Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As you wish. I was just hoping from all there to consider what you deem most convincing and why. If you don't care to elaborate for whatever your reasons, no one can force you, but I was genuinely interested. The fact that I asked demonstrated that interest far as I'm concerned. Sincerely -- the opposite of I don't care to consider your point of view and opinion. Disappointing.
Baptist Fundy essentially demands we see and accept his religion. I doubt he feels that he should see and accept Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.
No, that's not it at all. What MQ is saying is that a person begins speaking in a language that they do not know, but which is known to their audience.
For example, a Spanish speaker goes to China and begins speaking, but the words come out in Chinese so the audience can understand.
We could assume the Apostles spoke Aramaic, so it would be a case of one of them traveling to India and speaking, but the words coming out in Hindi so the locals can understand.
So going by your explanation, the only authentic demonstration of someone speaking in tongues would be:
A person starts speaking in a completely unknown language that nobody else had ever heard before, and all the listeners in, would miraculously also completely understand everything that they were saying.
(preumably with the 'Holy Spirit' - whatever that is - also being present)
In other words, the IS NO authentic speaking in tongues.
Understand that I am not claiming any authenticity for any version of speaking in tongues. I was simply clarifying what the term meant as per the Christian narrative. It referred to a supernatural event wherein people who never spoke foreign languages before suddenly could.
The listeners miraculously being able to understand was not part of that narrative. What the listeners are said to have heard was THEIR LANGUAGE being spoken.
Christianity 101 for $200, Alex: This event, called Pentecost because it occurred during a harvest feast of that name, is considered the ""Birthday of the Church". Christ is crucified, resurrected, and then ascends to heaven, telling his disciples to pray constantly until he sends his Holy Spirit upon them, which they do for the next nine days (hence the Catholic practice of a Novena, or nine-day prayer for a specific request), and then at the temple during this Pentecost feast, fire appears over their heads, and they begin to preach, some in foreign languages previously unknown.
The Episcopal Church--the USA's Anglican branch and offspring of your Church of England--observes this day by wearing red for fire and having a "birthday" cake at coffee hour. But nobody speaks in tongues.
Understand that I am not claiming any authenticity for any version of speaking in tongues. I was simply clarifying what the term meant as per the Christian narrative. It referred to a supernatural event wherein people who never spoke foreign languages before suddenly could.
The listeners miraculously being able to understand was not part of that narrative. What the listeners are said to have heard was THEIR LANGUAGE being spoken.
Christianity 101 for $200, Alex: This event, called Pentecost because it occurred during a harvest feast of that name, is considered the ""Birthday of the Church". Christ is crucified, resurrected, and then ascends to heaven, telling his disciples to pray constantly until he sends his Holy Spirit upon them, which they do for the next nine days (hence the Catholic practice of a Novena, or nine-day prayer for a specific request), and then at the temple during this Pentecost feast, fire appears over their heads, and they begin to preach, some in foreign languages previously unknown.
The Episcopal Church--the USA's Anglican branch and offspring of your Church of England--observes this day by wearing red for fire and having a "birthday" cake at coffee hour. But nobody speaks in tongues.
Seriously I'm impressed. I'm can understand a bit of French but I'm pretty hopeless with other languages.
My primary pursuit is Spanish, which I think would be the most useful. Years of working in the city with many Spanish speakers and idly trying to read ads on public transit was helpful in getting the gist of things, but I really can't speak it in a way that I could have a conversation with anyone.
Spanish is, of course, of little use where I am now, but where I am is temporary. French is everywhere, including on all packaged foods (try being old and losing your eyesight and trying to read when two languages are squeezed onto a can of tuna). I am more interested in learning to read it, but listening to it is interesting, too.
Huge difference between the two is that Spanish is pretty much pronounced exactly as it is spelled, while the opposite is true of French.
Then, since I am of Dutch descent, I thought it would be fun to learn a few phrases, and it is. It is the closest language to English (not quite, actually the less-common Frisian dialect is) and it mostly sounds as if it is English being spoken funny. "De man drinkt melk".
It would be nice if the Pentecost story were true and there were a way to begin speaking a language without the process of learning!
Not sure this is the most important learning for the "dear reader," but maybe some people need to learn all you've gone to the trouble to explain here. Interested to learn more about what I consider "the wrench" with regard to these "cherished mechanics of Pentecostalism," I did a little digging and after a fair amount of reading about speaking in tongues, I found this in Wikipedia...
"Speakers of glossolalia are capable of speaking in tongues on cue, contrary to the claim that it is a spontaneous event.
Analysis of glossolalics reveals a pseudo-language that lacks consistent syntax, semantic meaning, usually rhythmic or poetic in nature and is similar to the speaker's native tongue. Samples of glossolalia shows a lack of consistency needed for meaningful comparison or translation. It also is not used to communicate between fellow glossolalia speakers, although the meaning is usually translated by the leader involved, in line with and supportive of whatever message or teaching had been given that day, in some way giving divine legitimacy to what is said."
I assume that the training of the preachers includes a whole lot of information about how to do this speaking in tongues and how to teach it too. Which means there is a whole section of the church (in the larger context) which is barking up the wrong tree.
And when the 'occult' is mentioned, there is a sudden in-take of breath along with a kind of hissing through the teeth. However, there are many people who channel, who have their kundalini activated, and many similar things to what the church knows as and labels something else. All of it is equally beneficial or detrimental as I said in a previous post.
Maybe it is all about the setting in which these phenomena are encountered as to whether we call it demonic or Holy Spirit?
I'm rather surprised that those who believe in 'Pentecostal tongues' or those who claim to participate in this phenomenon have been noticeably absent from this thread. I would have thought that they would have been here defending this practice. Is this perhaps an indication that 'tongue-speaking' is on the decline?
It needs to be understood and emphasized WHY the gift of 'tongues', i.e., languages, were given in the first place. Jesus had commanded that the Gospel message be delivered to the entire world. And, in order to accomplish this the languages of the world had to be given to those with 'the message'. Jesus mentioned that the Holy Spirit would be sent to the disciples to help them accomplish this task.
Some 'heavenly language' given to 'edify' the speaker or to give them bragging rights of being 'Spirit-filled' was NEVER the intention behind 'the gift of tongues'. The 'gift of tongues' was NEVER a 'LOOK AT ME' thing!
However, people being people often read more into scripture than they probably should. They saw the words 'tongues of angels' and 'praying in the spirit', etc. and decided to run with those terms and create a new doctrine around them. Prior to 1906 (the Azusa Street Revival) 'tongues' was not a thing. After that event 'tongues' gradually took off and became the phenomenon that the Pentecostal Church claimed as their own.
Has anyone ever wondered why other Christian denominations don't 'speak in tongues' ...why it's just the 'charismatics'? THIS - if nothing else - should arouse one's suspicions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
