ve just stated its a "pagan tool" but haven't really backed that up with anything that I've seen.
You seem to be saying its an affectation or simply something borrowed from pagans with no other intrinsic meaning than that.

whether its something that has validity in modern times is an entirely different question, but the origin has to do with the disciples gathered together after the cruxifiction and resurrection of Christ, in a place where many people from different nations gathered. The Holy Spirit came upon them, and they started "speaking in tongues". But it did have a purpose, this was a multinational and multiethnic meeting place, and the disciples were preaching in such a way that everyone there heard the message in their own language. Therefore, it was not senseless babbling but intentional and coherent communication.
I'm assuming some of the languages were not common, because the crowd seemed amazed that their disciples would know their language so fluently.

this is very different from plaigarizing "pagan tools" as you've characterized.


Just not sure you realized that origin or not..it didn't appear so.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
I haven't got any linkage to post here but AFAIK that is exactly where it originated - early pagan practices.

Actually no one knows what the first instance was. I am betting it didn't come from Pagan origins. Pagan dealings usually mock the real thing.

As I've said before it's not a phenomena that is unique to Christianity, disassociation of the body and spirit is a common occurrence in almost all religions.

Again, I feel we are going back to the copy/mock thing. It's a favorite tool of Satan. His final mistake will be the mocking of Jesus's resurrection.

[boots]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
BG: do you know the christian origin of speaking in tongues? It doesn't seem like you do.
So far, you''ve just stated its a "pagan tool" but haven't really backed that up with anything that I've seen.
You seem to be saying its an affectation or simply something borrowed from pagans with no other intrinsic meaning than that.

whether its something that has validity in modern times is an entirely different question, but the origin has to do with the disciples gathered together after the cruxifiction and resurrection of Christ, in a place where many people from different nations gathered. The Holy Spirit came upon them, and they started "speaking in tongues". But it did have a purpose, this was a multinational and multiethnic meeting place, and the disciples were preaching in such a way that everyone there heard the message in their own language. Therefore, it was not senseless babbling but intentional and coherent communication.
I'm assuming some of the languages were not common, because the crowd seemed amazed that their disciples would know their language so fluently.

this is very different from plaigarizing "pagan tools" as you've characterized.


Just not sure you realized that origin or not..it didn't appear so.

To follow that up...

regarding the validity in modern times, a number of the faculty at the seminary here have made the statement that although "speaking in tounges" is one of the gifts of the spirit, understanding the language is an accompanying gift. For it to be valid, it must also be understood what is being communicated (much as the full example you cite from Acts). Without the ability to understand the language, it is as much as jibberish.


So, to sum up, if it is a valid "speaking in tongues" experience, it must be accompanied by an understanding (by someone present) of what is being said.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by boots:
To follow that up...

regarding the validity in modern times, a number of the faculty at the seminary here have made the statement that although "speaking in tounges" is one of the gifts of the spirit, understanding the language is an accompanying gift. For it to be valid, it must also be understood what is being communicated (much as the full example you cite from Acts). Without the ability to understand the language, it is as much as jibberish.


So, to sum up, if it is a valid "speaking in tongues" experience, it must be accompanied by an understanding (by someone present) of what is being said.

precisely, though I wasn't getting into that necessarily. Mastrap and BG seemed to be mistaken on the christian origins and I wanted to clarify that.

Regarding gifts: you are correct, without an interpretation, its pointless. Paul spoke about that in corinthians "even though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, if I have not charity (love), then it is as brass cymbals or tinkling glass" (that's from memory, it might be an absolutely accurate quote)
The danger of churches based on the gifts of the spirit is that the gift itself sometimes gets set on a pedestal, and then the focus is completely sidetracked.
but I digress.

[Timo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
The danger of churches based on the gifts of the spirit is that the gift itself sometimes gets set on a pedestal, and then the focus is completely sidetracked.

[emphasis added]

That's an underlying danger in a lot of things.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Actually no one knows what the first instance was. I am betting it didn't come from Pagan origins. Pagan dealings usually mock the real thing.
[/b] Again, I feel we are going back to the copy/mock thing. It's a favorite tool of Satan. His final mistake will be the mocking of Jesus's resurrection. [/B]

I disagree with the copy/mock idea.

As the concept of true divinity appears to be universally known to man I strongly suspect that all man has access to this very divinity, regardless of the semantics of worship.

I've got no idea how old the concept of "speaking in tongues" is. I also cannot say if the example that Lerk gave above (possession by the holy spirit) was inspired or influenced by earlier occurrences of similar pagan rituals or not. I suspect so, but this is purely my opinion and I am not a biblical scholar (anymore).

What I can say is that a desire to disassociate the body from the spirit can be observed in almost every religion on the planet (that I know of). If successful this disassociation is often accompanied by people speaking what sounds like gibberish. Shamans have for millennia attempted to predict the future like this, fakirs have attempted to read the will of the gods. It's not something that is unique to Christianity. IMO.

[miykael]

Originally posted by boots:
To follow that up...

regarding the validity in modern times, a number of the faculty at the seminary here have made the statement that although "speaking in tounges" is one of the gifts of the spirit, understanding the language is an accompanying gift. For it to be valid, it must also be understood what is being communicated (much as the full example you cite from Acts). Without the ability to understand the language, it is as much as jibberish.


So, to sum up, if it is a valid "speaking in tongues" experience, it must be accompanied by an understanding (by someone present) of what is being said.

Although "speaking in tongues" is one of the more controversial "spiritual gifts"-topic within Christian circles, I have also heard it explained (conservatively) this way:

"Seek not, forbid not."

Thoughts?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
I've got no idea how old the concept of "speaking in tongues" is. I also cannot say if the example that Lerk gave above (possession by the holy spirit) was inspired or influenced by earlier occurrences of similar pagan rituals or not. I suspect so, but this is purely my opinion and I am not a biblical scholar (anymore).

or...hold onto your seat here....a cigar could just be a cigar. Pentecost could have been an actual event faithfully reported.
There is no reason, except your own skepticism of the religion, to believe it was a fabricated event fashioned after an existing pagan ritual.
You can disbelieve it happened in general, of course, but you seem to be implying something (that it was a fabricated borrowing of a pagan ritual) for which you have apparently no basis, here.

Unless you actually have some evidence to support that that I haven't seen yet?

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
or...hold onto your seat here....a cigar could just be a cigar. Pentecost could have been an actual event faithfully reported.
There is no reason, except your own skepticism of the religion, to believe it was a fabricated event fashioned after an existing pagan ritual.
You can disbelieve it happened in general, of course, but you seem to be implying something (that it was a fabricated borrowing of a pagan ritual) for which you have apparently no basis, here.

Unless you actually have some evidence to support that that I haven't seen yet?

Lerk, chill.

A: I was the first to admit my ignorance.

B: I didn't say it was fabricated. I am pretty sure it actually happened. All I am saying is that it might not have been a Christianity specific event.

[boots]

Originally posted by miykael:
Although "speaking in tongues" is one of the more controversial "spiritual gifts"-topic within Christian circles, I have also heard it explained (conservatively) this way:

"Seek not, forbid not."

Thoughts?

Yeah, it is kind of a conversation stopper. I've never heard the "Seek not, forbid not" statement though, so I can't really comment.

I, personally, am skeptical. But I don't think it can't/doesn't happen. I've seen and experieced some weird sh!t ("being slain in the spirit" is still a rather disturbin experience), so I can't really call BS on it.

[miykael]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Lerk, chill.

A: I was the first to admit my ignorance.

B: I didn't say it was fabricated. I am pretty sure it actually happened. All I am saying is that it might not have been a Christianity specific event.

Umm, are you saying that the Pentacost might not have been a Christian-specific event?

Just asking for clarification.

Thanks,

[imaxxedout]

Originally posted by putamare:
Churches in rich neighborhoods look like banks, silly. You probably haven't even noticed them.

Seriously though, I walk to work a meager distance of 5 streets up and 5 avenues across in midtown Manhattan and pass at least three churches (probably more & just haven't noticed). I doubt even an omnipotent supreme being could count the number of churches on this tiny island where there isn't even enough room for a Target store. Whatever your argument is, I think we can appreciate the fact that Manhattan can be held as a polar opposite to whatever pigeonhole you are cramming the South into, and therefore a prime counterexample to your silly claim.

Of course there are tons of exceptions. But if you take the average educated rich community, and hte average uneducated poor community, which one do you think is going to have a stronger 'god' following, and more churches?

Easy freaking answer.

- Ca$h

[imaxxedout]

Originally posted by benb:
ice cream, summer, drowning, etc >snip<

I will do it for you. While it may be true that "the further South you go, the more churches you see. [And] you also see more and more poverty," it does not, in no way mean that the poverty is a direct cause of the churches, nor that the churches are a direct cause of poverty.

This is simple, fundamental logic.

Okay, well use your simple fundamental logic here:

Person A: Educated, well off financially, lives in the north.
Person B: Uneducated, somewhat poor, likes Nascar, lives in the south.

Which person is MORE LIKELY to be a jesus freak?

DUH.

- Ca$h

[imaxxedout]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
back up some. So far, this is just ca$h's perception, not necessarily valid data.

Good post Lerk. However, regardless of the cause, it doesn't mean my observations are incorrect (like you said).

Basically, what I'm trying to say, is that if you have a SHITTY LIFE, you're poor, you have no way of getting out of your situation, etc etc, people turn to the church. That's all I'm saying.

I"M NOT SAYING that if you are christian your life is shitty...

- Ca$h

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Lerk, chill.

A: I was the first to admit my ignorance.

B: I didn't say it was fabricated. I am pretty sure it actually happened. All I am saying is that it might not have been a Christianity specific event.

I think its my new sig...everyone always thinks I'm angry.
I wasn't, actually. I was honestly trying to understand the link in your mind of previous pagan rituals and pentecost.
I've never heard of any, and wanted to know where that idea came from. I didn't mean you have to conclusively prove it, just explain where does that idea come from?

and B: well, unless I'm not understanding you, it was indeed a christianity specific event...how could it not be? Disciples gathered together after the resurrection, according to the admonition of the resurrected Christ which appeared to them and told them to wait there for something, then the Holy Spirit alights on them as if tongues of flame, and they speak in tongues, glorifying Christ and preaching of him to everyone around in various languages....

how is that NOT christianity-specific?

I'm really not understanding you, I guess.

[andi*pandi]

but as someone else put it recently, Jesus is not supposed to have a cabinet seat.

<jumping up and down> that was ME! ME! Someone reads my posts! Yay! Zig, I love you.

Topic A:
Zim, I can see your point about speaking in tongues, and will grant you that it feels like whatever it feels like, but why are you saying that the pagans copied christianity to get it? I know that BG, lerk, and Mastrap are all trying to prove that christianity got it from the pagans (which makes sense to me, but I have no logic/facts) but how can you say that pagans are copying, or mocking, christianity? Why would they want to do it by speaking in tongues, when it's so much easier to mock directly?

Pagans came first. Then some were converted to Christianity, and kept some of their rituals, like greenery at Christmas, eggs at Easter... why wouldn't they have transferred over some Speaking in Tongues?

Topic 2)
And though Cash sounds like a bigot for saying it, ya know, the south does have the reputation for being more religious, more blindly religious, than other areas. Regardless of intelligence/economy. Note the last few presidencies have had southern christians in office... because that vote has power, and power lies in numbers...

My folks live in Florida and man, they say you can't do anything down there without someone praising Lord and passing the ammunition. God help you if you don't worship Bush or the Lord, same difference down there... hence, my folks don't talk politics or religion with their neighbors!

[imaxxedout]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:

Topic 2)
And though Cash sounds like a bigot for saying it, ya know, the south does have the reputation for being more religious, more blindly religious, than other areas. Regardless of intelligence/economy. Note the last few presidencies have had southern christians in office... because that vote has power, and power lies in numbers...

My folks live in Florida and man, they say you can't do anything down there without someone praising Lord and passing the ammunition. God help you if you don't worship Bush or the Lord, same difference down there... hence, my folks don't talk politics or religion with their neighbors!

THANK YOU ANDI PANDI.

At least ONE person will admit this.

- Ca$h

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
Of course there are tons of exceptions. But if you take the average educated rich community, and hte average uneducated poor community, which one do you think is going to have a stronger 'god' following, and more churches?

Easy freaking answer.

- Ca$h

well...I don't think "which do you think" is valid data.
care to back up your claims with anything remotely close to information? or are we supposed to just take your word for it?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
Okay, well use your simple fundamental logic here:

Person A: Educated, well off financially, lives in the north.
Person B: Uneducated, somewhat poor, likes Nascar, lives in the south.

Which person is MORE LIKELY to be a jesus freak?

DUH.

- Ca$h

statistics? demographics? data?

so far, the only thing you're using to prove your contention is your own bigotry...I agree that's proof you're a bigot, but little else.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
I disagree with the copy/mock idea.

As the concept of true divinity appears to be universally known to man I strongly suspect that all man has access to this very divinity, regardless of the semantics of worship.

I've got no idea how old the concept of "speaking in tongues" is. I also cannot say if the example that Lerk gave above (possession by the holy spirit) was inspired or influenced by earlier occurrences of similar pagan rituals or not. I suspect so, but this is purely my opinion and I am not a biblical scholar (anymore).

What I can say is that a desire to disassociate the body from the spirit can be observed in almost every religion on the planet (that I know of). If successful this disassociation is often accompanied by people speaking what sounds like gibberish. Shamans have for millennia attempted to predict the future like this, fakirs have attempted to read the will of the gods. It's not something that is unique to Christianity. IMO.

With every good thing, there usually is a equal bad thing. Yes, speaking in tongues is basically being possesed by the Holy Spirit. Other spirits can enter man and do the same thing, that certainly are not Holy, mocking the Holy Spirit. The Bible also speaks of this.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
Of course there are tons of exceptions. But if you take the average educated rich community, and hte average uneducated poor community, which one do you think is going to have a stronger 'god' following, and more churches?

Easy freaking answer.

- Ca$h

Maybe that is because the rich might have more ties to worldly needs and desires? You know, material possesions?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
Good post Lerk. However, regardless of the cause, it doesn't mean my observations are incorrect (like you said).

Basically, what I'm trying to say, is that if you have a SHITTY LIFE, you're poor, you have no way of getting out of your situation, etc etc, people turn to the church. That's all I'm saying.

I"M NOT SAYING that if you are christian your life is shitty...

- Ca$h

Care to detail your observations? what are they based on?
did you take trips into the south, and if so, where? what was your path, your itinery, where was your data? did you record the number of churches, and also stop at every community and gather economic statistics?
How do you know, by driving by I assume, that your correlation holds any water?

You're expecting us to accept at face value what is essentially just your impression, and you've proven how subjective that is, and you haven't provided any credible data or evidence to support it other than your own prejudice, which is pathetically transparent and proof of nothing other than your own prejudice.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
I know that BG, lerk, and Mastrap are all trying to prove that christianity got it from the pagans (which makes sense to me, but I have no logic/facts)

I should not be included in that group, as I'm NOT trying to say that but get the other two to explain where they got that idea from. I'm actually arguing the opposite (and apparently not well enough, since you think I'm saying the opposite of what I'm saying)

[Timo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I think its my new sig...everyone always thinks I'm angry.

FWIW I think your sig image looks stoned.

***not a comment on your general excellent content level***

***or is it?***

[andi*pandi]

sorry, lerk, I should have said discuss, or prove/disprove. I was in a hurry in my efforts to be witty.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
THANK YOU ANDI PANDI.

At least ONE person will admit this.

- Ca$h

one person admits to having roughly the same stereotype conception...that is not proof or even validity of anything except that the stereotype exists.

the real point is, why do you WANT your perception to be true?
Does it somehow make you think you are smarter because you are not southern, or christian, or a NASCAR fan? I'm just curious...why is it SO important that others buy into your bigotry?

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
THANK YOU ANDI PANDI.

At least ONE person will admit this.

- Ca$h

No he admitted to the south thing, not the poor, and stupid comments that we were making fun of you for.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I think its my new sig...everyone always thinks I'm angry.
I wasn't, actually. I was honestly trying to understand the link in your mind of previous pagan rituals and pentecost.
I've never heard of any, and wanted to know where that idea came from. I didn't mean you have to conclusively prove it, just explain where does that idea come from?

Personally, the way Zim describes speaking in tongues sounds exactly like the pagan rituals to me. The event at Pentacost sounds to me to be completely different, even though they were both "speaking in tongues." Speaking some strange non-human tongue and speaking a language you aren't supposed to know but someone else in earshot can understand are completely different phenomena in my mind. Even though they are both called "speaking in tongues." I was referring exclusively to the latter, not the former.

and B: well, unless I'm not understanding you, it was indeed a christianity specific event...how could it not be? Disciples gathered together after the resurrection, according to the admonition of the resurrected Christ which appeared to them and told them to wait there for something, then the Holy Spirit alights on them as if tongues of flame, and they speak in tongues, glorifying Christ and preaching of him to everyone around in various languages....

how is that NOT christianity-specific?

I'm really not understanding you, I guess.

Well, let's just say that I'm skeptical because when you put what was claimed in the religious context of the time, it wasn't the only religion making outragious claims. I also have other questions: were the listeners making the same mistake Zimphire appears to be making (gibberish for another tongue)? I doubt that there were many people around who spoke more than the native tongue and probably Greek (maybe some Latin). So, when they hear someone babbling coherently, especially with good accompanying body language, facial expressions, and tonal patterns, they may have just assumed that they were speaking some kind of language. Esp considering the the prior traditions of oracles and other holy men doing similarly. That also provides them with a motive for fabrication: one of the "powers" claimed by pagan holy men was the ability to "speak in tongues," and so having that ability would be seen as a proof of holiness. The story behind a virgin birth has similar ante-cedents, IIRC.

I'm always doubtful of the claims of holy men. The Maharishi Yogi (his name is something like that) for instance claims to be able to fly without aid, but for some odd reason owns helicopters to get around.

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Timo:
FWIW I think your sig image looks stoned.

***not a comment on your general excellent content level***

***or is it?***

ROTFLMAO!

thanks.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
<jumping up and down> that was ME! ME! Someone reads my posts! Yay! Zig, I love you.

Topic A:
Zim, I can see your point about speaking in tongues, and will grant you that it feels like whatever it feels like, but why are you saying that the pagans copied christianity to get it?

No, I am not saying the Pagans copied anything. I am saying the spirits that entered into the pagans causing them to speak in tongues were mocking the Holy Spirit.

I know that BG, lerk, and Mastrap are all trying to prove that christianity got it from the pagans (which makes sense to me, but I have no logic/facts) but how can you say that pagans are copying, or mocking, christianity? Why would they want to do it by speaking in tongues, when it's so much easier to mock directly?

Again, it's not the pagans that are mocking.

Pagans came first. Then some were converted to Christianity, and kept some of their rituals, like greenery at Christmas, eggs at Easter... why wouldn't they have transferred over some Speaking in Tongues?

Paganism was before Christianty of course because Jesus wasn't around then. But the worship of the God of Christianity has never been dated. No one knows how long people have been worshiping the God in the Bible. So yes, Paganism was around before Jesus, but as far as actually worshipping his father goes, no one knows.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
were the listeners making the same mistake Zimphire appears to be making (gibberish for another tongue)?

What mistake am I making?

[andi*pandi]

So yes, Paganism was around before Jesus, but as far as actually worshipping his father goes, no one knows.

I think the Jews do.

And ok, the pagans weren't mocking... but the spirits that entered them were... why?

Interesting.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Personally, the way Zim describes speaking in tongues sounds exactly like the pagan rituals to me. The event at Pentacost sounds to me to be completely different, even though they were both "speaking in tongues." Speaking some strange non-human tongue and speaking a language you aren't supposed to know but someone else in earshot can understand are completely different phenomena in my mind. Even though they are both called "speaking in tongues." I was referring exclusively to the latter, not the former.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Well, let's just say that I'm skeptical because when you put what was claimed in the religious context of the time, it wasn't the only religion making outragious claims. I also have other questions: were the listeners making the same mistake Zimphire appears to be making (gibberish for another tongue)? I doubt that there were many people around who spoke more than the native tongue and probably Greek (maybe some Latin). So, when they hear someone babbling coherently, especially with good accompanying body language, facial expressions, and tonal patterns, they may have just assumed that they were speaking some kind of language. Esp considering the the prior traditions of oracles and other holy men doing similarly. That also provides them with a motive for fabrication: one of the "powers" claimed by pagan holy men was the ability to "speak in tongues," and so having that ability would be seen as a proof of holiness. The story behind a virgin birth has similar ante-cedents, IIRC.

I'm always doubtful of the claims of holy men. The Maharishi Yogi (his name is something like that) for instance claims to be able to fly without aid, but for some odd reason owns helicopters to get around.

BlackGriffen

sigh....did you miss the part where I said there was a large multicultural influx there at the time and people heard the message in their own language? You seem to want to keep characterizing it opposite of that, for some reason.
I think you have valid questions, but when I point out what i think are valid answers (at least in context of the bible), you keep returning to the valid question as if I hadn't even answered.
sort of like bullets off superman's chest.

[thunderous_funker]

boots and Lerk,

Thanks for laying down the law on the Gift of Tongues. That one really gets misunderstood and abused.

It's important to understand the biblical precedent of this gift. I'm very troubled at how many Pentacostal churches continue to grossly misunderstand it as understood from the bible.

Babbling and being "drunk" with the spirirt has NO biblical precendent for being considered a Gift of the Spirit. That practice is almost entirely a fiction of Rivivalism and is most probably borrowed from pagan practices.

The Gift of Tongues, as the bible describes it, is quite specific. On the day of Pentacost, the apostles each spoke in their normal tongue but each memeber of the multinational crowd heard it in their own tonge and remarked to one another "how do these guys know my language?". They didn't babble incoherently.

Later on, Paul clear states that all of the Gifts are for edification and if they don't edify, they are not of God. He says (paraphrasing) "if someone speaks in tongues, let another translate so it for the benefit of others. Otherwise, keep it to yourself."

Even when I was a deeply devoted Christian, nothing creeped me out more than a room full of babbling, spasming freaks claiming to be "drunk" on the spirit. It's utterly unwholesome and completely disturbing. Of the few times in my life that I felt I had come close to something inherently evil, those experiences were at the top of the list.

Many modern denominations believe very strongly in the Gifts of the Spirit, and Tongues in particular. The Mormon church clearly feels that their massive missionary effort is greatly aided by their faith in this Gift. Young men and women get 8 weeks of rudimentary language training and then are shipped of to every corner of the world to teach the Gospel in a foreign language. I know many of them who feel they learned a foreign language well beyond their own capability due to a Gift bestowed on them. That's one interpretation.

Within the context of Christianity, it is very very clear what is and what isn't the Gift of Tongues.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
sigh....did you miss the part where I said there was a large multicultural influx there at the time and people heard the message in their own language? You seem to want to keep characterizing it opposite of that, for some reason.
I think you have valid questions, but when I point out what i think are valid answers (at least in context of the bible), you keep returning to the valid question as if I hadn't even answered.
sort of like bullets off superman's chest.

Ahem, that's "Mighty Mouse" to you. *HEAR I COME TO SAVE THE DAAAAAAY!*

Multi-cultural influx... Extra-biblical evidence of said influx, sil's vous plait. (I could never spell anything in French right). Though thinking further, Palestine was on a major traid route, but the influx from regular trade would hardly be anything out of the ordinary, and one would expect the local populace to pick some things up from the traders and the traders to pick up quite a lot from the local populace.

Let me put it this way: the bible is a single source with a clear motive behind it. Thus I tend to take the source with a big honking grain of salt without independent external validation. I also stick it in the cultural context of the authors to compare claims made and thus discern the "skeptical climate." The more the audience has a tendency to take things at face value, and embellish, the less weight I put on the absolute veracity of the details of the testimony.
For instance, wasn't there supposed to be like 3 days of darkness where the sun was blotted out (not just extremely cloudy) following the death of Jesus? Why would Roman historians, people who had no idea what was going on in Palestine, record such a major event?

BlackGriffen

[thunderous_funker]

boots and Lerk,

Thanks for laying down the law on the Gift of Tongues. That one really gets misunderstood and abused.

It's important to understand the biblical precedent of this gift. I'm very troubled at how many Pentacostal churches continue to grossly misunderstand it as it's described in the bible.

Babbling and being "drunk" with the spirirt has NO biblical precendent for being considered a Gift of the Spirit. That practice is almost entirely a fiction of Rivivalism and is most probably borrowed from pagan practices.

The Gift of Tongues, as the bible describes it, is quite specific. On the day of Pentacost, the apostles each spoke in their normal tongue but each memeber of the multinational crowd heard it in their own tonge and remarked to one another "how do these guys know my language?". They didn't babble incoherently.

Later on, Paul clear states that all of the Gifts are for edification and if they don't edify, they are not of God. He says (paraphrasing) "if someone speaks in tongues, let another translate so it can be for the benefit of others. Otherwise, don't do it."

Even when I was a deeply devoted Christian, nothing creeped me out more than a room full of babbling, spasming freaks claiming to be "drunk" on the spirit. It's utterly unwholesome and completely disturbing. Of the few times in my life that I have felt I had come close to something inherently evil, those experiences were at the top of the list.

Many modern denominations believe very strongly in the Gifts of the Spirit, and Tongues in particular. The Mormon church strongly feels that their massive missionary effort is greatly aided by their faith in this Gift. Young men and women get 8 weeks of rudimentary language training and then are shipped of to every corner of the world to teach the Gospel in a foreign language. I know many of them who feel they learned a foreign language well beyond their own capability due to a Gift bestowed on them. That's one interpretation.

Within the context of Christianity, it is very very clear what is and what isn't the Gift of Tongues.

[BlackGriffen]

Sorry to break this off so suddenly, Lerk, but after further reading thunderous's clarification, I don't see any reason to continue debating the biblical tongues episode, since it is clearly different from what the original debate was about.

BG

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Sorry to break this off so suddenly, Lerk, but after further reading thunderous's clarification, I don't see any reason to continue debating the biblical tongues episode, since it is clearly different from what the original debate was about.

BG

That's not to say it might be interesting (for willing participants only) to put those accounts in a different context.

In college, I did some research on Holliness churches in Appalachia (strychnine drinkers, snake handlers..). I was well beyond my religious period by then and I found it utterly fascinating. Power of the mind and the democratization of Christianity in America and all that.

I just think you have to keep the frame of reference for such things. I was merely trying to put the Gift of Tongues thing into the Christian context for those on the outside looking in. It's important to see it as they see or (or perhpas why in that context, some things clearly aren't what they claim to be).

I certainly didn't intend to throw cold water on a topic people were finding interesting...

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
I think the Jews do.

And ok, the pagans weren't mocking... but the spirits that entered them were... why?

Interesting.

To try to make fun of, or belittle Godly things. If you read in the Bible, this went on a lot.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Babbling and being "drunk" with the spirirt has NO biblical precendent for being considered a Gift of the Spirit. That practice is almost entirely a fiction of Rivivalism and is most probably borrowed from pagan practices.

I really hope you aren't trying to say speaking in tongue aka being drunk in the Spirit isn't something that is coming from the Holy Spirit. Because indeed it is. And yes the Bible does go on about being Baptised in the spirit. That is a different batism than water submersion.

I understand that your opinion doesn't agree with mine, but saying that it isn't from God, and that is factual, isn't being totally honest.

I too have been in the presenceof people under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and it is anything but from the Holy Spirit.

If I am misunderstanding you, I apologize ahead of time.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Ahem, that's "Mighty Mouse" to you. *HEAR I COME TO SAVE THE DAAAAAAY!*

Multi-cultural influx... Extra-biblical evidence of said influx, sil's vous plait. (I could never spell anything in French right). Though thinking further, Palestine was on a major traid route, but the influx from regular trade would hardly be anything out of the ordinary, and one would expect the local populace to pick some things up from the traders and the traders to pick up quite a lot from the local populace.

Let me put it this way: the bible is a single source with a clear motive behind it. Thus I tend to take the source with a big honking grain of salt without independent external validation. I also stick it in the cultural context of the authors to compare claims made and thus discern the "skeptical climate." The more the audience has a tendency to take things at face value, and embellish, the less weight I put on the absolute veracity of the details of the testimony.
For instance, wasn't there supposed to be like 3 days of darkness where the sun was blotted out (not just extremely cloudy) following the death of Jesus? Why would Roman historians, people who had no idea what was going on in Palestine, record such a major event?

BlackGriffen

your'e pushing the burden of proof back on me and then shifting the target...tsk tsk.

I asked where you got the link in the first place to think pentecost was based on pagan ritual. I explained in biblical context where pentecost originated. You then went back and again commented as if the pentecost was incoherent babbling, when I pointed out it wasn't, in the context of the bible, but a coherent message to the multicultural influx.
Now, the target shifts: Now you want me to prove what I"M saying with extrabiblical sources because you doubt there was a multicultural influx (not your original contention..first you claimed it was incoherent babbling, then it couldn't have happened because there weren't people there with differing languages)
Then you point out you don't accept the veracity of the bible. Keep in mind you've provided NOTHING except your own opinion as to the link between pagan rituals and the pentecost....but now suddenly, I"m supposed to prove the pentecost to you? But you won't accept the bible as a source?

then, NEXT target shift...now you're bringing up three days of darkness...

what exactly are you on about? sigh.....

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Sorry to break this off so suddenly, Lerk, but after further reading thunderous's clarification, I don't see any reason to continue debating the biblical tongues episode, since it is clearly different from what the original debate was about.

BG

well, you posted this while I was making my last post..so you can ignore it...

but one wonders why Thunder merely summarizing what I've said makes it more palatable or true?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
I really hope you aren't trying to say speaking in tongue aka being drunk in the Spirit isn't something that is coming from the Holy Spirit. Because indeed it is. And yes the Bible does go on about being Baptised in the spirit. That is a different batism than water submersion.

I understand that your opinion doesn't agree with mine, but saying that it isn't from God, and that is factual, isn't being totally honest.

I too have been in the presenceof people under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and it is anything but from the Holy Spirit.

Call it whatever you want, but the practice has NO biblical precednet I'm aware of. If you know of one, please share it.

OTOH, there seems to be very clear language from Paul that this kind of practice is not the Gift of the Spirit and NOT of God.

I'm not saying those people don't have faith or that they don't earnestly desire a powerful witness of Divinity. In fact, i'm positive that it's their strong desires for such an experience (and the public pressure of seeing others having it and being praised for it) that creates the experience.

From a biblical perspective, what those people are feeling cannot be the Gift of Tongues. It's something else.

My opinion is that it's mass hypnosis and euphoria. Group and self induced. The same kind of thing happens at rock concers all the time.

My experience in those settings was totally and utterly disturbing (despite my very strong belief in such Gifts at the time). If you came away feeling better or empowered, I'm quite releaved. At least then it would seem to serve some positive purpose for some of the participants.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well, you posted this while I was making my last post..so you can ignore it...

but one wonders why Thunder merely summarizing what I've said makes it more palatable or true?

This is my reading of it:
Lerk's post: speaking in tongues has origins in Christianity (I was not aware of the episode prior to your post)
Thunderous's post: same name, different stuff

I apologize if I misunderstood you. As for my questioning the pentecost: I did it mainly because I percieved you trying to link the drunk off the spirit tongues with the biblical account. If they're linked, then I have to discredit both if I wish to discredit either. If they're not linked, then I don't need to worry about the biblical account for the topic at hand (drunk off the spirit tongues). So, in short I'm breaking off my discussion of the biblical account because I want to deal with one thing at a time.

Also, I apologize for the shift of target you're percieving. That comes from two things: first, I'm not actually trying to form an argument, just discredit one, and one way to do that is the shotgun approach (present as many alternate explainations as possible in the hopes that one sticks); second, I'm just kind of stream of consciousnessing this stuff out. I will try to provide explainations for that last post without furthering the argument in a following post (sorry, text based browser, so I can't copy-paste).

BlackGriffen