Speaking In Tongues

this has already been covered. did you take a look at the links I provided?
If so than you would understand that the college students "learning it" and mimicking are still utilizing the speech centers of the brain, so it is not at all the same thing.
I asked for science, not a bunch of assumptions and speculative poppycock.


LOL at the "Independent Fundamentalist Baptist" website you linked thinking it bolsters your position when fact it doesn't. fundamentalist Baptist have ALWAYS been opposed to the Pentacostal movement and have consistently denied any modern manifestation of the Holy Spirit as a denomination in general. I have heard those exact same arguments many times before, probably even before you were born.

 

Why don't you quit speaking for babies and maybe we will see what adult thing you have to say.

 

i have no problem with you're keeping company with the mouse in your pocket.

 

No, you have a problem with communication. No wise man tries to instruct the wise he just shares what he knows.
Like I said you speak like a baby and dream about being a man. But really you believe you are a mouse.

 

which is not the same as claiming to speak for others then one's self. as in your use of the word "we". unless you meant the "royal we", in which case i lol.

still the topic question is an egotistical indulgence, which communicates nothing.

 

If × is assumed to exist, then × = ×.
If t is assumed to exist, and t = Time

Then Δ× / t = poetry.

 

http://youtu.be/BdHK_r9RXTc

 

exactly running your mouth about things you know nothing of

 

There's a congruence in any form, no matter how irregular

 

like children speaking in gibberish.

mostly harmless.

 

Is this info meant to be functional or is it just a retort to divert attention away from underlying negligence?

 

I can speak from personal expeience. In 1970 I joined, and remained for 2 years, in a communal "christian" cult called, variously, in chronological order, "Teens for Christ", the "Revolution for Jesus", the "Children of God", the "Family of Love", the "Family", and finally, today, the "Family, International".

Speaking in tongues was encouraged, as their belief was that after having been "saved" by "receiving Jesus" through a simple, traditional prayer of contrition, confessing oneself to be a sinner, and receiving Jesus as the Savior, that one must "receive" a further "gift" of "the Holy Spirit", or "Holy Ghost", at which time one of the supposed "proofs" of having "received the baptism of the Holy Spirit" was to "spontaneously" break out in "tongues", a rather poetic (sounding), though unintelligible series of seemingly random sounds (words?) coming out of the oral orifice.

It didn't work for me. I joined on Santa Monica Beach, 1970, spring, and left in April 1972 with a wife they "gifted me" with in the group.

Primarily, I was in during the time "Children of God" was being used, though this name actually came from outside the group, as a "handle" given by others. Other, more familiar terms used to describe the group were "the team", "the family", and the leader was always called "Dad", or "Mo" (for "Moses David", being born David Berg, whose mother was a "faith healer" (exposed as a fraud in later life) and living in Huntington Beach, where the "revolution" began.

He had been a pastor and a missionary with the "Christian and Missionary Alliance", a pentecostal group that owned property in rural Texas, a "ranch" of sorts, isolated, around 50 miles west of Fort Worth-Dallas. This ranch was used to train missionaries, and was now (1970) the property of a television evangelist who I recall having a Sunday morning tv ministry, name of Fred Jordan. He began as a "traveling" preacher, hitch-hiking around and leading people to Jesus, but later established himself in L.A., where I lived, in a skid row mission building on 5th and Towne, down in downtown L.A., where the streets are lined with cardboard box homes and ex-preachers living in them, having become alcoholics and itinerant bums, God have mercy on their souls.

The tv evangelist and the cult leader were both in the missionary field, and became friends. David Berg, also known as "Moses" began to preach at a small club on Main Street in Huntington Beach, California (where I live today), just across from the H.B. Pier. This was called "the Light Club". His preaching there gained him a casual following of hippies, roustabouts, footloose itinerants, desiring to be rescued from the street life, to a life of "serving God". I joined just because the group, when they appeared "en masse" on MY beach (where I hung out with my hippie friends) one day, carrying bibles and donuts. I saw this group as the answer to what I'd been "looking for", in a communal group, who believed in sharing, rather than private property, read the bible, and went out to share this life with others. I had dropped out of college just weeks before this meeting on the beach, for lack of direction, after 3 semesters at Cal State Northridge, in the San Fernando Valley. I used to ride my scooter (an old Cushman, like the mail personnell used back then) from the Valley to home in W.L.A., and to the beach, where my hippie friends and I hung out, played music, and went to 5 dollar rock concerts at the Shrine Auditorium in downtown L.A., to see such stellar bands as Savoy Brown, Johnny Winter, Electric Flag, Janis Joplin with Big Brother and the Holding Company,,etc. Great music, great bands, and NO SEATING, just a big-ass dance floor, which was de rigeur for the time, before these bands and performances went uber-commercial, as it seems everything is today.

So, I jumped in, both feet, and I was on the happy-bus headed for skid row, and 2 years out of my life, trying to convince myself that I was Jesus, or a reasonable facsimile. I memorized over 2000 verses, chapters, passages, from the bible (a daily exercise for all) in my time with the group, and was thankfully away from the others for long periods of time, isolated in a radio room (they used amateur, or "ham" radio to communicate with the other "colonies" throughout the States. I was one of the radio operators, having had an amateur radio license for some time).

So I wasn't as pressured as perhaps the others were, due to peer pressure, to "act" like one of the brothers, slavishly attentive to authority within the group. I was given more freedom, in a limited manner, and I used that time to memorize more scripture.

NOW, TO THE "TONGUES":

Soon after joining, I was encouraged, since I had already "received Jesus", to "receive the gift of the H.S.", by "the laying on of hands", where others prayed for you, and you were "supposed to" receive the gift. I was waiting for something to "happen" spontaneously. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

I felt somewhat ashamed that I had not "received the gift", while they made excuses for me.

I began, in order to feel a part of this thing, to "practice" the gift quietly as I walked the halls and stairways of our skid row mission building. I made sounds that seemed to fit the picture, and began to "get more fluent", thinking I needed to "help" the "gift".

Eventually, I sounded quite like the others, but with my own personal touch. None of the "tongues" sounded exactly the same, so I was okay "doing my own thing", though it was self-initiated primarily. I just thought I needed "practice", and that it was as valid as any other, though I would have preferred being "taken over by the Spirit", not by self-will, as a sign of legitimacy.

I can probably write out some of the common syllables, but I won't. It all sounds trivial to me now.

I do know that the apostle Paul said several things about "tongues". On the one hand, he boasted that "I speak in tongues more than you all", for personal edification, but encouraged others NOT to speak in tongues in the church meetings, as it would be seen as a form of insanity by those observing. He said that "It were better to speak five words in an understandable language than a thousand in an unknown tongue".

He also stated that tongues is like a children's toy, for personal edification. The speaking in the church meetings, which he called "prophesying", which literally means "speaking for God", or even "speaking forth God", was encouraged, and he states that "all can prophesy". This is NOT the style of "prophesying" seen in the Old Testament, where a prophet would say "Thus sayeth the Lord". It was more of a personal exercise of the human spirit to speak forth something personally known, and experienced, of the Lord, though inspired of the Holy Spirit.

Today, I know of groups that practice this in their meetings, this way of "prophesying", and have to say that I believe it to be a vital part of a normal, vital church meeting, where everyone is invited to share, in contrast to the "traditional" way of having a pulpit and pew situation, where only one man speaks. There are times for one man speaking, but without the opportunity for all to speak, there is little mutuality, and little vitality. I believe that the church meeting should display, in this way, the mutuality of the mystical Body of Christ, of which all genuine believers are members, though many are dormant.

My use of speaking in tongues subsided when, in early 1972, my wife and I were sent on a mission to her parent's home in Pennsylvania for purposes of using their family-built cabin in the woods for a new "training center" for new "disciples". We met someone, during that trip, who was going to church meetings in a small town, Tyrone, where they would meet in an old Assemblies of God building which they had purchased, as "the Church in Tyrone". Their meetings were very simple and real. They sat in a circle, no pulpit, no pew, just mutuality, and spontaneously took turns to share a verse, a hymn, a testimony. There were people from all walks of life, all races, different cultures, but now just "brothers and sisters in the Lord". There was no "hierarchy". You had to be "told" who the "elders" were, though their manner of living and speaking testified to their status, before having known of it by word of mouth from others. There was no special clothing, no "robes" or "ornaments", just a simple meeting, worshipping the Lord Jesus, taking Him as our head.

The primary reason, in retrospect, that I practiced "speaking in tongues", was to have some legitimacy, since everyone else was doing it, and I didn't want to feel "left out". I used that means to pray, not knowing what I was praying, but "feeling" it "in my heart". After having left, as I began to learn what the bible was really saying, and understanding it for the first time, I began to pray real words, with real thoughts behind them. In other words, my growing understanding of God's intention, His "eternal purpose" as Paul put it, supplied my prayer time with content. I knew what I was praying for, for a change, rather than mere "personal edification."

I do believe today that "tongues" may have its place, and ought not be prohibited, yet also not "encouraged" in a church meeting. It's mostly, as "themnax" stated in this thread, a "children's toy", for personal edification, and not useful in the larger context of a legitimate church meeting, where more important spiritual transactions are being carried out.

Just FYI, I haven't been to a "church meeting in years". To my detriment, perhaps, I grew tired of the politics involved, with comparisons and whisperings the norm, to a large extent.

 

What info? What I said? or info conveyed by children making up nonsense words?

In both cases there's some functionality.

 

I encourage everyone to read my long-ass post, before it disappears into the historical trashbin of "previous pages". It's a rich, though perhaps incomplete anecdotal view of the usefulness, or lack of, of tongues.

Cheers

 

I do apologise, that was quite a sharp statement - I read that again and it hurt Excessive wine is making me be a little more brutal than I'd normally like I stick by the principle though..


[SIZE=13.63636302948px]What you said, but touché.[/SIZE]

Care to elaborate?

 

Dig the story, thanks for the time - interesting


I'd say though that you're confusing speaking in tongues with glossolalia.. my interpretation of speaking in tongues comes before verbal communication.. it could be art, math, music, sculpture, dance.. but then it could also be language. For me it's raw expression of soul, a devotion to the moment where you're not consciously deciding things - it's like you gracefully step out the way and let actions be themselves without judgement or corrections.

For me, that's far more beautiful than a manipulated and controlled action because the rational mind is always a step behind, since it's had to rationalise chaos in order to process an answer to the questions it's formulated.

It's easier to keep your balance when you're not trying to keep your balance. Nature is self organising, it's how our bodies respire.

 

I shovel two garbage bags into shallow graves
I speak in tongues that cut my face every time I shave
A ritual, habitual, so hear my principals
Deadly syllables spoken in less than three second intervals
My mind's fucked up, so suspect, so criminal
Put you in the ground with the phosphates and minerals

 

I'd say that randomness and spontaneity are important to me, to tap into the subconscious, and speaking in tongues was always explainable to me in the way you put it, so that the things I was saying, spontaneous and random, focused only on the heart's intent, and not the words, so it allowed "God" to step in to "answer those prayers that are initiated by Him". In essence, I felt as if it were the proper thing to do, since spirituality is God's realm, since, as Jesus stated, "God is Spirit" (John 4). I felt I didn't need to understand the content of my prayer, as long as the heart was right.

Now, I see that the heart can, and will still get involved in things "understood", even sometimes to an even greater degree.

But I see that those, including myself, who feel uneasy about considering themselves as "the final authority", or "supreme" (in one's undestanding) would rather use a form of prayer which bypasses the self, allegedly.

I do find, now, that through adequate inspiration and the TEACHING of the Spirit, one's understanding of God's greater plan, of God's intention, can be equal to that of the Lord HImself, in a limited way. Jesus said that the Spirit will teach you all things. I take that as "all things you NEED TO KNOW". It's like in security. Things are on a "need to know" basis. However, the reason isn't so much that God loves keeping things secret, only known to Him. It's that we are only aware of a portion of God's intention, not its entirety, because knowing too much would simply overwhelm us, and make us less useful in applying the knowledge we have.

In other words,, God's intention is that we DO have some understanding of His purpose. Paul states, in his letter to the Ephesians, that the "mystery" which is Christ, has been revealed. God is in the business of revealing, to those who draw near to Him, His purpose, His intentions, and not merely keeping people "guessing". In other words, Christ is God's mystery, and the church is His expression (ideally), His manifestation, as Christ is the manifestation of God. We only need to know those things that help us to express the divine, in a human way, as Christ did.

So, I find no inconsistency. Whether I know what I'm praying, or don't. There's room for both.

But as far as the church meetings are concerned, Paul's emphasis was on understandable language, not merely a "display" of one's "spirituality", as if to boast. But we have no right to prohibit. Speaking in tongues in a church meeting is not "illegal", just not encouraged, by Paul.

But I also understand the relative usefulness of s.i.t., as a means of fellowshipping with God, sans the use of the literal mind.

 

I don't have any problem with your response.

I'll try to elaborate. Possibly something like the phenomenon of glossolalia may have come in the development of human beings before language as we have it now. Early pre-linguistic humans must have been able to articulate a wide array of sounds.Maybe they used this for some primitive kind of self expression. At some point, specific sounds would have become associated with particular objects and language gradually developed. I can't see any other way it could have happened.

So when children make up nonsense words, or when people revert to glossolalia, they are going back to something that was probably a feature of our remote pre-linguistic ancestors.
Maybe this stuff is hard wired into the human brain in some way.