[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
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.

although I agree with you, if I may, I'd like to clarify some of what you're saying for zim.

AFAIK, there ARE fruits of the spirit as mentioned in the bible, but Paul is diligent to mention they all need to exist in an edifying framework, for example: tongues should only be allowed if there is also interpretation. In other words, if the process at your church is: tongues, then a revelation based on that utterance from someone else...then fine and good. But Paul speaks against mere tongues without interpretation, or worse, when there is no order but (apparent) babbling without purpose. That is worse than no gifts of the spirit, for them to be used incorrectly.
Paul also points out that gifts are good, but not an end in and of themselves, but rather a means to an end. If, for example, a church feels that unless you have gifts of the spirit, you aren't saved...then that's clearly wrong. For one thing, not all the fruits of the spirit are of a mystical nature. Some are simply faith, which can manifest itself without outward signs.
When a congregation fixates on the signs of the spirit to the exclusion of the message, or to the peer pressure of its members to exhibit those signs, or if the exhibition of those signs leads not to clarification but rather an altar of confusion, then God is not being served. If he is not being served or the congregation edified, then the holy spirit is not allowed to move as it needs to, but is in fact being impeded.
Even using the term "drunk in the spirit" helps highlight the perceptive difference.
I mean no disrespect to your church, zim, since I have no idea if what I'm saying applies, but TF is making the point, and I agree, that there is potential misuse or misunderstanding about gifts of the spirit, to the point where actual harm might result.
I attended a full-gospel church while in college, and I have to say that even though it exhibited much speaking in tongues, there was rarely an interpretation, and there was much pressure to "get your gift" as a rite of spiritual passage...and this became the focus more intently than actually living a christian life.

Just like that congregation that spoke against where the members were getting drunk on communion wine. Is communion wine bad or evil? No, but when people misuse it , it is. Or if they obsess on that and leave the rest undone, it is.

[zigzag]

http://skepdic.com/glossol.html

http://www.randi.org/jr/10-29-2000.html (scroll down towards the bottom to read about a speaking-in-tongues experiment Randi conducted in 1945)

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
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.

Purely that they are both named "speaking in tongues." That and that I mistook you for linking the pentacost with the spirit drinkers (clearly pagan to my mind). If the pentacost isn't linked with those getting drunk off spirits, as thunderous contends, then I made a mistake.

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)

Just attempting to bring further questions in.

Then you point out you don't accept the veracity of the bible.

I was making an argumentum ad hominem (if the bible can be called a hominem) in an attempt to further discredit the pentacost while at the same time doing an end run around the fact that I didn't have further questions specific to the pentacost at the time.

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?

I won't accept it as a source without corroboration. Basically, the details of the pentacost didn't line up with pagan ritual. So, in order to maintain a link, I have to discredit the account's detailed accuracy, and instead claim that the account is only vaguely like what actually happened. So, as far as I was concerned, if I had been able to discredit the account of the pentacost, I would have won because then there's enough wiggle room to make the link. As an analogy, I was trying to fit a square peg in a round hole by knocking of the corners (or, from my point of view, removing false corners) so that it was less definitely a square.

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

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

Again, I'm making an argumentum ad hominem. By providing an example of a biblical account that I think is easier to discount, I'm attacking the credibility of the bible itself (kind of like how any lawyer would try to bring up a prior conviction for perjury to discredit a witness), and thus the credibility of the pentacost.

I hope that I didn't accidentally add anything to my argument in my attempt to exlain its, admittedly fast and loose, structure.

BlackGriffen

[Lerkfish]

Fair enough...like I said, you could have ignored that post as I made it while you were posting another post that clarified your position.

I hope you understand, though, that from my point of view, it was becoming unwieldy to discuss against the tactics you were using.

[boots]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:

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.

[tangent]

Have you ever seen "Hands on a Hardbody?" The religious chick cracked me up with the babble and laughing because she was "drunk with the spirit." Of course 3 days without sleep had nothing to do with it....

[/tangent]

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Fair enough...like I said, you could have ignored that post as I made it while you were posting another post that clarified your position.

I hope you understand, though, that from my point of view, it was becoming unwieldy to discuss against the tactics you were using.

I know, I was fighting dirty, and requesting verification more appropriate to a professional setting.

Mea culpa, and I apologize.

BG

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
although I agree with you, if I may, I'd like to clarify some of what you're saying for zim.

AFAIK, there ARE fruits of the spirit as mentioned in the bible, but Paul is diligent to mention they all need to exist in an edifying framework, for example: tongues should only be allowed if there is also interpretation. In other words, if the process at your church is: tongues, then a revelation based on that utterance from someone else...then fine and good. But Paul speaks against mere tongues without interpretation, or worse, when there is no order but (apparent) babbling without purpose. That is worse than no gifts of the spirit, for them to be used incorrectly.
Paul also points out that gifts are good, but not an end in and of themselves, but rather a means to an end. If, for example, a church feels that unless you have gifts of the spirit, you aren't saved...then that's clearly wrong. For one thing, not all the fruits of the spirit are of a mystical nature. Some are simply faith, which can manifest itself without outward signs.
When a congregation fixates on the signs of the spirit to the exclusion of the message, or to the peer pressure of its members to exhibit those signs, or if the exhibition of those signs leads not to clarification but rather an altar of confusion, then God is not being served. If he is not being served or the congregation edified, then the holy spirit is not allowed to move as it needs to, but is in fact being impeded.
Even using the term "drunk in the spirit" helps highlight the perceptive difference.
I mean no disrespect to your church, zim, since I have no idea if what I'm saying applies, but TF is making the point, and I agree, that there is potential misuse or misunderstanding about gifts of the spirit, to the point where actual harm might result.
I attended a full-gospel church while in college, and I have to say that even though it exhibited much speaking in tongues, there was rarely an interpretation, and there was much pressure to "get your gift" as a rite of spiritual passage...and this became the focus more intently than actually living a christian life.

Just like that congregation that spoke against where the members were getting drunk on communion wine. Is communion wine bad or evil? No, but when people misuse it , it is. Or if they obsess on that and leave the rest undone, it is.

Thanks very much, Lerk.

This was precisely my intent, but I fear my execution was a bit harsh and derrogatory. Unintended.

Zim might get on my nerves (everyone does from time to time, I'm just impatient by nature) but I honestly believe he's a very sincere and devoted person. I honestly believe he wants to conduct himself in a honorable way and live a life pleasing to God. I really do.

In that light, I certainly don't mean to bash on these practices, per se. Just to point out, as you eloquently did, that there can be something destructive and counter-productive to one's Faith in such an environment. Paul clearly thought so, and I happen to agree based on my experiences with it.

I'd always rather see people's faith be based on something concrete and purposeful than merely fixated on unexplained phenomenon.

In the Mormon tradidion (my family and up-bringing, which is why I mention it frequently), the first sunday of every month marks an unusual service. Instead of assigned speakers with prepared sermons, they have an open pulpit and encourage congregational members to share their personal feelings and "bear testimony". It can be a very very unifying and edifying service.

Of course, once anything becomes traditional, a certain amount of peer pressure and expectation builds up. Only natural. You often find people doing a bit of showboating or just perhaps forcing themselves to share something because they feel they ought to. From this peer pressure, you get what we used to refer to as "The Ironing Board Testimony". It goes like this:

"Brothers and Sisters. The other day I was ironing when the phone rang. I went to answer the phone and it was Sister So-and-so. We got to talking and I forgot all about what I was doing. When i returned to the ironing, the iron had burned through the shirt, through the board and was suspended only inches away from the carpet by the plug in the wall. Because of this, I know that God lives and cares about me....."

It's a kind of Unsolved Mysteries faith in God. It might be personally significant, but in a public setting designed for mutual edification, it always struck me as profoundly stupid and counter-inspirational.

[imaxxedout]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
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.

Yeah yeah, name call all you want. I'm not being a bigot, I'm being realistic and living in the real world, not hte politically correct world. By the same token, I could call you IGNORANT for not agreeing with me, which I have already.

[imaxxedout]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
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.

My argument:

1. The south is stereotypically more religous than the north
2. The south is stereotypically more poverty stricken than the north
3. In the poverty stricken towns I noticed the only buildings that looked 'kept up' were the churches.
4. There were quite a few churches for such tiny towns (observed)
__________________________________________________ ______
5. The south has more poor people and more churches

I'm sure that SOMEWHERE, someone has done a study on religon and shitty lives. Take cancer patients. They only have a few years to live, so some of them get all religous. Why? It's the only thing they have to look forward too.

Common sense man.

- Ca$h

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
My argument:

1. The south is stereotypically more religous than the north
2. The south is stereotypically more poverty stricken than the north
3. In the poverty stricken towns I noticed the only buildings that looked 'kept up' were the churches.
4. There were quite a few churches for such tiny towns (observed)
__________________________________________________ ______
5. The south has more poor people and more churches

I'm sure that SOMEWHERE, someone has done a study on religon and shitty lives. Take cancer patients. They only have a few years to live, so some of them get all religous. Why? It's the only thing they have to look forward too.

Common sense man.

- Ca$h

LOL! that's the best you can come up with?

[thunderous_funker]

Christianity has almost always been a movement amoung the poor and disenfranchised. It's message seems to resonate most loudly with that demographic. I don't know how any can dispute that historically.

Why do you think Marx called it an "opiate for the masses"?

Christianity has taken some very interesting courses in American history. The great Revival period in the early to mid 19th century is truly fascinating. Almost all of the major American Protestant traditions sprung up from that period and cleary many of them tailored their message to the poor and downtrodden.

My own experience in looking into Holiness churches in Appalachia was quite revealing. Entire congregations of people trapped in the most dire poverty. Many of them illiterate. Horrifically short life expectancy because they work in mines or on the rails.

In those conditions, Christianity evolved into something wholly different and empowering. No ministers. No clergy. No formality. Everyone has equal access to the pulpit or to authority. Acts of faith are the central aspect--snake handling, drinking poison, seizures, tongues, etc.

You watch them worship and you realize this is the glittering, gleeming, stunningly singular uplifting aspect of their lives that is wholly within their control. It's enormously empowering and completely celebratory.

Southern baptists have adopted a lot of that celebration, but it's much much less democratic (clear divisions of authority, structured observances).

A far cry from the subdued, highly officiated, carefully structured form of worship I knew from the comparitively affluent mormon congregations of my own background.

[boots]

Since this part of the discussion won't die, let me try to come at it from a different angle.

1) Yes, there is an acknowledged "bible belt" that runs through the south.

2) It is pretty common knowledge that many of the appalacian folks are under the poverty line in terms of income.

One of the things that is really objectionable about Ca$h's posts is that he seems to be drawing a causal link. He has not given anything other that the juxtaposition of 1 and 2 to support this. Being in atlanta, where there is a lot of wealth, I would say that there is no real causal link. People of all socio-economic groups seem to be more religious here than, say, Detroit...the other metro area I've lived in.

3) If you really want to play the game, Ca$h, what do you think the link is? What does religion offer the poor and under educated that it doesn't the affluent and educated?

Here's my crack at #3: The Gospel has an implicit message of "God's preferential option for the poor." The beatitudes (sermon on the mount with all the "Blessed are the...for they shall..." sayings) support this. One thing that religion offers is a message of hope. If you have no other source, the hope of religion is a pretty strong thing.

Does that mean it must be wrong? I would say no. It just gives one more reason to seriously consider it.

Where can it go wrong? People who are not educated in things like cause-and-effect (mechanism based thinking), deconstruction of literature, etc. may not have the tools to read the text in the same way someone with a college education may. I say may. I've meet some real sharp "uneducated people." I've also met some "educated" morons who couldn't think their way out od a wet paper death-trap.

But that alone is not sufficient to dismiss the phenomenon as wrong or even misguided.

I would argue that the place where this can go wrong is in the establishment of a community based on a legalist reading. One of the things I think the Gospel tries to point out is that Jesus didn't try to change the law, he came to fulfill it. To my reading of the events, this amount to a reinterpretation of the intent of the laws. He changed the laws from a thing of oppression to a thing of freedom. Rather than a community based on a cleanliness code, the code was reinterpreted as one of compassion and good relationship with God and neighbor.

I also argue that I've seen a lot of educated and affluent people who have a legalistic reading of the text.

So poor and uneducated is not better or worse than educated and affluent when it comes to religion. Neither has a monopoly on zeal.


[edit: cross posted with TF, and I think he said some things rather better than I could have.]

[imaxxedout]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL! that's the best you can come up with?

Sure. Unless you come up with one OUNCE of evidence that goes against it, that's all I'm doing. Until then I'm winning. The only thing you've done so far is bitch about it. Go ahead, prove me wrong, then we'll both learn something.

- Ca$h

[zigzag]

I recall seeing surveys that purport to show a reverse correlation between education level and religious involvement. Of course, I and/or the surveys could be mistaken. However, that correlation is consistent with my personal experience - you don't see many PhD's handling snakes, except in labs, and you don't see many snake-handlers running PhD programs. Of course, one has to be careful about generalizing - many of our greatest intellects are religious figures, and many of our dimmest bulbs eschew religion. It largely depends on what kind of religion you're talking about.

There are also correlations between education and income level.

Also, we don't call the South "The Bible Belt" for nothing. I don't know if there are actually more churches per block or per capita, but clearly there are distinct religious traditions. My personal experiences don't count for much, but I've experienced some of the differences first-hand.

So, I think there's an element of truth in what Cash is saying, he's just saying it in his usual blunt manner. I think it's OK to generalize as long as we understand that we're generalizing.

[benb]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
Sure. Unless you come up with one OUNCE of evidence that goes against it, that's all I'm doing. Until then I'm winning. The only thing you've done so far is bitch about it. Go ahead, prove me wrong, then we'll both learn something.

- Ca$h

Maybe you should go back and read previous posts. But you wont.

To the rest of us: Maybe we should let Ca$h "win". You know, the kind of win that you let little kids have when you play them in checkers.

[boots]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I recall seeing surveys that purport to show a reverse correlation between education level and religious involvement. Of course, I and/or the surveys could be mistaken. However, that correlation is consistent with my personal experience - you don't see many PhD's handling snakes, except in labs, and you don't see many snake-handlers running PhD programs. Of course, one has to be careful about generalizing - many of our greatest intellects are religious figures, and many of our dimmest bulbs eschew religion. It largely depends on what kind of religion you're talking about.

There are also correlations between education and income level.

Also, we don't call the South "The Bible Belt" for nothing. I don't know if there are actually more churches per block or per capita, but clearly there are distinct religious traditions. My personal experiences don't count for much, but I've experienced some of the differences first-hand.

So, I think there's an element of truth in what Cash is saying, he's just saying it in his usual blunt manner. I think it's OK to generalize as long as we understand that we're generalizing.

I think the danger is in a) not scrutinizing generalization that are made to denigrate an entire portion of the population and b) assuming a causal link without evidence.

[benb]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
My argument:

1. The south is stereotypically more religous than the north
2. The south is stereotypically more poverty stricken than the north
3. In the poverty stricken towns I noticed the only buildings that looked 'kept up' were the churches.
4. There were quite a few churches for such tiny towns (observed)
__________________________________________________ ______
5. The south has more poor people and more churches

I'm sure that SOMEWHERE, someone has done a study on religon and shitty lives. Take cancer patients. They only have a few years to live, so some of them get all religous. Why? It's the only thing they have to look forward too.

Common sense man.

- Ca$h

1. Yes, so? Is the number of churches a good indicator of religiousness? Shouldn't we take into account other factors like attendance and membership size?

2. Yes, so? The suburbs of Atlanta have many new developments. Many of the houses start in the $300,000-$400,000 range. Thats high here in the Northeast, let alone the South.

3. Just because one's house isn't kept up nicely does not mean one doesn't have money. They could be lazy, or spending all their time using their amazing stuff they can buy.

4. There are 13 churches within a 5 mile radius of my house. And I live in the rich, secular Northeast.

5. Can be logically concluded given your presuppositions, but wether it is truthful is another question. If your presuppositions are bad, then your outcome cannot be considered valid. Logic is like a refrigerator. Put good meat (evidence) in, and you will get good meat (conclusions) back. Put in bad meat, and it will not make it good.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
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.

Yes I guess it all comes down to your interpretation of the word. I have witnessed it many times, and even once tested the spirit. I know where the source of it comes from, and it's Holy. It's is of God.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
LOL! that's the best you can come up with?

Come on lerk, it's common sense.


Cash do you know where I came from? As north as you can pretty much get in the US. As a matter of fact, I lived across the street from Lake Eerie.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
Sure. Unless you come up with one OUNCE of evidence that goes against it, that's all I'm doing. Until then I'm winning. The only thing you've done so far is bitch about it. Go ahead, prove me wrong, then we'll both learn something.

- Ca$h

Cash, no that isn't how it works. You made the original statement. The proof is on you.

I can say God exists. You tell me to prove it. I say, well disprove it, and until you do I am winning.

See how silly that is?

All you have brought to the plate is baseless accusations. It's up to YOU to prove your statements. Not up to US to disprove something that isn't even acknowledgable.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by boots:
I think the danger is in a) not scrutinizing generalization that are made to denigrate an entire portion of the population and b) assuming a causal link without evidence.

Yes, I agree - that's why I was careful to say "element" of truth.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
Sure. Unless you come up with one OUNCE of evidence that goes against it, that's all I'm doing. Until then I'm winning. The only thing you've done so far is bitch about it. Go ahead, prove me wrong, then we'll both learn something.

- Ca$h

link
link
link

if you can wade through all that...you'll see that some of your assertions appear to be true.

However, what is your point for making those assertions? Depending on your answer I may or may not apolgize for calling you a bigot.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
I'm sure that SOMEWHERE, someone has done a study on religon and shitty lives.

"There's no such thing as an atheist in the trenches," Either a WWI general or soldier.

One thing religion provides, and I wouldn't begrudge my fellow man no matter how much I technically disagree with the religion, is hope. Even if I think the hope is false, if it can pull the person through tough times, then .

BG

[andi*pandi]

One of the things that struck me about florida, that I have never seen in the other 40 states I've driven in, is the religious billboards. Very in your face. A lot of them. Now, this doesn't back up Cash's "poor" statements, because it takes money for billboards... unless it means the churches are rich and they are buying up billboards to call the poor and suffering to worship.

bah. that's not evidence of anything but hearsay. But I've already typed it. Does hearsay have value?

Maybe the South is just more outspoken about religion? Maybe the South is less forgiving of other religions and beliefs? That's definitely true from my family's anecdotal evidence, but that doesn't hold water I guess.

Questions Cash's issue seems to come down to:

Does wealth = openminded? No.
Does region = openminded? No.
Does education = openminded? Sometimes.
Does rural = uneducated? Not necessarily.
Does rural = poor? Judging by salary rates and costs of living, yes. Not counting tony bedroom communities. (Wayland, this means you.)
Does uneducated = ignorant? By definition.
Is there a state of blissful ignorance?
Is blind faith the same as blissful ignorance?
Are there more instances of blind faith in rural, uneducated areas? In the South? Is the south more rural than other areas and hence more subject to such a generalization? Is there more need for faith in the South, or even just other poor areas?

There. That's a hornet's nest. But at least it's not "Uhhuh! No way! You say! No, you say!"

[boots]

Those most disturbing thing I noticed on my way through Georgia into Florida was the number of "Adult Novelty" store nudie-bar billboards. I don't know the numbers, but there are a LOT of them as you drive down 75.

I guess sex really is a religious experience.

[boots]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
Sure. Unless you come up with one OUNCE of evidence that goes against it, that's all I'm doing. Until then I'm winning. The only thing you've done so far is bitch about it. Go ahead, prove me wrong, then we'll both learn something.

- Ca$h

Once again, Ca$h ignores me as though I never even asked the question.

I must be on the ignore list. hmm.

I'll add another question just in case...

4) Assuming there is a causal link (big assumption so far), and there is a decent explanation for that causal link (see #3), How does that prevent dialogue? I think that was one of the originals point of the thread-starting article. Lack of dialogue between Christian and non-christian.

Does anything you've said have any bearing on that? If so, what steps might one take to reconcile? (Aside from hurling insults until they hear you... )

[Mastrap]

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?

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.

Sorry about the late reply, I hope this is still relevant. I think we might be talking about two different yet linked events here, one being the Pentecost, the other being the speaking in tongues practiced by a wide variety of communities even today.

The latter one is called glossolalia IIRC. The term has its origin in two Greek words: gl�ssai, which means "tongues" or "languages," and lalien which means "to speak." It is observed in a multitude of tribal religions and within some Christian, Muslim and Hindu denominations. Examples I can give you are as diverse as the rituals of the Sathya Sai gurus, qigong healing practices, Kundalini Yoga and the religious traditions of the Kung Bushmen. There are sources that claim that even atheists and Agnostics have spoken in tongues.

African animists, to give a further example, have long had ecstatic speech as an integral part of their religions. Just as glossolalia in the Jewish tradition marked the speaker as a prophet, glossolalia caused animists to recognize the speaker as a religious leader or priest.

There are even written examples of glossolalia. In the gnostic book of Nag Hammadi, archaeologists did discover what may be one of the strangest written instances of glossolalia, the "Gospel Of the Egyptians".

John Kildah's study "The Psychology of Speaking in Tongues" concludes that "from a linguistic point of view, religiously inspired glossolalic utterances have the same general characteristics as those that are not religiously inspired." He then goes on to state that glossolalia is a "human phenomenon, not limited to Christianity nor even to religious behavior."

In 1972 the psychological anthropologist and linguist Felicitas Goodman, undertook a study of English, Spanish and Mayan speaking Christian communities in the United States and Mexico. She then compared the results to non Christian rituals from Africa, Borneo. She arrived at the conclusion that "when all features of glossolalia were taken into consideration, that is, the segmental structures (such as sounds, syllables, phrases) and its supra-segmental elements (namely, rhythm, accent, and especially overall intonation) there is no distinction in glossolalia between Christians and the followers of non-Christian (pagan) religions."

What follows is that there is a strong correlation between trance and speaking in tongues or glossolalia. Please click here for an interesting bibliography on this matter.

Nothing I have said above is in any way designed to be disrespectful to Christianity. As I've said before, I believe that the universal occurrence of the idea of divinity is a pointer in the direction that divinity is universally accessible. What this means is that every religion that strives for communication with the divine is a true religion.

What happened during Pentecost is therefore in no way disproved or belittled by the occurrence of "speaking in tongues" in other and/or earlier religious practices.

[Zimphire]

And like I said before, it's called copycat/mocking.

Say you was Satan, and Christians were speaking in tongues and such, one would think, "Hmm, maybe there is something to this"

But if pagans are also doing it, then suddenly it's not so special anymore. That is what is happening. It's deception. Satan is good at it. He has been doing it for awhile now. Again, his final mistake will be mocking the ressurection of Christ.

[boots]

Mastrap, Thanks. That was enlightening and still relevant.

I think you are right that we are talking about two different things, but the question seems to be the relationship between them (in any).

Lerk, myself and TF (at least) are arguing that the generic speaking in tounges is not what is counted as a gift of the spirit whereas the phenomenon witnessed at pentecost was. I think that there is no relationship between them...the key difference is that at pentacost, there was understanding of what was being said. It was not just babble. I think that is the critical piece that set this particular christian example apart from the more general speaking in tongues events. I also would venture to say that a pentacost-like speaking in tongues may occur, but not nearly to the extent that many would argue. Most of the events I've witnessed were lacking in the second gift of understanding, so are simple babble.

[dreilly1]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Cash do you know where I came from? As north as you can pretty much get in the US. As a matter of fact, I lived across the street from Lake Eerie.

Buffalo?

I understand now. It's the lack of sunlight and constant lafe-effect snow that makes Zim who he is... I can relate!

Actually getting back on the original topic, I noticed that op-ed yesterday morning and thought that it would spark a good discussion here, but didn't have the time to post it myself.

Sure enough, people are echoing the sentiments in the article without even realizing it -- Religious belief is being correlated with low intelligence by people with high intelligence. Let's face it, we're all computer people here, who are intelligent enough to make an informed choice about what platform we prefer. Our "demographic" will skew more toward the "educated" end of things, similar to how the author depicts his journalistic colleagues. It seems like we are generating more of a discussion on both sides, though, and not an impasse of closed ears, which is what the author warned against. This is good!

Personally, I don't see the conflict between Religion and Science in my life. Maybe it's because I was taught not to take the bible literally, I still use it as a source of wisdom and life lessons, but not as a history book or calendar. When trying to figure out how old the world is, I will trust the scientific evidence over Genesis, and when they contradict, I don't go through a major crisis figuring out which is "right", because it really doesn't matter. But no science will teach you how to treat your fellow man.

The problem with science, though, is that we can only rely on what we observe. We can observe something tomorrow that will blow some currently accepted theory out of the water. We can never be sure that a scientific theory is "right", only that fits the evidence at hand better than any other theory. Anyone who refuses to reevaluate theories in the face of new data is not a true scientist.

Religion, on the other hand, deals in fundamental truths. That there is a God, that there is Good and Evil in the world, that you should treat others like you treat yourself. There's no way to prove these things, but that doesn't make a difference to a believer - they are true all the same. No new fact will change these truths in the believer's eyes.

Science is our interpretation of our physical world based on what we can see. It is how we percieve creation. Science is built on religion. Without religion, science is meaningless. Without science, religion is incomprehensible. (which I think is what Einstein is trying to say in the quote at the end of the article). This distinction is clear as day for me. What do you think?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Sorry about the late reply, I hope this is still relevant. I think we might be talking about two different yet linked events here, one being the Pentecost, the other being the speaking in tongues practiced by a wide variety of communities even today.

thanks for your thoughtful reply, and yes, I think they are two distinct things. The only reason we got bifurcated in the discussion, I think, was that the word "origin" was applied to present day glossolia, and the implication that christians originally stole it from pagans.
Once you talk about christian origins, you have to discuss pentecost.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And like I said before, it's called copycat/mocking.

Say you was Satan, and Christians were speaking in tongues and such, one would think, "Hmm, maybe there is something to this"

But if pagans are also doing it, then suddenly it's not so special anymore. That is what is happening. It's deception. Satan is good at it. He has been doing it for awhile now. Again, his final mistake will be mocking the resurrection of Christ.

Zim,

glossolalia is found among the Inuit , The Saami (Lapps), in Japanese seances in Hokkaido, in a small cult led by Genji Yanagide of Moji City, the shamans in Ethiopia in the zar cult and various spirits in Haitian Voodoo. L. Carlyle May shows that glossolalia in non-Christian religions is present in Malaysia, Indonesia, Siberia, Arctic regions, China, Japan, Korea, Arabia, and Burma, among other places. It is also present extensively in African tribal religions. The majority of people practicing glossolalia never had any contact with Christianity.

What this mean is that glossolalia is a human phenomena, not a strictly religious one. It is practiced by believers and nonbelievers alike.

Pentecost is a totally different matter I believe. As boots said it would be interesting to explore the connection, if any, between the two of them.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
thanks for your thoughtful reply, and yes, I think they are two distinct things. The only reason we got bifurcated in the discussion, I think, was that the word "origin" was applied to present day glossolia, and the implication that christians originally stole it from pagans.
Once you talk about christian origins, you have to discuss pentecost.

Lerk, it occurred to me that pentecost might not have been what we call "speaking in tongues" but xenoglossia. Maybe this is where to confusion originated from.
Xenoglossia is the ability to spontaneously speak a foreign language without first having learned it, or even been exposed to it. The term is also derived from two Greek words: Xenos, which means "foreign" or "foreigner", and gl�ssai again, ("tongues" or "languages.")

AFAIK there have been no proven occurrences of this although anecdotal evidence is strongly in its favor.

[boots]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Lerk, it occurred to me that pentecost might not have been what we call "speaking in tongues" but xenoglossia. Maybe this is where to confusion originated from.
Xenoglossia is the ability to spontaneously speak a foreign language without first having learned it, or even been exposed to it. The term is also derived from two Greek words: Xenos, which means "foreign" or "foreigner", and gl�ssai again, ("tongues" or "languages.")

AFAIK there have been no proven occurrences of this although anecdotal evidence is strongly in its favor.

Now that's an interesting thought. I like the idea. Here's the only problem I see with it though. As Lerk said earlier, the crowd was supposedly multinational, so if one person spoke and ALL understood in his own language, it doesn't fit...unless one could say it was the "language of the spirit" or the "universal language" from pre-Babble...with an accompanying phenomenon of spontaneous understanding of that language....

An very interesting thought indeed.

[Mastrap]

<aside>Does this conversation remind anybody else of Neill Stephenson's book "Snow Crash"? </aside>

boots, I am not as familiar with the pentecost as you and Lerk are. Please both correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree here.

It seems to me that the apostles were speaking in more than one language. IIRC it is said that they "began to speak in other tongues" with the emphasis on the "s", plural. The crowd is amazed by the fact that they hear what is being spoken in their native languages, again plural. So we've got the apostles speaking a multitude of languages that is understood by a multi-lingual crowd.

It looks to me that we cannot be talking about a single, pre Babel, language here.

[boots]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
<aside>Does this conversation remind anybody else of Neill Stephenson's book "Snow Crash"? </aside>

boots, I am not as familiar with the pentecost as you and Lerk are. Please both correct me if I'm barking up the wrong tree here.

It seems to me that the apostles were speaking in more than one language. IIRC it is said that they "began to speak in other tongues" with the emphasis on the "s", plural. The crowd is amazed by the fact that they hear what is being spoken in their native languages, again plural. So we've got the apostles speaking a multitude of languages that is understood by a multi-lingual crowd.

It looks to me that we cannot be talking about a single, pre Babel, language here.

Yeah, that's one of the unexplained details. We don't really know. It could be either from the context. I've often heard it "explained" that the language is the language of the spirit (given that pentacost was the "bestowing" of the spirit), so that muddies to waters a little.

[Lerkfish]

although bringing Babel is interesting, as Pentecost is sometimes considered the spiritually symbolic healing of what happened at the tower of Babel.

Babel: men think they can become God by building a tower to elevate themselves to the level of God. Result: mulitplicity of language and therefore impediments to communication which serve to separate men into tribes.

Pentecost: God comes down to man's level via the Holy Spirit: Oneness of understanding that serves to unify all men back together.

its an interesting counterpoint.

[Timo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
its an interesting counterpoint.

interesting is not proof!

::snaps out of it::

Just thinking back to times I've posted about "interesting juxtapositions"...

Carry on, sirs, with the content. Pay no mind to this part of the peanut gallery.

[BRussell]

I thought it was interesting that even in the description of the speaking in tongues at the Pentecost, there were skeptics who saw it and said they were just drunk.

Acts 2:7 - 2:13

They were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, "Behold, aren't all these who speak Galileans? How do we hear, everyone in our own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and people from Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, the parts of Libya around Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians: we hear them speaking in our languages the mighty works of God!" They were all amazed, and were perplexed, saying one to another, "What does this mean?" Others, mocking, said, "They are filled with new wine."

[andi*pandi]

How did I manage to get thru Catholic upbringing and not know half of what you all are talking about with Pentacost?

I honestly don't recall it being mentioned. But I've learned a lot, thanks guys! (Something made this thread worth reading!)

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Zim,

glossolalia is found among the Inuit , The Saami (Lapps), in Japanese seances in Hokkaido, in a small cult led by Genji Yanagide of Moji City, the shamans in Ethiopia in the zar cult and various spirits in Haitian Voodoo. L. Carlyle May shows that glossolalia in non-Christian religions is present in Malaysia, Indonesia, Siberia, Arctic regions, China, Japan, Korea, Arabia, and Burma, among other places. It is also present extensively in African tribal religions. The majority of people practicing glossolalia never had any contact with Christianity.

What this mean is that glossolalia is a human phenomena, not a strictly religious one. It is practiced by believers and nonbelievers alike.

Pentecost is a totally different matter I believe. As boots said it would be interesting to explore the connection, if any, between the two of them.

Mastrap, this in no way disproves or goes against what I said about mocking the spirit. Why was the point you was trying to make?

[boots]

Originally posted by BRussell:

Acts 2:7 - 2:13

They were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, "Behold, aren't all these who speak Galileans? How do we hear, everyone in our own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and people from Mesopotamia, Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, the parts of Libya around Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians: we hear them speaking in our languages the mighty works of God!"

Thanks for posting that. It is always nice to actually have the text in front of you...

Anyway, this is what I meant about the ambiguity: On one reading, everyone heard all of the speakers in their own native tongue. On another, it could be said that there was a hodge podge so that one speaker was speaking in one language, another in another language, etc.

My reading has always been on the level of the first I mentioned, so that is where the Babel comment came from. The understanding in their own languages refers to the second "gift" to which I have been refering.

Lerk: It is an interesting juxtaposition, and there is much precedent for that particular literary tool in other parts of the text. I wasn't really intending to put it in that light (didn't even think of it like that, really), but I think it might be there.

[imaxxedout]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

However, what is your point for making those assertions? Depending on your answer I may or may not apolgize for calling you a bigot.

What is the point? Someone said that Christianity is spreading like herpes through Russia and Africa. I attempted to say that if you have a real crappy life, etc etc, you're more likely to get 'biblical'.

That's all I was saying, and you and Zimph told me I was full of crap.

- Ca$h

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Timo:
interesting is not proof!

::snaps out of it::

Just thinking back to times I've posted about "interesting juxtapositions"...

Carry on, sirs, with the content. Pay no mind to this part of the peanut gallery.

I wasn't trying to prove anything. I was only saying it was interesting.

[Superchicken]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
How did I manage to get thru Catholic upbringing and not know half of what you all are talking about with Pentacost?

not trying to get flamed but... it's easy to go through a catholic up bringing without knowing a lota stuff. Least up here. We've got a decent number of catholics up here... and so far I have only met one who has a remote understanding of the bible. Maybe your church is different, but of the catholics I know most of them are simply taught what Holy Tradition teachs and not the bible. And Pentacost is mentioned in the bible. Believe it or not if you read through the entire bible you won't find evidence for a pope, for purgatory, absolution, a requirement to periodically ask forgiveness. More than one damable sin (blastpheming the Holy Spirit, IE never accepting forgiveness). (making suicide a viable get to heaven early card although one should never go that route.) and in general you'll find a lot of other catholic things you're taught were never taught by the desiples or Jesus... or any of the prophets.

As for the rest of the post. Pentacost did not have the same type of tounges that modern day pentacostals do. It was I speak my language you hear your's. My pastor's mother went to a pentacostal church for a while, and there was one little girl that everyone thought was an amazing Christian, and every sunday without fail she'd trot up to the font of the church and speak in tounges. A real language too. One day someone was visiting the church, from germany I think it was, and he heard her speaking in a language he understood.. but he was very offended.. turned out she was acctually blastpheming God in german. haha
That's one reason I'm always leery of tounges. Tounges if ever done in a local church body should NEVER be without an interpriter, and max there should be 3 speakers. If no one can interprit Paul taught in first corinthians 12 I believe it was (maybe 14 not SURE) that thety'd best remain silent.

I was watching TV once and they had this cross Canada evangelist and they filmed him doing a crusade in alberta. He yelled at the people NOW ACCEPT CHRIST AND BEGIN TO SPEAK IN TOUNGES! And they justwent off in "tounges" My jaw dropped as a few questions rolled through my mind.
1) How on earth could one man know that everyone who he was preaching to had a very unique and uncommon spirtual gift
2) Why wouldhe tell people to accept Christ, command them to recieve a spiritual gift they may have no use of, and then command them to abuse it and go against scripture.

That's why I'm leery of anyone who speaks in tounges... although some of my Christian friends and associates do, although I've yet to hear them do it to me

[thunderous_funker]

Thanks mastrap for the info on glossolalia, I didn't realize this had undergone formal study as such. Terrifically interesting!

Well, the Pentacaost phenomenon, as described, still stands as rather unique and singular. AFAIK, there are no recorded incidents similar with such large numbers.

I mentioned the Mormon interpretation and I know other Protestant groups have a similar concept--xenoglossia, in essence.

Since I was never a bible literalist, even in my religious phase, the Pentacost account didn't really keep me up at night. I imagined it was slightly garbled account of the real incidents or perhaps a singular event as described, but it really didn't matter that much to me.

As I eluded to in my Ironing Board Testimony post, Unsolved Mysteries has never been a compelling reason for Belief in my mind. In fact, I've always thought it quite silly.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Mastrap, this in no way disproves or goes against what I said about mocking the spirit. Why was the point you was trying to make?

Correct me if you think I'm wrong but I understood your postion to be that "speaking in tongues" is of divine origin. I made the point that this is not always so. So, no devil mocking anybody/thing.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Correct me if you think I'm wrong but I understood your postion to be that "speaking in tongues" is of divine origin. I made the point that this is not always so. So, no devil mocking anybody/thing.

Right, it's not always spirit filled, some of it is indeed fake. And that too is also a mockery.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Right, it's not always spirit filled, some of it is indeed fake. And that too is also a mockery.

Sorry Zim, but you don't know this.
You're speculating and you're making a judgment purely based on your, with respect, limited knowledge on this issue.

I suspect that you don't ever have witnessed nor researched the occurrence of glossolalia in religions other than yours. I apologize if am being presumptuous. As you believe in an exclusive god, i.e. yours is the only way to true salvation, I understand that you don't have much reason to do so.
It has however been observed that glossolalia is an almost universally occuring human machanism to get closer to the divine, much like praying and meditating. You know that it is my opinion that the divine is universal, i.e. that there is only one true god (for want of a better word) and that all true religions are just different ways to make a connection between humanity and the divine. What this means is that I respect your way to communicate with god as a true one, I can't however see any evidence towards your opinion, or faith, that this way is the only one that leads to true salvation.

I am aware that the following will probably sound offensive to you, it is not meant as a personal attack against you or others that share your faith. It is purely my opinion:
If there is such a thing as the devil, a force of blindness and confusion if you like, then the idea that any one religion is the only way to salvation surely is his finest work.
This power has managed to create disharmony between people, each blindly believing that their way is the only true way, ignoring that the divine is much bigger than our earthly squabbles.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Sorry Zim, but you don't know this.
You're speculating and you're making a judgment

Yes you are right, I don't know what every instance is about. But I do know the deception and mocking is real.

purely based on your, with respect, limited knowledge on this issue.

Limited? give me a break.

I suspect that you don't ever have witnessed nor researched the occurrence of glossolalia in religions other than yours. I apologize if am being presumptuous. As you believe in an exclusive god, i.e. yours is the only way to true salvation, I understand that you don't have much reason to do so.

You answered your own question.For some reason, people feel think you have to look at things through worldly knowledge to understand. Simply not true. Esp when talking about spiritual matters.

It has however been observed that glossolalia is an almost universally occuring human machanism to get closer to the divine, much like praying and meditating. You know that it is my opinion that the divine is universal, i.e. that there is only one true god (for want of a better word) and that all true religions are just different ways to make a connection between humanity and the divine. What this means is that I respect your way to communicate with god as a true one, I can't however see any evidence towards your opinion, or faith, that this way is the only one that leads to true salvation.

And you are entitled to your opinions.

[b]
I am aware that the following will probably sound offensive to you, it is not meant as a personal attack against you or others that share your faith. It is purely my opinion:
If there is such a thing as the devil, a force of blindness and confusion if you like, then the idea that any one religion is the only way to salvation surely is his finest work.

I don't care about religion. No one needs religion. The only thing one needs is beliefe that Jesus was the son of God, and that he died for your sins. His main concern is to get people to think this isn't important. That and to think he doesn't actually exist, and that there is no such thing as hell.

This power has managed to create disharmony between people, each blindly believing that their way is the only true way, ignoring that the divine is much bigger than our earthly squabbles.

I agree it has caused trouble, that is why he is offering false prophets and such. To confuse and cause problems. Why would he do anything less?