homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: "I'm getting a picture…" (Page 11)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: "I'm getting a picture…"
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Don't get me wrong, GoperryRevs - I'm not suggesting that we need to back up every single thing we do with chapter and verse ... I'm not suggesting any such thing and have said as much further upthread ...

No, what I was questioning wasn't the idea that God might guide us to meet certain individuals but the charades-style in which these apparent prompts and directions appear to be concocted.

Ramarius seems to think that because these happened in a group/corporate way, with each person contributing something - be it 'blood', 'underpass', 'dartboard' or whatever else then it's some kind of sign that the Holy Spirit is co-ordinating things. I don't see any examples of that in scripture - but I do see examples of specific promptings and leadings. Can you see the difference I'm getting at?

It's a bit like chucking things out to see what'll stick. In this instance the bloke whose name began with C and the poorly arm (which doesn't seem to have been a serious injury) happened to fit ... bu the dartboard and so on appear to be simply random ...

Whatever the case, I agree with you. I don't see any warrant or precedent for this kind of practice. A friend of mine is very gifted in terms of sharing his faith with others - I know several people that he has 'led to the Lord' and are still going strong after 30 years.

He regularly goes into Starbucks and other public places and is very good at striking up conversations with people that often lead in a non-cheesy way to him sharing his faith. Great. Good for him. He may sometimes feel particular prompts or insights and intuition that helps him - but he doesn't go around town following cryptic clues.

I'm not saying that the Holy Spirit can't work through 'treasure hunting' - of course he can - but that doesn't mean that it's a recommended practice. I'd suggest that he works in such circumstances inspite of the methodology and not because of it - but then, that can apply to plenty of other things as well.

As Chris Stiles says, it's the attitude and culture that these sort of things encourage that are often unhelpful. Personally, I wouldn't want to go anywhere near a church that was regularly out 'treasure hunting' as I'm sure that as eggs are eggs they'll end up with a harmful and over-egged attitude towards these things sooner or later.

I agree with you about the same kind of 'results' being achieved without having to try to be 'prophetic' everytime. The examples I've given of what I'd consider to be genuinely 'prophetic' insights and so on have generally happened in the normal course of events - when someone's been preaching or simply sharing their faith in an 'ordinary' way that has suddenly become extraordinary through particular unction of the working of God the Holy Spirit in a way that might be considered above and beyond the 'normal means of grace' as it were.

Of course, there's the objection that we should 'earnestly desire' spiritual gifts or that we should yearn to prophesy and so forth - but as I've said, I'm not entirely convinced that we are comparing like-with-like here and even if we were those scriptural exhortations aren't a cart-blanche to go out and try to manufacture things or nudge the Holy Spirit into obeying our commands and programmes.

Your comment about not trying to manufacture things is spot on.

As soon as we turn 'treasure hunting' or 'I'm getting a picture ...' for that matter into an expected, regular occurrence, we do put ourselves under pressure to perform - and that's when the lowering of the bar takes place. We lower to bar to ensure that things fit our expectations.

I'm not sure, though, that you're right about the 'comfortable routines that the Holy Spirit can fit into if he wants.' The Orthodox and some other sacramental Christians believe that their liturgies themselves are pneumatic and act as conduits for the Holy Spirit to work through - I've known both RC and Orthodox priests who can give you stories of how this 'works' in terms of people encountering the Divine ...

I see no reason to doubt that. Nor any reason to doubt that God may speak prophetically through a sermon in a conservative evangelical setting or anywhere else for that matter - and most charismatics would agree with that - including those represented on this thread.

But it's interesting, isn't it, that Ananias simply seems to have received a vision - we're not hold how or when he was praying or what he was doing. But he seems to have received a vision out of the blue. I doubt he was 'treasure hunting' or scouring Damascus following cryptic clues when the Lord spoke to him.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
And no, I don't think that reciting set prayers is a 'rote' thing ... but I would have been inclined to have done at the time I'm talking about here ... ie. my more charismatic phase.

Interestingly, it's just struck me that many of the 'tongues' we used to hear in those days sounded rather repetitive, with the same 'phrase' or rhythmical sound sequences repeated over and over again. You know how it goes ... (attempts an approximation):

'Bandara-gang-a-rah-band-annah! Sheeshteenarraganda-she-steelana-wisht-na-band-a-nah!' and so on.

That wasn't me typing in tongues, by the way, just emulating what a lot of people sounded like. You know, the 'shecameonahonda', 'givehimashandy', 'aveabicardi' and so forth.

I'm wondering now whether any of this was 'by rote' ... [Big Grin]

I did once attend a church where one person came out with the same message in tongues virtually week in week out. It got to the point where I had learnt the syllables; they were almost identical every time.

The interpretation, mysteriously, appeared (if my memory is correct) to be different every time.

I struggle to believe this was really valid.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well yes ... there have been studies where Pentecostal pastors have been played tapes of people 'speaking in tongues' and actors doing the same thing and they have been able to spot the actors from the 'real thing' ...

That said, there have also been experiments to see whether interpretations of tongues bear any relation to transcriptions/interpretations of actual languages - and they don't.

I know anecdotal instances of people who claim to have been overheard praying or even reciting verses from the Psalms in languages they'd not learned - including my brother-in-law and his brother who grew up in Pentecostal churches.

By the same token, I know of anecdotal instances of charismatics visiting churches in Wales where people pray in both Welsh and English. Hearing someone praying in Welsh they assumed it was 'tongues' and provided the 'interpretation' - which was well wide of the mark and nothing like what the Welsh speaker was saying.

The late mother of a friend of mine, a very dear Pentecostal lady, also claimed to have overheard a Spaniard speaking English when 'praying in tongues' ...

There are lots of anecdotal stories but none that have been confirmed by science or by observation in controlled conditions as it were.

I'm fairly agnostic about it, to be honest. It's not something I lose sleep over. It seems pretty obvious to me that most people who speak in tongues have been introduced/induced into it by some form of peer-pressure or group expectation and that the 'tongues' that they tend to come out with are very similar to those of the group they belong to or the people who induced them into the practice. You've only got to visit a few charismatic or Pentecostal churches over a period of time to see that process at work.

I keep an open-mind, though, on the possibility of tongues being a genuine gift of the Holy Spirit - partly because I know of instances outside the purlieu of the 'usual suspects' as it were.

'Do not forbid, do not promote' would probably be my stance on this one.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064

 - Posted      Profile for The Rhythm Methodist   Email The Rhythm Methodist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:

It seems pretty obvious to me that most people who speak in tongues have been introduced/induced into it by some form of peer-pressure or group expectation and that the 'tongues' that they tend to come out with are very similar to those of the group they belong to or the people who induced them into the practice. You've only got to visit a few charismatic or Pentecostal churches over a period of time to see that process at work.

Well, that's about the size of it. The bulk of it seems to be nothing more than learned or required behaviour. But there are those instances which you mention, where more is claimed. I also know one person who said she had a true "other languages" experience on the continent - preceded by an overwhelming urge (so I'm told) to convey God's love to a local she was sharing a table with. I'd perhaps give her a little more credence than most, if only because she refused to have anything to do with her church's "charismatic corner" - that obligatory bit when the worship leader starts strumming randomnly, and the babbling kicks off. Always thought it was the height of self-indulgence myself,rather than anything to do with worshipping God.

I think your example of tongues betrays a certain rustiness on your part: From memory, it goes, "Bortamazda.....Shouldabortahonda", and the interpretation is a lamentation for an ill-informed purchase.

Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It seems pretty obvious to me that most people who speak in tongues have been introduced/induced into it by some form of peer-pressure or group expectation and that the 'tongues' that they tend to come out with are very similar to those of the group they belong to or the people who induced them into the practice.

This was definitely the case with me. And I desperately wanted to "do it" so I could fit in. And by golly, it worked.

[ 04. January 2013, 16:07: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
goperryrevs - I know it's my own fault for plugging what a peerless benison to the poor I am, what a saint, but they aren't going to think so when we've got no tins of beans to give them at the end of January. I could of course buy enough beans for a small city with my savings and pension. But I won't will I. I might be a saint, but I'm not daft ... I wish I were.

I don't want you or anyone to stop being charismatic. Even my own congregation which increasingly does my head in, that's for me to bear. I just want an adult-adult debate among Christians.

I have sung in tongues, deliberately and contrivedly, I made it up, before God. I loved it. It empowered me in an extremely oppressive situation. I was prayerful, mindful with it. That was two years ago. I have my own store of miracles. One is the best I've ever heard and I still doubt it. And when I tell it, the vast majority here could not possibly believe it, or better, give it any credence, trivial and mundane, absurd as it is.

I won't blame them.

I've had a really bad year with intrusive thinking out of many bad years (post self-inflicted adolescent traumatic stress for a start). I could do with the encouragement of tongues, but just cannot bring myself to do it. Take out the sound effects in the singing?

So I'm open. I'm REALLY open. But nothing comes. I have responded in the congregation when 'pictures' and 'words' could have applied to me as a matter of discipline, to 'the table set before me'. I don't at all now. They would have to be jaw droppingly personal. I've responded to the various altar calls. But like most, I don't now. I REALLY don't.

Because when I did all that stuff it didn't work. Didn't help. Whereas having a shrink did. Counselling once, twice now, intensely with the vicar did. Being cognitive with God does. I'd LOVE to be able to do that in a group. Have done a bit. With occasional superb results. Open, inclusive, raw, real.

I'm JEALOUS of charismatic evangelicals' certainties, but they aren't mine. They can't be. As isn't the appalling damnationist 'theology' behind the vast majority. That we cannot have a Christian adult-adult conversation about. As on divorce and remarriage. Homosexuality.

Being charismatic AND open AND challenging AND challenged AND honest AND real AND raw AND adult around serving the poor.

That would be GREAT.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sounds to me that you're on the money, Martin. You simply want us all to grow up.

I'm not sure I'd go so far as to suggest that the charismatic scene invariably leads to infantilism - but I think it can lead to highly dependent individuals and highly dependent congregations to some extent. The altar-call thing and the quick-fix theology builds that into the mix. Mark Stibbes noted a degree of 'addictive behaviour' with the Toronto stuff but felt that this was God's way of reaching an already addictive generation - one of the worst cases of special pleading I've ever come across ...

Add to that the 'fit in' thing that Mousethief recounts and that's about the top and bottom of it for the most part.

But there are just those few occasions where there are glimmers of baby beneath the bathwater.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Being charismatic AND open AND challenging AND challenged AND honest AND real AND raw AND adult around serving the poor.

That would be GREAT.

Yesyesyesyes...

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Amen, Goperryrevs.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296

 - Posted      Profile for Jolly Jape   Email Jolly Jape   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Just continuing the tangent, I think there are a reasonable number of charos who are "universalist" and/or in favour of SSM, but the overwhelming attitude is "don't ask, don't tell", as it were. I did challenge one of the churchwardens about allowing a petition to be plugged in church from the excrable "council for marriage" or whatever their name is, on the basis that it is an issue on which christians can, in good faith, disagree, including christians within our fellowship, and therefore we should not take sides*. The response was that "it's just wrong", which is hardly a reasoned theological position, but there has been no recurrence, and I haven't been excommunicated yet! We do do "ministry to the poor", in the form of a nascent foodbank, though.

*quite apart from the crass pastoral insensitivity [Disappointed]

--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)

Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
JayJay - that's why evangelicalism is doomed, why the sacramental with all its exclusivist failings endures and people give in to that or nothing, it cannot have an adult-adult conversation about anything meaningful and engages in infantile distractions by comparison.

And I agree Lord Gamaliel, the charismatic SHOULD NOT be infantile. In there with reading palms, tea-leaves and horoscopes.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Whatever disagreements we've had on this thread, Jolly Jape, I'm completely with you on that latest post.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675

 - Posted      Profile for Komensky   Email Komensky   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I did once attend a church where one person came out with the same message in tongues virtually week in week out. It got to the point where I had learnt the syllables; they were almost identical every time.

The interpretation, mysteriously, appeared (if my memory is correct) to be different every time.

I struggle to believe this was really valid.

These things have been repeatedly tested and always fail. It has been tried to present recorded examples of tongues to people who had consistently 'had the gift of interpretation' and no similarities appeared between the interpretations--even though the inputs were identical. Linguists and neurologists have also studied them: there has been no coherent content found and none of the basic elements of a language have been present. Moreover, under a scan, the language faculties of those 'speaking in tongues' has not been engaged. It's a delusion.

Code fixed

Gwai,
Purg Host

[ 05. January 2013, 18:52: Message edited by: Gwai ]

--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Mark Stibbe. I had such hope of him with his Father's Heart ministry. I saw him speak and he ruined it for me by invoking name it and claim it.

Now he's trashed his marriage and family that was part of what he claimed.

And there are people out there - including an 'average' vicar pleading for him.

The rot will out.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Niteowl

Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841

 - Posted      Profile for Niteowl   Email Niteowl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
From my 35 plus years of observing as well as being a part of various charismatic churches/ministries I've seen too many pastors/leaders/etc put on pedestals and given "superstar" status, which inevitably leads to a high rate of failure and scandals. Especially when these individuals are hailed as modern day prophets and apostles - and generally not to be questioned at all.

Non believers aren't looking for another superstar with flashy healing services or prophetic ministries - they're looking for ordinary servants who are displaying Christ to them in their every day lives. Actions do speak louder than words and living out Christ to others on a day to day basis is far harder than any evangelist ministry.

--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare

Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I wasn't aware of any 'scandals' or issues with Mark Stibbes. I heard him speak once and wasn't particularly impressed ... it just seemed like the same old over-egged approach I'd heard a hundred times before. I didn't pick up any name-it-and-claim-it tendencies ... although to a certain extent I suspect an inclination that way isn't going to be that far away from any form of spirituality that emphases the deployment of spiritual 'power' and whizz-bang stuff ...

@Komensky - on the tongues thing, I've reached similar conclusions to your good self ... but I still wouldn't 'forbid speaking in tongues.'

Edward Green the former NFI type turned high Anglican vicar seems a proponent of the 'second naivety' approach to these things. He believes that tongues can be, subjectively, a real spiritual gift to many people even though, objectively, it is demonstrably not a 'real' language in any sense ... either of men or 'of angels'.

I still don't know how to explain those instances I know of where people have apparently started to speak in tongues spontaneously, either in private prayer or in situations of duress. I'm sure that this does happen, but I'm not convinced that it's a 'language' or even a 'private prayer language' in the way its proponents claim.

I'm sure, though, in those instances where 'tongues' are a genuine outflow of emotion or feeling rather than something inculcated under peer pressure or a self-fulfilling prophecy form of expectation, that they can convey 'meaning' in the sense that abstract art can convey feelings or a piece of cello music can convey deep feelings etc etc.

But I'd suggest that this is beyond the cognitive in terms of decoding them as actual prayers or messages ... you know, the old tongues+interpretation = prophecy thing.

The only time that I've 'interpreted' a tongue it was more a case of summarising what I felt the speaker was feeling and those areas in which she felt thankful to God. I have absolutely no way of knowing whether I got it 'right', whether I made it up or whether I was acting on a hunch. It's no big deal though as it's not the sort of thing I can imagine doing habitually.

The author Jeannette Winterson was asked in an interview with Melvyn Bragg whether she had really had the gift of 'interpretation of tongues' as had been claimed for her during her Pentecostal teenage years.

'Nah,' she said. 'I was making it up ...'

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
George Spigot

Outcast
# 253

 - Posted      Profile for George Spigot   Author's homepage   Email George Spigot   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It seems pretty obvious to me that most people who speak in tongues have been introduced/induced into it by some form of peer-pressure or group expectation and that the 'tongues' that they tend to come out with are very similar to those of the group they belong to or the people who induced them into the practice.

This was definitely the case with me. And I desperately wanted to "do it" so I could fit in. And by golly, it worked.
Ditto.

--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html

Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hmmm. Recovery group anyone? I got the laughter. Once. It was good.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Pasco
Shipmate
# 388

 - Posted      Profile for Pasco   Email Pasco   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
And no, I don't think that reciting set prayers is a 'rote' thing ... but I would have been inclined to have done at the time I'm talking about here ... ie. my more charismatic phase.

Interestingly, it's just struck me that many of the 'tongues' we used to hear in those days sounded rather repetitive, with the same 'phrase' or rhythmical sound sequences repeated over and over again. You know how it goes ... (attempts an approximation):

'Bandara-gang-a-rah-band-annah! Sheeshteenarraganda-she-steelana-wisht-na-band-a-nah!' and so on.

That wasn't me typing in tongues, by the way, just emulating what a lot of people sounded like. You know, the 'shecameonahonda', 'givehimashandy', 'aveabicardi' and so forth.

I'm wondering now whether any of this was 'by rote' ... [Big Grin]

I did once attend a church where one person came out with the same message in tongues virtually week in week out. It got to the point where I had learnt the syllables; they were almost identical every time.

The interpretation, mysteriously, appeared (if my memory is correct) to be different every time.

I struggle to believe this was really valid.

You may perhaps have heard of the Lord's prayer being aired by a visitor in his own foreign tongue - being the only serious part of theology that was aired in the whole meeting - only for it to be 'interpreted' as something unrelated.

As for the repetitiveness of tongues, the one phrase that I heard over and over again, was along the lines of 'Sheah-randah-koriandah-koriandah-koriandah'. This phrase would get twisted around in a variety of ways. 'Koriandah, Sheah-randah, Sheah-randah, Sheah-randah' and so on. Very few, if any, spoke another real language - and it showed.

Posts: 997 | From: Domiciling 'ere, living locally. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Why not just use an om mantra ?

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pasco:
As for the repetitiveness of tongues, the one phrase that I heard over and over again, was along the lines of 'Sheah-randah-koriandah-koriandah-koriandah'. This phrase would get twisted around in a variety of ways. 'Koriandah, Sheah-randah, Sheah-randah, Sheah-randah' and so on. Very few, if any, spoke another real language - and it showed.

It has been observed by various academics who have done studies on the subject (Diane Deutsch, William Samarin and others) that people tend to speak in the 'dialect' of tongues that others in the same church speak.

So in the 80s that kind of vaguely middle-eastern sounding syllables were fairly common.

At some point people started to use another 'dialect' of sorts which was punctuated short syllables "si-ba-la-ba-sha-ba-la-ma".

These days, a few people seem to use more sentence structured thing (speaking it out as they would a language) perhaps unconsciously reacting to critiques that tongues aren't language like.

quote:

Why not just use an om mantra ?

Which reminds me of Ellis Potter's idea that the purpose of mantra is to destroy language (true religion being the religion of the Word)
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think that's about the top and bottom of it, Pasco. Intriguingly, though, in a reasonably scholarly tome I read about the whole 'tongues' thing, some years ago now, the author observed that similar sounds had been observed among 'tongues-speakers' the whole world over ... and no-one had yet come up with a satisfactory explanation as to why this should be. It's not as if particularly sound sequences are universal to all languages - a linguist friend tells me that even the way that kids say 'Ah!' or 'Ooh!' in relation to bashing their shins or knocking their thumbs varies considerably the world over. American kids say 'Ouch!' as it were in very different way to Japanese kids, for example ... and these non-cognitive sounds appear to develop at a very early age indeed.

Howbeit, the sound that has most commonly been observed or recorded among regular 'tongues-speakers' has been 'shundera' or 'shondera' or close variations such as 'hondera'. Apparently this holds true from all the 'tongues' that have been analysed or recorded from the Yucatan to the UK.

Which leads very neatly to a sing-a-long ... join in everybody ...

'In the deserts of Sudan, in the gardens of Japan,
From Milan to Yucatan, ev'ry woman, ev'ry man ...'

[Biased]

The author didn't posit this as evidence of supernatural origin - he felt that 'tongues' were a psychic/subconscious phenomenon that any one could 'do' under the right circumstances and exposure to the right stimuli - but he felt it was worthy of note.

It is interesting that 'sellhimahonda' and whatever-it-was that TRM reminded us of - 'heboughteramazda, shewantedahonda' - are often used to caricature or represent 'tongues'. They aren't that much of a caricature either.

"'Aveabicardi ... gimmeashandy ...'

I used to know a guy with pretensions to charismatic leadership who used to intone, 'shandera-bandera bandannah' over and over again, occasionally interspersed with 'shee-la-la bandannah ...'

Occam's Razor says: What a load of rubbish.

Non-Occam's Razor says: It must be some kind of personal prayer language or even an angelic language unknown to man, even though it quite obviously sounds banal, trite and the kind of goobledegook anyone could concoct and maintain given the right cues, training and practice ...

C'mon charismatics, you ought to be able to do better than that.

'Shondera hondera gondera fondera' my elbow.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That's interesting, Chris Stiles. Towards the end of my regular 'tongues-speaking' period I could indeed string some 'phrases' and sequences together in a way that resembled a sentence structure - although I'm not claiming from that there was any underlying cognitive content. Like all these things, it came with practice.

The more 'sentence-like' structures were more common, in my experience, among independent neo-Pentecostals, such as the restorationists - and charismatics in Anglican and Baptist circles. The 'si-ba-la-ta-mee-fa-la-bah' stuff seemed (and I'm generalising here) more common among Pentecostals or people from a Pentecostal background. I'm sure it's a cultural thing but I was never, ever very convinced by any tongues-speaking I heard in Apostolic, Elim or AoG circles (most notably the latter) but I was inclined to cut more slack to tongues-speakers in Baptist, Anglican or 'new church' circles ... with some reservations.

Now I believe the whole thing to be easily contrived and practiced. I do believe it can have a mantric and calming effect - like the 'Om' thing - but I'm sure you could achieve a similar effect by going 'do re me fa so la te do' ... and so on.

I'm sure that some liturgical chants have a similar soothing or mantric effect - particularly in cases such as Church Slavonic or Liturgical Greek where the language might not be that 'understanded of the people.'

I've been involved with enough poetry and creative writing workshops etc to see how verbal effects can create an atmosphere.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
I keep an open-mind, though, on the possibility of tongues being a genuine gift of the Holy Spirit

That's a relief, especially considering that that is what the Bible says.

[Big Grin]

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
I keep an open-mind, though, on the possibility of tongues being a genuine gift of the Holy Spirit

That's a relief, especially considering that that is what the Bible says.

[Big Grin]

There is a gift of tongues in the Bible - but it's not clear to what extent this is the same as contemporary practice.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles
There is a gift of tongues in the Bible - but it's not clear to what extent this is the same as contemporary practice.

"For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries." - 1 Corinthians 14:2

On the basis of this, it seems rather presumptuous to assume that the tongues being spoken by many Christians today must generally be dodgy based on rather spurious arguments concerning a language's phonology, grammar and syntax. While there is the example of supernaturally inspired human languages (Acts 2), the above verse clearly states that he who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men, but to God.

I know enough about language to recognise that a restricted phonology and even a repetitive sequence of syllables does not necessarily imply gibberish. Tone, stress, context all play a part.

I am sure there is psychologically induced gibberish, but the presence of the fake does not imply the non-existence of the genuine.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Again, we see special pleading in action ...

[Roll Eyes] [Help]

I know enough about language to know that 'sheebah-ba-ba-bandanda-bandannah ...' doesn't count as a language in anyone's language.

I'm sure that 'tongues' can be a genuine gift of the Holy Spirit. That's not the issue in question.

The issue is whether the highly unconvincing examples that are heard in charismatic churches week by week are the genuine article. I'm not convinced they are. Any more than I am convinced that the jejune 'prophecies' are prophecy or that the so-called 'words of knowledge' are actually what the Bible means by 'words of knowledge.'

For some reason, some people here seem very reluctant to accept what appears to be the case based on observation and participation in these things both on my own part and the parts of others who are arguing similarly to myself.

I'm not holding myself up as the final arbiter - but there's only so much 'ee-ba-ba-ba' and 'I'm getting a picture of someone standing in a dark wood ...' that a body can stand before they conclude that they need something with rather more rigour.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If this were Dragon's Den I might be tempted to say, 'I'm out' by this stage.

But I do believe there is a baby in the bathwater.

I really don't understand why some people here are taking so much exception to what I'm saying. It seems pretty obvious that most prophecies that we hear week by week in charismatic circles are the antithesis of genuine prophecy and that most so-called 'tongues' are simply the products of peer-induced learned behaviour ... otherwise how come people in the same sort of settings end up speaking with similar 'dialects'?

It's obvious that they are taking their cues from the dominant personalities in the group and the particular rhythms and cadence and sound patterns of whatever 'tongues' they speak.

It is not a language. Not by any stretch of the imagination.

That doesn't mean that God can't endow people supernaturally with languages that they haven't learned ... but with so many people claiming to be able to speak in tongues one might have expected a scientifically verified occurrence to have been recorded by now. Blinkin' eck, all they'd have to do would be to record their 'tongue' and send it to a university department for analysis.

If all 'tongues-speakers' did that and the academic community were amazed to find them speaking Serbo-Croat or Russian or Moari dialects or whatever that they hadn't learned then it'd be headline news all over the world.

But it ain't going to happen is it?

Instead, they hide behind this 'tongues of men and of angels' schtick that they only adopted as a cop-out when it quickly became apparent that the first Pentecostals weren't actually speaking in genuine languages at all.

I have no problem with people speaking in tongues if that's what they want to do and if they find it helpful. Heck, I've known of instances of Anglican nuns and even a sceptical university professor who suddenly found themselves 'praying in tongues' under duress. I'm more than happy to accept their testimony. Whether this constitutes the biblical 'gift of tongues' I don't know. It might, it might not. Either way it's not something I lose sleep over.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Instead, they hide behind this 'tongues of men and of angels' schtick that they only adopted as a cop-out when it quickly became apparent that the first Pentecostals weren't actually speaking in genuine languages at all.

Except that tongues involves speaking to God, not men, as I quoted earlier.

I'd be fascinated to see the set of rules by which you judge the genuineness of a language. Perhaps you would like to lay out the parameters within which a language must operate in order to qualify as such?

After all, surely there must be some method by which we can work out what is genuine and what is not, rather than simply "I think that sounds too simple or repetitive..."

If someone got up and whistled something in church, would you say that was genuine tongues? And yet I can prove to you that it is possible that it could have been a genuine human language. I think I've mentioned this to you before, but check this out.

This sounds much more inauthentic than the tongues examples you have cited, and yet if it occured, it would be an Acts 2 category of 'tongue'.

Human language is rich and weird, and we shouldn't make assumptions about what is or is not permissible.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, if the whistling language were proven to be an actual example of the wierd Mexican language you're talking about then yes, I'd be impressed. But that's not what we're dealing with is it?

Studies have shown that very few tongues-speakers use sounds that are not common in their own native language. So, for instance, if the language they commonly speak doesn't have a rolled r sound then they don't roll their rs when speaking in tongues.

They might actually have difficulty getting their tongue around their rs ... phnarr phnarr ... [Biased]

If people were speaking genuine languages whilst 'speaking in tongues' then surely we might expect them to use constructions and sounds not commonly found in their native language?

But it doesn't generally happen. It's usually the 'shondera hondera ee-ba-ba shandananah' stuff. I could induce people to do that sort of thing in 10 minutes flat. It's easy. Anyone could do it. You don't need faith to speak in tongues.

If people find it helpful or believe it's doing them some kind of good - then fine, let them do it.

I no longer find it particularly helpful to be quite honest, but wouldn't try to stop anyone else doing it. Doing something 'physical' can be helpful ... I walked one of those prayer labyrinth things earlier this evening and found that very helpful and profound. Someone else might not have done and preferred to have gone to a happy-clappy service and spoken in tongues. That's fine, that's up to them.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Ok EE, what would you say if I were to do the following?

Record myself speaking in tongues and send it to a university language department with a note attached saying something along the following lines:

'I wonder whether you would be so kind as to analyse the following recording and tell me what language or family of languages it belongs to?'

I wait a few weeks, then receive a reply. A kindly professor explains that they'd subjected the tape to all manner of analytical methods and came to the conclusion that it wasn't a language in the strict sense of the word. It didn't bear any relation to any known language for a kick-off. There appeared to be a structure at first, the phrases were expressive, divided into sequences with a variation in pace. There were pauses, parentheses and also a certain amount of repetition. However, given their best efforts both to link it with a known language and their knowledge of how tone, context, lexis and language structure works they had to come to the conclusion that it wasn't a language in any meaningful sense at all.

Now then, given your standards of 'evidence' (which you seem keen on judging from the thread you've started on that subject) what should I conclude?

What are the options?

1) I wasn't speaking any form of language at all but making rhythmic utterances that had a loose structure but insufficient to fulfil the criteria needed to qualify for a language in the full sense.

2) The experts were wrong. I was actually speaking a little known dialect from the jungles of Ecuador.

3) The experts were wrong, I was speaking a heavenly, angelic language which the Lord had given me to use in prayer and with which I could 'utter mysteries' that only he could understand and which I couldn't understand myself.

Which of those options (and there will be others) do you think is the most likely?

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Chorister

Completely Frocked
# 473

 - Posted      Profile for Chorister   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Does no.1 cover babbling like an infant? I have a theory (which may or may not be correct) that the sort of suggestibility and mindset created by highly emotionally charged states in charismatic worship sends people into the sort of comfort of early childhood, and that part of this seeking comfort is to speak out loud in some sort of pre-language - wordless utterings to try to connect with the source of being. I can see how someone in a state of euphoria (or alternatively in a state of extreme distress, due to trauma) could well make utterances from the depths of their being rather akin to what is described as 'speaking in tongues'.

--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.

Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, I've seen that very thing postulated in books on the subject, Chorister. There are theories that 'tongues' are manifestations of pre-language states - although from what I can gather not all scientists and linguists who have examined the phenomenon are convinced that this is what is going on.

I would accept it as a possibility in some cases.

In my own case, I'm afraid, it followed the stereotypical route of being 'induced' into the practice by being invited to make faltering attempts that I was assured would become more fluent. I obliged. I wasn't always convinced that it was the 'real thing' - although on several subsequent occasions, without the evident intervention of peer pressure, I found I was able to articulate in a way that sounding more convincing. After a while I found I could vary the pace and rhthym, expand my 'vocabulary' and so on and even make a convincing fist of sounding like I was speaking proper sentences - as in the instances that Chris Stiles cites upthread.

On one or two occasions I would say that it did approximate to the 'groans that words cannot express' thing and seemed to be the genuine outpouring of feeling in a 'wordless' kind of way - but it's very difficult to describe.

For the most part though, I'd willingly admit that I was simply going along with the expectations of the particular tradition/group that I was part of.

I can't see what is so heinous about accepting that as a possibility - unless one is so inveterately wedded to the idea that what one is doing is exactly the same as what we read about in the NT and that to suggest otherwise is somehow to do the Holy Spirit a disservice.

I remain agnostic on the possibility of people being able to exercise a genuine 'gift of tongues'. I see no reason why it shouldn't happen. As I've said upthread, I remain rather more convinced about the examples I've heard of where it's happened spontaneously - and to well-educated and 'together' folk - than I am to instances of it being induced at mass rallies or through peer pressure at the climax of a charismatic gathering.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
There appeared to be a structure at first, the phrases were expressive, divided into sequences with a variation in pace. There were pauses, parentheses and also a certain amount of repetition. However, given their best efforts both to link it with a known language and their knowledge of how tone, context, lexis and language structure works they had to come to the conclusion that it wasn't a language in any meaningful sense at all.

Now then, given your standards of 'evidence' (which you seem keen on judging from the thread you've started on that subject) what should I conclude?

Well, if the recording had some kind of structure and a certain degree of variation of expression - even minimal - then I think it would be extremely unlikely that the conclusion could be reached that it was definitely not a language in any meaningful sense. All they could say is that it is not like any language they have encountered.

(As it happens that is the conclusion reached concerning a particular written form of what looks like language in the undeciphered Voynich Manuscript. It has so far defied linguistic analysis, but scholars don't just dismiss it as gibberish, but reserve their judgment.)

Let us imagine someone in a context in which there is absolutely no knowledge of English. He prays and begins to speak some words in tongues - which is actually English. It's a new experience for him and he doesn't have the faith to start spouting long complex discourses, but speaks a few words of praise to God. Of course, he doesn't know what he is saying, but it sounds like this (as they would write it):

lordaiprezyu aiprezru aiprezyu gloorigloori...

(This is, of course, "Lord, I praise You, I praise you, glory, glory...")

Now some people who hear this are rather sceptical and point out the repetition and refer a recording of this simple utterance to the local university (and in this hypothetical scenario, the English language is unknown - unlikely of course in any academic institution - but let's assume this for argument's sake). They then come back with their 'analysis' and conclude that this is "not a language in any meaningful sense". I can imagine how downhearted that Christian would feel, especially as they start indulging in mockery - as I notice certain people have been doing on this thread. Of course, we know that they are wrong!

What I asked you for are some actual parameters for judging whether a language is genuine, not just such and such a linguist's opinion. Parameters are, for example, the minimum number of consonants, vowels, what kind of structure etc.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Why not just use an om mantra ?

Which reminds me of Ellis Potter's idea that the purpose of mantra is to destroy language
The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
On the basis of this, it seems rather presumptuous to assume that the tongues being spoken by many Christians today must generally be dodgy based on rather spurious arguments concerning a language's phonology, grammar and syntax.
[/qb]

There are two separate things here - anecdotal accounts - which is largely what the posts above are talking above - of people largely uttering identical sequences and having wildly varied meanings. Then there are varying degrees of scholarly analysis (varied interpretations as an example), plus linguistic analysis by Samarin and others which comes to the conclusion that all recorded instances of tongues - while containing language like features - are highly unlikely to be in any language.

This is why Carson - who supports tongues - has to come up with the idea that it's some form of encrypted speech. Of course, if you presume a one time pad of some kind, then varied interpretations are accounted for at the expense of removing the actual information content of tongues themselves.

quote:

While there is the example of supernaturally inspired human languages (Acts 2), the above verse clearly states that he who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men, but to God.

In the context of the rest of the passage this is a strained - and fairly recent - reading. Most older interpretations relied on this being an actual language that was hitherto unknown to those present.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675

 - Posted      Profile for Komensky   Email Komensky   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The pictures phenomenon (pretty recent) and the recent tongues phenomenon (the 'yabadabadoo' variety is surely early 20th century, as a phenomenon) are not unique to Christianity. They are reproduced in a variety of other situations and religions, but the stimuli are similar. Devotional patterns (usually highly repetitive chants and music) are used ways which help produce results that replicate patterns of hypnosis; not 'zombie-like' stage hypnosis, but a suggestibility that permits easier access, if you will, to the subconscious (by 'moving', as it were, brain activity to the right side). There is a remarkable similarity between charismatic ecstatic behaviour and that seen on the banks of the Ganges, just for one example. I'd be curious to hear how charismatic evangelicals account for these striking similarities.

@Gamiel. No, I wouldn't ban tongues in church, but neither would I encourage it. Allow the Triune God to do as S/he wills; stop bossing God around.

--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
EE, are we brothers?

Who's 'we' EE ? Your rhetoric fails to cover your lack of logic again - as on the Evidence thread - and bespeaks an underlying patronising, exclusive, esoteric, untransferable unsoundness of thought.

We are grown ups here. I am plagued, afflicted with intrusive thoughts and feelings of my own complicity, compulsive worries, inner Tourette's. I would LOVE to escape. And I do. Watching telly (way less than most), going for walks, reading, working: distraction. Engaging here. Conversation with my genius EQ wife.

So I'm nuts mate. And I know it. I've tried everything and being as fully cognitive and mindful as I can be, with God, seems to be the only way through this valley of death. I need to add more to that, breathing exrecises, relaxation techniques which have worked. When I can find the head space to do them.

I have sung glossolalia, before God and it really helped, it did not hurt, it did no harm, as I've testified above. As far as I'm concerned, 110%, God the Spirit groaned my groans. He always does of course. I would not limit Paul's sublimely beautiful rhetoric.

When I fell out of my car in the middle of the road at three in the morning with entirely psychosomatic biliary cholic - more painful than childbirth - God groaned with me. That comforted me in unrelenting agony that I had feared would drive me completely insane even as it started again.

God suffered with me. He can't not, being omnipathic. So He can't NOT be with us in all of our being. And where He begins and we and the world end we can't know. Even in our miracles. Mine is the dog that did and then did not bark in the night.

So, like Gamaliel, and the apostle Paul and the apostles Peter and John and King David and the prophets Moses, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel and Jesus I'm MORE than happy for there to be a whole three axis, colour solid, spectrum of world-flesh-spirit reality.

Including the orthodox Spirit of a sound mind.

Operating with orthodoxy.

Correct belief.

And above ALL orthopraxis.

Correct behaviour.

In my experience of the charismatic in Baptist and Evangelical Anglican fellowship for 15 years neither have been in evidence.

ALL have been damnationist - heterodox. You can tell by the absence of conversation. Except when it's horrifically explicit.

None - of US, me included - have operated outside the dominant culture. Despite hypocritically slagging it off.

So even if ALL you say is true, and shehonda-da-da-dahhhhh - which is most euphonious - IS 'We praise you Lord, Lord, Lord, Lord', so ?

When are we going to preach the gospel by living it?

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091

 - Posted      Profile for EtymologicalEvangelical   Email EtymologicalEvangelical   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC...
Your rhetoric fails to cover your lack of logic again - as on the Evidence thread - and bespeaks an underlying patronising, exclusive, esoteric, untransferable unsoundness of thought.

How nice.
[Biased]

I love freedom of speech, and I am happy that you have indulged in it, even at my expense.

quote:
So even if ALL you say is true, and shehonda-da-da-dahhhhh - which is most euphonious - IS 'We praise you Lord, Lord, Lord, Lord', so ?

When are we going to preach the gospel by living it?

Either ... or.

Or...

Both ... and.

Take your pick. I prefer the latter.

--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis

Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368

 - Posted      Profile for Martin60   Email Martin60   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
What has it cost you my friend? You have objectively lost nothing here. You had nothing to lose. If I have hurt you (although in this case that is actually scientifically impossible I suspect, beyond the sharpness of iron to iron; your loss is existential, contingent: so), that hurts me. If my doing that is futile, as I know all too well from my own devastating loss, where two people completely in love with each other cannot win when their narratives diverge, then I am truly sorry.

--------------------
Love wins

Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can see what you are getting at, EE, but I'm not sure I can (respectfully) agree with you - although I probably might have done in my more full-on charismatic days.

There is a certain anti-intellectualism and suspicion of academic research in some charismatic and evangelical circles. I'm not accusing you of that - you're a bright bloke. But you do appear to be unduly dismissive in tone - 'some linguist or other' and you also described my comments about language structures and so on as 'spurious'.

I'm with Chris Stiles on this one. I'm not saying that there are never, ever any language-like structures in glossolalic utterances - but the fact that no single verified instance of a known language being spoken - xenoglossy - in such instances should give us pause, I would suggest.

There was once, I've read, an instance of an occultic (rather than a Christian) example of xenoglossy that was recorded by language experts but these findings have also been challenged quite seriously I'm told.

The standard evangelical/charismatic response to examples of glossolalia happening in other religions - whirling devishes, animists, Sufi mystics etc - is to denounce these occurrences as 'counterfeit' or Satanic - whilst the Christian versions are considered to be the real thing and genuine works of the Holy Spirit.

It seems to me quite a reductionist road to go down. If it happens among US, it must be of God. If it happens among THEM it must be of the Devil.

It's not that long since some Pentecostals regarded tongues-speaking among 'mainline Protestants' and Roman Catholics to be dubious at best or demonic at worst.

On the whole, despite some earlier occurrences of glossolalia such as among the 17th/18th century Camisards and among the 19th century Irvingites, there hasn't been that many recorded examples of glossolalia among Christians until the early 20th century. So I agree with Komensky, the interpretation and slant you put on these things is a comparatively recent one.

I think the jury is out on whether we are comparing like-with-like when it comes to the utterances - bother glossolalic and prophetic - that we read about in the NT and whether what we see today are the same thing. There's no way of telling, of course.

I'm happy to live with the ambiguity. I don't feel the need to have it all cut-and-dried.

That said, I don't really see that much benefit in public 'shondera hondera shanda-ba-dee-ba-bah' either ... other than as some kind of unifying 'glue' or common factor and sense of identity among groups who want to go in for this sort of thing.

Ultimately, it's all essentially self-authenticating.

A Roman Catholic can explain until they are blue in the face why they believe in transubstantiation but however exhaustive and persuasive their arguments, a hard-line Zwinglian memorialist isn't going to accept their point-of-view.

Some of us can cite all manner of studies and academic research into glossalalia and in the same way those who value and believe in it - such as your good self - aren't going to change their minds because their minds are already made up - despite the evidence.

[Biased]

I know that's deliberately provocative but as someone who values evidence, I'm sure you would have to admit that, at the moment, there isn't a great deal of evidence that 'shan-an-da-na-da-na' and the like is actually a language in any meaningful sense.

If I recorded myself speaking in tongues and a linguist told me it wasn't a real language (ie not an actual spoken language anywhere in the world) I'd probably go, 'Fair enough ...'

Whereas I suspect you would be more likely to go, 'Well it must be a real language, you must have got it wrong, you haven't checked sufficiently or thoroughly enough ...'

[Roll Eyes]

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
@Komensky - on the issue of 'forbidding' the 'speaking in tongues' - I've said upthread that my own view these days is 'do not promote/do not forbid.'

Some of the old Wesleyan Holiness groups such as the Church of the Nazarene used to take that stance. Sometimes they would have 'speaking in tongues' - but it wasn't anything they would actively promote - although Pentecostalism was a logical 'next-step' from their second-blessing Wesleyan approach.

I agree with you. The Triune God is more than capable of distributing spiritual gifts 'as He lists' without us trying to give him a helping hand by bossing him about or providing cardboard cut-out versions as templates.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
While I'm at it ... let's unpack how this might work in practice, EE.

Let's look at a different issue, the age of the earth and evolution vs creationism.

Now then, here comes the Geologist:

Geologist: We've found fossil shells on top of the Himalayas. This must mean that this vast mountain range must once have lain on the ocean bed and has gradually been pushed upwards over millions of years by the force of Continental Drift ...

Six Day Creationist Christian Fundamentalist: On the contrary, you've got it wrong. The Bible clearly teaches that the earth must be no more than 6,000 years old. Those fossils must have been deposited there by the Great Flood at the time of Noah's Ark ...

Now, on which side of this debate would EE come down? What does the evidence suggest?

By analogy, then, here comes the Linguist to answer the queries of a glossolalist - let's call him Gamaliel.

Linguist: Ah, Mr Gamaliel. Thank you for sending in that recording of you 'speaking in tongues'. My team have analysed it thoroughly and we can tell you quite categorically that it bears no relation to any known human language that we are aware of. There is some shape and structure to it, the semblance of syntax, differences in rhythm, pace and intonation but not sufficient for us to consider it a language in the full sense of the term.

Gamaliel: There must be another explanation. I can't possibly be mistaken. It must either be a human language that you are unaware of, or a 'dead language' that has ceased to be used anywhere in the contemporary world or it must be some kind of 'heavenly language' unknown to science. That is the only possible and conceivable explanation.

Now, in each of these scenarios, where do you think the burden of proof lies?

Whose 'word' would you be inclined to take? The experts or the fundamentalist in the first instance or the experts or the glossolalist in the second?

They are analogous situations. The evidence inclines towards the experts having the right 'take' on the matter.

What does EE have to offer to prove them wrong?

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
While I'm at it ... let's unpack how this might work in practice, EE.

Let's look at a different issue, the age of the earth and evolution vs creationism.

That is a dead horse, so let's not.

Doublethink
Purgatory Host

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was using it analogously, I wasn't intending to start a Dead-Horse debate about creation/evolution.

Would it be better if I used another analogy?

I was simply using it as an example where some people prefer to trust their beliefs over and above scientific evidence.

I'm happy to provide a different analogy if it will help.

Here's one ...

Archaeologist: There is no archaeological evidence that Jericho had walls when the Israelite invasion described in the Book of Joshua is meant to have taken place. This may imply that the Book is based on 'mythic' material and that the story of the miraculous collapse of the walls was not actually an historical event.

Fundamentalist: Nonsense. It actually goes to prove the Biblical account. The walls collapsed and were destroyed so comprehensively that no trace of them remains. It doesn't undermine the Biblical account, it upholds it ...

Now, then, who do we believe or listen to, EE? The archaeologist or the fundamentalist? Faced in each instance by identical evidence, on which side should we come down?

Then we can go onto discuss the example of the Linguist and the Glossalalist, Mr Gamaliel.

Is this better? It makes the same point without dragging us, I hope, towards DH territory.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not sure how helpful either of those analogies are, Gam. Earlier you made the analogy of transubstantiation, and that seems more relevant, that despite chemically it is pretty refutable that the bread and blood physically transform into the body and blood of Christ, the doctrine is nevertheless held on to, with various qualifiers that the spiritual reality cannot be measured scientifically.

In the same way, if heavenly=other, I'm not sure analysis of language is going to be any more persuasive than chemical analysis of a Catholic's stomach straight after Mass.

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675

 - Posted      Profile for Komensky   Email Komensky   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Chris Stiles, have you thought about writing a book on the subject?

How did the church manage to last for so long without someone (on a daily/weekly basis) telling the congregation "I've got a picture of…"? They clearly can't live without it now.

[ 08. January 2013, 08:03: Message edited by: Komensky ]

--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw

Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Chris Stiles, have you thought about writing a book on the subject?

I am neither a prophet, or the son of a prophet [Big Grin] I just happen to have read a little bit on the subject as it's been something I've had to deal with myself. Having been immersed in charismatic circles of various stripes for many years I slowly started to get disillusioned by what appeared to be a credibility gap between the claims being made and the actual facts.

I still believe in the gifts as laid out in the NT, I just think that they are a lot rarer than most charismatics would like. I don't think it's particularly healthy to pretend to have something one doesn't have - and long term it stunts spiritual maturity and drives people from the faith.

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504

 - Posted      Profile for goperryrevs   Author's homepage   Email goperryrevs   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I still believe in the gifts as laid out in the NT, I just think that they are a lot rarer than most charismatics would like. I don't think it's particularly healthy to pretend to have something one doesn't have - and long term it stunts spiritual maturity and drives people from the faith.

I think this sums up pretty well what a lot of us think!

--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch

Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812

 - Posted      Profile for Gamaliel   Author's homepage   Email Gamaliel   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I agree.

I also agree Goperryrevs, that the transubstantiation thing might be a better analogy than the archaeological and geological ones I gave.

You do hear about 'bleeding' hosts and so on in popular RC devotion ... and I suspect there's a similar thing going on there as there is with charismatic claims about xenoglossy etc.

There is a conundrum with RCs and some other very high sacramentalists, of course, in that they will fully accept that chemically it is pretty refutable that the elements are not changed. They would happily accept that any chemical analysis of the contents of an RCs stomach wouldn't reveal anything out of the ordinary.

Theirs is an analogous position, I would submit, to the one that EE and others are taking here - but it's not directly analogous at all points. Sure, there are some 'real presence' people who would take the view that a miracle takes place to 'con' us into thinking that the bread and wine retain their original elements whilst an ontological change has actually taken place ... (and I'm caricaturing the view a bit) but this seems an extreme position. Most 'real presence' people wouldn't suggest that, I don't think ...

I think that your point about the spiritual reality not being able to be measured scientifically holds though - and does represent a commonly held view.

So, yes, to that extent then convinced glossolalists like EE aren't going to be persuaded by scientific analysis of language in the way that convinced transubstantianists (sp?) are going to be convinced by lab-based experiments on the consecrated bread and wine.

One might posit that the RCs are taking a rather literal interpretation of John 6 - and I'd go along with that - even though I'm inclining towards a form of 'real presence' approach myself.

Equally, I'd suggest that many charismatics are taking an overly literal interpretation of the reference to 'tongues of men and of angels' in I Corinthians. It's clear from the context that the apostle Paul is saying 'EVEN IF I could speak the language of the angels' not that he or anyone else is actually doing so.

It's a forced and over-egged interpretation. Sure, I can see that there are other verses that charismatics can and do cite to suggest that what they are doing is using a private, personal 'prayer language' that has been divinely endowed ... but again, I'm not entirely convinced that the proof-texts used are strong enough to bear this much weight.

That said, I concur with Chris - I think there is a biblical 'gift of tongues' and that the context makes it clear that Paul wasn't simply discussing the use of known languages without interpretation n the metropolitan sea-port of Corinth (as some conservative commentators have suggested).

That interpretation doesn't fit some of the verses that EE cites. But then, I also suspect that EE is putting rather too much weight on them than they will in fact bear.

Ultimately though, for my money it's the credibility gap that Chris Stiles cites that is putting me off aspects of the charismatic movement and making me less and less inclined to engage with it in any way other than that of a 'critical friend'. If that makes sense.

--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.

http://philthebard.blogspot.com

Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools