|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Speaking in tongues
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, I'm not.
Why not? Because you haven't subjected your 'tongue' to proper scientific, linguistic analysis and discovered that you are speaking some kind of Polynesian dialect or anything of the kind.
You are simply jumping to conclusions on the flimsiest of evidence.
As it happens, I'm a lot more comfortable with Cliffdweller's explanation as given in the post above yours than I am with your wishful thinking ... which is cloaked in a kind of pietistic fog - with the get-out clause of 'these things are holy, we can't possibly subject them to any form of scientific analysis ...'
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I don't doubt that you are able to speak in tongues. I can speak in tongues too. But I'd be very, very surprised if it turned out that I was speaking the dialect of Upper Silesia or the language of the Solomon Islands. I wouldn't have the hubris to make any such claim.
I do believe in the charismatic dimension, I do believe in healing and I do believe in prophecy.
But what I don't like are the get-out-of-jail-free-cards that are so often bandied about to justify the apparent lack of a verifiable outcome.
So, on the extremes we get the word-of-faith guys who make ridiculous claims such as, 'This person has been healed but only the symptoms remain ...' and so on.
I'm not accusing you of being like that.
However, there is this tendency to cite ever more flimsy excuses to cover up a lack of actual 'results' if I can put it that way.
In the instance of the early Pentecostals, it is a matter of historical record that they genuinely believed they were speaking in actual, real, live human languages - until they went on the mission field and had to adjust their position, alighting on the poetic 'tongues of angels' comment by the Apostle Paul as a convenient 'get-out-clause'.
The same applies to prophecy. I remember Ramarius citing - in a very literal way - an apparently simple prophecy from one of the Minor Prophets in order to justify the occurrence of apparently 'so-what?' style prophecies today.
The list goes on ...
You seem hell-bent ( ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) on insisting that your 'gift of tongues' can't possibly be anything other than the genuine article. On what basis?
It might very well be the genuine article, some kind of supernaturally endowed language in the way that Cliffdweller describes. Then again, it might not be.
Rather than a principled agnosticism on these issues being the untenable position that Daron suggests, I'd suggest that in the light of the evidence we have it's the only position we can possibly take.
You might not like that and I certainly don't mean any offence by it. I'm certainly not suggesting that you are stringing us along. But 'who can discern his errors?'
You and I both might be self-deluded by thinking we can speak in tongues. It simply seems to me as an open and principled position to accept that possibility.
Am I making 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
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
Does it matter even if it is 'babble'? Perhaps babble can serve a useful function in comforting people (psycho-babble) at a very deep level, even if they don't know what they're saying? I'm not a supporter of speaking in tongues at an interpretive level, but I can see that it can be useful at times when there are no words to express deep feelings.
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
You seem hell-bent on insisting that your 'gift of tongues' can't possibly be anything other than the genuine article. On what basis?
I have already explained.
But since you don't accept that explanation, then let me give you another "explanation", that will, I am sure, please you...
I am a totally heretical, dodgy, morally and spiritually irresponsible, utterly gullible pseudo-Christian, who has decided one day - for the pure hell of it - to babble away in a load of gibberish, 'cos it just gives me a kick. Everything about me is pure apostasy, and don't I just luv it!! Great, innit, this depravity!
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
There. I'm totally up the creek, and I admit it.
ARE YOU HAPPY NOW? Now that I have told you what your itching ears want to hear?
(By the way... you need to clue up on linguistics, mate)
--------------------
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
Well yes, I would agree, Chorister. It's just that some people on these boards seem to insist that what they're doing isn't babble but something deeper and more profound than that. So deeply spiritual and profound that they wouldn't even entertain the possibility of subjecting it to linguistic analysis.
I would suggest that if they were that comfortable in their own skins and convinced of the value of the apparent gift then they wouldn't be at all fazed by linguistic analysis. It would either confirm to them (and amaze the world) that they were speaking a genuine language or they would go, 'Ok, it's a fair cop, so it must be a language unknown to science or else the linguists have got it wrong or it must be some kind of heavenly language, the tongues of angels ...'
Either way, they ain't going to lose out ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
More seriously, I have been a tad harsh on EE, I must admit.
However, an immediate alarm bell rings when he suggests that ALL the linguists involved in such studies must be sceptics and that this is why no genuine tongues-speakers have come forward ...
Special pleading or what?
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
I'd be more than happy to go to a laboratory and have someone tape me speaking in tongues. What's there to be frightened of?
It's not as if the sky would fall in if someone could demonstrate to EE that there is a perfectly natural explanation for his apparent ability to speak in tongues.
It's not as if Christ would not be raised from the dead or that God would cease to exist.
--------------------
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
No, that's not what my itching ears want to hear, EE.
I am not suggesting you are having us on. I believe you are sincere.
If I might for a moment ventriloquise what I might say were I in your shoes - well, my own take for what it's worth - it would be like this.
'Ahem .. (clears throat), I am a Christian and I believe that there is a supernatural dimension to the Christian faith. I also believe that there are things that are difficult to explain and much that remains mysterious and unknown. Some of these things might well have a perfectly legitimate scientific explanation that we don't understand yet. Others may well remain mysteries for as long as mankind lives on this planet.
I keep an open mind.
In the course of my Christian life I have had various experiences of what I consider to be supernatural events. I could list these. Among them is the apparent ability I have to speak in what I have taken to be a language I haven't learned. It's something I use in prayer and I value it highly. I can't prove that it is a real language or simply some form of rhythmic utterance that I have learned to produce. I find it helpful, but I wouldn't insist that it was supernatural in origin. If a scientist or psychologist could offer me a satisfactory explanation for this behaviour then I would accept their explanation.
My faith in Christ doesn't stand or fall on the ability to use this apparent 'gift'. Even if it could be demonstrated to me that it was some kind of unconscious, psychological use of an inner 'psychic' language as it were then it wouldn't mean that I would abandon my faith. My faith is bigger and stronger than apparent 'signs' of that kind and doesn't depend on proof-positive in that sense. Nevertheless, it is a rational faith and I am open to the findings of modern science, of modern biblical criticism and the evidence of my own senses. I like to apply common sense and in cases where there appears to be doubt or uncertainty, tend to go for the simplest or most rational explanation.
In the case of 'speaking in tongues' there are apparent rational explanations. I am cool with that.'
Is that any better?
--------------------
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
I need to clue up on linguistics?
Perhaps.
You need to stop being a pompous pietistic prat.
Shall I see you in Hell?
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Does it matter even if it is 'babble'? Perhaps babble can serve a useful function in comforting people (psycho-babble) at a very deep level, even if they don't know what they're saying? I'm not a supporter of speaking in tongues at an interpretive level, but I can see that it can be useful at times when there are no words to express deep feelings.
That's closer to what I'm saying... I don't have the sense when I'm speaking in tongues that it's language in the sense of "this set of syllables = that English word or phrase". I have more the sense that an emotion, a thought, a worship experience that is beyond words is somehow being expressed. I think that's more than just "comforting" and a heck of a lot more than "psychobabble" but also not the same thing as a "real" language, whether earthly or heavenly.
fwiw. ymmv.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
As it happens, I'm a lot more comfortable with Cliffdweller's explanation as given in the post above yours than I am with your wishful thinking ...
pure speculation on my part, though. And based on rather limited experiential data.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
In the instance of the early Pentecostals, it is a matter of historical record that they genuinely believed they were speaking in actual, real, live human languages - until they went on the mission field and had to adjust their position, alighting on the poetic 'tongues of angels' comment by the Apostle Paul as a convenient 'get-out-clause'.
But that's not at all unique to Pentecostals. The history of the Christian church is one of constantly adapting what we've learned through Scripture with our experience and with what we learn thru science. Look at the way we've had to adapt our understanding of the physical world, the universe and what that means theologically, to what we've learned thru science.
I could argue that the fact that the early Pentecostals were so sure of their gift that they were able to take such a huge gamble-- traveling halfway across the world on the confident expectation that God would empower them to speak the indigenous language-- as evidence of the supernatural nature of their gift. They certainly weren't faking on any conscious level, or they wouldn't haven't stepped out in such a way.
So they had a powerful, extraordinary experience that was at least not consciously faked or manufactured, so quite possibly of divine origin. The natural thing to do is look to Scripture to understand/ interpret it. They began with Acts 2.
When Acts 2 failed to adequately explain the phenomenon, they looked to 1 Cor. And I'm sorry, where you and I part ways is your insistence that the 1 Cor. interpretation was "convenient". To me ch. 14 in particular fits the modern Pentecostal experience to a T. I could find it curious that so many on this thread have focused on speculating the meaning of ch. 13's "ifs" or the elusive "tongues of angels", while failing to take into account the context-- ch. 14 makes the meaning really pretty clear.
I don't see anything untoward about this process. It is the way we discern pretty much everything about our faith. We begin w/ Scripture & tradition, bringing to it inevitably certain assumptions-- which then are challenged by new information from reason or experience-- which causes us to look again at Scripture and tradition and reassess/ re-evaluation those assumptions. It's an ongoing process of discernment.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'll buy that, Cliffdweller ... seems to be back where we started when I said that I have actually 'interpreted' tongues and that's the impression I've had - rather like 'interpreting' the mood of a piece of music or piece of abstract art.
I know it doesn't 'prove' one way or another whether it is supernatural or not ... but what you've said makes sense to me - and, dare I say it, sounds a lot less precious than some of the positions taken on these boards ...
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
However, an immediate alarm bell rings when he suggests that ALL the linguists involved in such studies must be sceptics and that this is why no genuine tongues-speakers have come forward ...
Special pleading or what?
Are you just taking the piss, Gammy, old man?
Didn't I admit that this was a circular argument, and was only my impression. For goodness sake, what is wrong with you? I admitted that that was not a serious argument - and yet you use that against me. FFS, get a grip!!!
quote:
I'd be more than happy to go to a laboratory and have someone tape me speaking in tongues. What's there to be frightened of?
Who said I was frightened?
quote:
It's not as if the sky would fall in if someone could demonstrate to EE that there is a perfectly natural explanation for his apparent ability to speak in tongues.
But they could never prove that it was natural. Coming up with a "natural explanation" does not prove natural causation. That's the great fallacy that many scientists commit.
I know that it is not due to a natural cause, but it would be impossible for me to convince someone who was looking for a natural explanation, because they could say: "Well, it is physically possible for someone to make up these sounds." Yes, it is. It is no different from a preacher who preached an anointed sermon being told that his words were entirely "natural". After all, it is physically possible for an atheist to preach exactly the same sermon by mouthing the exact same form of words. Do you honestly think that preacher would give a monkeys what such "investigators" thought, when he knew - on the basis of his experience of the Holy Spirit - that his words were anointed and inspired by God?
If you think I am deluded, then fine. THINK THAT.
I really don't give a monkey's arse whether you think my gift of tongues is made up or not.
I KNOW THAT IT IS OF GOD.
End of.
By the way...
Since you are so keen on testing me, perhaps I will set a little test for you.
If you heard someone making the following sound, would you consider that it was gibberish or a genuine language:
abobabababebulebebalolelelawele
Please answer this question. What's your impression about this string of sounds?
What do you think your well-informed "high and mighty" linguists would say?
--------------------
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
Sorry, we're getting tangled here. My 'I'll buy that' was in response to your reply to Chorister, Cliffdweller.
On your subsequent post, the one about how the Penties tried to make sense of their experience, well yes, I'd go along with that around 80-90% of the way - more on a 'good' day ...
But I'm not entirely convinced that we can fit 1 Corinthians 14 to modern Pentecostal experience to a T.
It might be a close-ish approximation but that's the most we can hope for, I would suggest.
There's still the issue that not all Pentecostals and not all charismatics can agree on the details of 1 Corinthians 14 anyway. I'm sure you've come across differing views on how the 'logistics' works out in practice.
Ok, so there's a broad enough agreement there but hardly a complete consensus.
I stick by my original point that we don't know enough nor can we infer enough from these passages to construct a water-tight approach to how to work these things through in practice - but the same applies to other passages we could mention.
That's why I'm happy to live with a degree of ambiguity about the whole thing.
EE, bless 'im, seems to think that the whole thing is so binary and clear-cut that there are only two alternatives - ie. to speak in tongues or not to speak in tongues.
I'm suggesting that it's not as clear cut as that.
If people want to speak in tongues, fine, let them go ahead. As long as they don't pretend that the whole thing is so battened down and tidy that it is completely incontrovertible.
It isn't.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If you heard someone making the following sound, would you consider that it was gibberish or a genuine language:
abobabababebulebebalolelelawele
Please answer this question. What's your impression about this string of sounds?
What do you think your well-informed "high and mighty" linguists would say?
They would probably say that they don't have enough material to come to any conclusion.
I think you are doing the field a disservice in your mischaracterisation.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@EE ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Well, it's all down to context, my friend and you've raised an interesting point.
Given the context and thrust of your argument, I'm immediately on my guard and my initial reaction is, 'Here are some syllabic patterns I don't recognise. The 'wele' part at the end is reminiscent of certain sounds I've heard or seen transcribed from African languages, such as Swahili. It could be that dear old EE is pulling my plonker and setting a trap, expecting me to say, "This is arrant nonsense. There is no way this is a real human language, EE has made it up ..."
Whereupon the pompous pietistic prig will turn around and say, "Got you, you sceptical bastard, using my superior linguistic knowledge of which I am so inordinately proud - as proud as I am of my apparent spiritual gifts and superior 'anointing' - I can now show him that this is in fact the Masai language and I know better than you-oou ...nur nur na nur nur ...'
Well, I ain't gonna step into your trap, sonny.
All I'd be prepared to say when confronted with something like that would be:
'Well, parts of it look like an African language but I can't say for sure. Let's subject it to proper, objective linguistic analysis and then we'll find out.'
As for your 'My tongues are of God. Proof positive. End of.' Well, there is such a thing as hubris, of spiritual pride, of 'prelest' as the Russians call it.
Beware. Of all sins spiritual pride is the worst and most insidious.
--------------------
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
Concerning my little test:
abobabababebulebebalolelelawele
It looks just like a string of the kind of gibberish that Gammy would write to mock the gift of tongues.
In fact, I wish I had changed the tense and put:
abobabababebulebebalolelelelewele
All that repetition looks a bit babyish and extreme, don't you think?
Actually it's from a language I am fairly familiar with called Lumasaaba, from eastern Uganda. It means "they who are brethren look to God". Admittedly there would be word spaces, but the language is spoken so quickly that you would never guess there were. With the tense change we have "balolelelele" = "have looked".
It is a highly complex language with a verb system far more sophisticated than English. The syllables that repeat are totally different due to their grammatical function, and I doubt a native speaker would notice the repetition, but rather their minds would be tuned to the meaning. There is absolutely nothing primitive about the language and it is well able to express the whole range of human thought and experience that English can.
To call something gibberish because it consists of few phonemes and much repetition is just pig ignorance.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
To call something gibberish because it consists of few phonemes and much repetition is just pig ignorance.
Which is not what linguists studying tongues are doing.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not suggesting that anything that consists of a few phonemes is necessarily gibberish. If you'd read my posts properly you'd have seen that I correctly identified the piece you've reproduced here as a possible African language.
I saw through your trap and avoided it.
You really are the prize pillock at times.
--------------------
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
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Gamaliel posted: I'd be more than happy to go to a laboratory and have someone tape me speaking in tongues. What's there to be frightened of?
Having a good day then?
The point about speaking in tongues, prophetic words and yes even our own prayers is that they can never stand up to laboratory testing.
There is much of the Christian faith that can be reasoned by scientific understanding especially with the technological advancements we have today. But heaps still remains a mystery. It's simply called faith and this faith takes on many forms and shapes. I know this is obvious.
Whereas I think and agree that you have some valid points about Charismatic's your posts seem to send out mixed messages. First you are very critical and then you apologise but then get critical again. If you stood in the camp that says I reject Charismatics or in the camp that says I still lean in that direction that would be ok. The problem is that you seem to want a foot in both camps.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
You really are the prize pillock at times.
Well, it seems that my greatest act of "pillockness" is to have confidence in God.
Poor me for being so terribly arrogant - oh me of too much faith!!
As for the trap I set...
Yes you did rightly suspect it was a trap (kinda obvious really!). But it makes the point that we should not rush to judgment about language. Something can sound minimal and repetitive, but that does not mean it is not replete with meaning, as I have demonstrated.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles
Which is not what linguists studying tongues are doing.
Exactly. So where does that leave Gammy's little thesis?
As I pointed out earlier in the thread (with empirical evidence to boot), even whistling can be a genuine and complex language. So what's Gammy on about then?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As I pointed out earlier in the thread (with empirical evidence to boot), even whistling can be a genuine and complex language. So what's Gammy on about then?
I don't think he said what you thought he said.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
What Gammy is on about is simply this:
- He believes that speaking in tongues might be possible. Anything is possible with God.
- He concedes that some languages can sound unconvincing but turn out to be the genuine article.
HOWEVER, given the way that 'tongues' can be encouraged/induced in charismatic circles and that there are no documented instances of charismatics speaking in any known languages then it would appear to be likely that what most charismatics are doing is not speaking in 'real' languages at all.
I also believe that there is such a thing as spiritual pride.
I detect symptoms of it in your posts.
Why? Because you apparently regard your position to be above and beyond question.
That's always a bad sign.
Where does 'confidence in God' become blind and blinkered spiritual pride? That's the refuge of the jihadist and the fanatic.
I don't see how a position that says, 'I speak in tongues and believe it to be a gift of God but I am also open to the possibility that it might not be ...' displays a lack of faith or confidence.
Even in my more full on charismatic days I remained open to the possibility that I might not be speaking in tongues at all but simply following cues and patterns that were established within the group I belonged to.
I really don't see what the problem is in acknowledging that.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Yes you did rightly suspect it was a trap (kinda obvious really!). But it makes the point that we should not rush to judgment about language. Something can sound minimal and repetitive, but that does not mean it is not replete with meaning, as I have demonstrated.
I think the point was, that on the occasions where linguists have studied samples of tongues, they've found them not to have the sort of structures one would associate with real languages and they've found no evidence of xenoglossy - so it would seem to be incredibly rare.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
Well Polly, I think a lot of us (and I'm not trying to speak for Gamaliel here) find the absoluteness of many Charismatic/Penti claims to be the issue, rather than the claims themselves. That's not a 'foot in both camps' but a different camp altogether.
One thing most charismatics that I know seem to abhor, is the position of 'I'm skeptical of your claims, but don't reject them altogether.' I had a charismatic friend that I used to drive nuts by just looking at him blankly and shrugging when he'd give a report on 'what happened at church.' He couldn't stand the fact that I didn't want to affirm or argue with him.
With regards to the current debate: EE may very well have the 'genuine article' when it comes to speaking in tongues, I don't know and frankly don't care; but its his total unwillingness to even consider the alternative (that his gift is more of this earth than from heaven) that I find suspect. To me, his rather fragile demeanor over the issue betrays a lack of confidence in his own claims.
In the end I think you're right, it's all very much a mystery; I'm skeptical of anyone who has it all figured out.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Raphael
Apprentice
# 17131
|
Posted
I don't have strong views on speaking in tongues, and did, many years ago find myself doing it in worship once or twice.
Looking back I wonder if it was about not finding the vocabulary but wanting to worship. Rather like the sounds of a baby to her parent.
I don't move in speaking in tongues circles now but I get the impression in my own church, the C of E, it is n't as common as it ways. Evangelicals become more and more numerous in the C of E and bring with them, often, dedication and enthusiasm, but not speaking in tongues. At least that's my understanding.
to be fair though doesn't Alpha encourage speaking in tongues, so maybe there are C of E places encouraging it more.
Posts: 40 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
I also believe that there is such a thing as spiritual pride.
I detect symptoms of it in your posts.
Why? Because you apparently regard your position to be above and beyond question.
That's always a bad sign.
Where does 'confidence in God' become blind and blinkered spiritual pride? That's the refuge of the jihadist and the fanatic.
OK, so I submit to your idea of humility and allow myself to be questioned.
You have asked me a question. I did not ignore it, but I answered it. But you did not accept my answer. So what am I supposed to do with someone who insists on making up the rules of the game?
By whose rules do we play the game? Yours? Mine? God's?
It seems that you are insisting that we should all play the game by your rules. That looks to me like deep-seated pride.
quote:
I don't see how a position that says, 'I speak in tongues and believe it to be a gift of God but I am also open to the possibility that it might not be ...' displays a lack of faith or confidence.
Fair enough, but how far can we take this idea?
"I believe I exist, but I am open to the possibility that I might not exist..."
"I believe that I was born on a certain day, but I am open to the possibility that I may not have been..."
"I believe the earth orbits the sun, but I am open to the possibilty that it may not..."
etc...
Now I anticipate that your answer to this will be: ah but you can be certain of these things because of evidence.
Exactly! Evidence.
It is not proud to accept the verdict of EVIDENCE.
But how then do we define the concept of "evidence"?
I think there is such a thing as "spiritual evidence". Is it arrogant to accept the verdict of spiritual evidence - i.e. the evidence of the work of the Holy Spirit?
If you really think so, then I assume you don't accept the Bible as the Word of God, because nowhere in the Bible is there the slightest hint that it is a virtue to doubt the work of the Holy Spirit. Yes, we must "test" all things, but only in order to come to settled conclusions. That is not an excuse to make a virtue of doubt.
Finally... if you really think I am a Jihadist in waiting, then I pity you. I really do.
[ 31. May 2012, 21:44: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Gameliel, it does seem to me that you are being a little unfair to EE. I think it is right and correct to "test the spirits", but that is not to say that we are enjoined to be sceptical as a continuing attitude. Surely the aim of any testing is that we should, at the end of the process, have discerned whether or not the gifting in question is of God. I think that EE has explained, fairly explicitly, the testing process which he has employed, though he did not have to do so.
I am somewhat bemused that you feel his testing to be inadequate: it seems just the sort of process employed by most people of faith when trying to assess any specific issue, whether it's speaking in tongues or belief in the Holy Trinity. That is, is it consonant with a reasonable reading of scripture, is it an understanding shared by at least a number of other Christians, does the Holy Spirit bear witness to it in my own experience, etc, etc. I think it unlikely that you would have been so outspoken about this had the discussiob been about, say, the Divinitu of Christ, even if the conclusions were tested with precisely the same tools
Of course, the argument as to whether tongues is a true spiritual gift or a human activity is somewhat sterile. It seems to me that it is both. The origin is, I believe, Divine, and, arguments about the tongues of angels notwithstanding, I think that a natural reading of scripture could be said to support such a contention. But it is a gift expressed through our bodies, and that,AFAICS, means that we mediate the gift in some way, whether it be by using, in your case, I guess, a mellifluent Welsh cadence with a side of hwyl, or by using only the sounds common to our "mother tongue".
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sorry, we're getting tangled here. My 'I'll buy that' was in response to your reply to Chorister, Cliffdweller.
On your subsequent post, the one about how the Penties tried to make sense of their experience, well yes, I'd go along with that around 80-90% of the way - more on a 'good' day ...
But I'm not entirely convinced that we can fit 1 Corinthians 14 to modern Pentecostal experience to a T.
It might be a close-ish approximation but that's the most we can hope for, I would suggest.
There's still the issue that not all Pentecostals and not all charismatics can agree on the details of 1 Corinthians 14 anyway. I'm sure you've come across differing views on how the 'logistics' works out in practice.
Ok, so there's a broad enough agreement there but hardly a complete consensus.
I stick by my original point that we don't know enough nor can we infer enough from these passages to construct a water-tight approach to how to work these things through in practice - but the same applies to other passages we could mention.
That's why I'm happy to live with a degree of ambiguity about the whole thing.
EE, bless 'im, seems to think that the whole thing is so binary and clear-cut that there are only two alternatives - ie. to speak in tongues or not to speak in tongues.
I'm suggesting that it's not as clear cut as that.
If people want to speak in tongues, fine, let them go ahead. As long as they don't pretend that the whole thing is so battened down and tidy that it is completely incontrovertible.
It isn't.
untangling the dropped threads here, yeah, I think we're in the same neighborhood in our views, G.
As I said in the 2nd half of my post, I think there is (or should be) always a dynamic interplay between our reading of Scripture & tradition, our experience, and reason/ scientific discovery, etc. My understanding of tongues has been influence by 1 Cor. 12-14 but also by the linguistic studies, and, as I said, the "God spot" research. And my understanding of that research is influenced by my experience of speaking in tongues. Hopefully, I will remain open to new data and understanding, so that my understanding of tongues and other sorts of things will continue to evolve and develop through the interplay of differing experiences, learning, study of Scripture, scientific discovery, etc.
[ 31. May 2012, 23:56: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I don't have Tourette's syndrome (AFAIK) but I frequently speak "in tongues". It's slightly embarrassing when my wife hears it, more so when I think strangers overhear.
In my case it's mo more than a vocal twitch, though I can do it voluntarily ad nauseam.
I can do it contemplatively, quietly, or angrily.
I'm sure I could make it a private prayer if I so wished. It's great fun doing it in long rhyming couplets.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If you really think so, then I assume you don't accept the Bible as the Word of God, because nowhere in the Bible is there the slightest hint that it is a virtue to doubt the work of the Holy Spirit. Yes, we must "test" all things, but only in order to come to settled conclusions. That is not an excuse to make a virtue of doubt.
Yes - you have hit the nail of the head there (for me)
I have no faith in the Bible.
I pray every day in tongues as this is my best way of wordlessly praying.
This is because I don't believe God 'answers prayer' - so requests are pretty pointless anyway.
But I do want to give thanks to God and I also want to remove distractions to 'sit in God's presence' as S/he gives me strength for the day.
<code>
[ 01. June 2012, 06:24: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Baptist Trainfan: I can pray in tongues while I'm driving, for instance, with my mind fully alert yet dissociated from my actual words.
Hmm, do you mind if I try again? I can see that this subject is a bit sensitive (it has already spawned a Hell call ), but I hope that I'm allowed to try to approach it from a physiological angle, just to see where it will lead. I'm just trying, I'm not a neurologist, but the way I see it is something like this.
If we give our brain a task that takes some effort, and we repeat it a lot of times, then there comes a point where it becomes automatic, and the brain detaches itself from the task. However, because of this intensive process that is going on, our whole brain is entering a state that is somehow different than when it is at rest. It reaches a state of consciousness that is somehow different.
I can feel this when I'm playing an improvised trumpet solo. There is a point where my mind detaches from the actual notes, and enters a state that is different. I tried to do speaking in tongues yesterday (I found it quite easy) and I got the same feeling.
Maybe it has something to do with increasing blood flow to the brain, I don't know. But something is happening to our brain. The same thing happens with our bodies if we let our legs do some very physical excercise: the state of our whole body changes.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'trance', because it carries negative associations for some people (on this thread, someone even called it a 'subversion of the brain'). This 'different state' of our brain doesn't mean that we walk around like unconscious zombies, unaware of our surroundings. I'm not surprised that you're able to drive under these conditions, I'm guessing that you can even be more alert in this state.
Of course, if we take this process much farther, then we can enter a real trance. In fact, a number of religious practices around the world use this very process to reach a trance state. But I'm guessing that most people who speak in tongues get nowhere near that stage.
Just to be clear, by approaching this from a physiological angle, I'm not trying to remove God from the picture. I think that we're in this state, we can reach out to something higher, and this can very well be God.
I'm also not trying to bash speaking in tongues. I'm a lib'rul but I have nothing against it (as long as it's not of the if-you-can't-do-it-you're-not-a-real-Christian kind). But is this 'physiological' approach really so wide off the mark?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Irish Lord has said that he hasn't been 'speaking for' me, but he has articulated my position far better than I have done myself.
He's noticed the same degree of certainty that narks me about EE's position, and that of many charismatics.
I can sympathise with your challenge, Jolly Jape, and I have conceded on several posts that I am deliberately being a tad harsh on EE - because to all intents and purposes my own position on tongues etc is similar to Cliffdweller's - which is, essentially, a more moderate form of the position that EE takes.
I am not suggesting that EE abandon tongues-speaking, simply that he be open to the possibility (however remote in his view ) that what he's doing is something that can be explained psychologically - and not necessarily supernaturally.
Heck, Boogie speaks in tongues and she has no conservative form of faith in the Bible or the Christian tradition whatsoever. Le Roc tried it yesterday and found it rather easy to do and he's not coming at it from a Pentecostal or charismatic perspective either.
This has got nothing to do with putting God to the test, this has got nothing to do with dismissing the Bible - it has everything to do with discerning, judging and regulating our own attitudes and motivations.
Sure, I believe in the historic Creeds, 'Firmly I believe and truly, God is Three and God is One.'
But it is a BELIEF. I cannot prove it. For all I know when I die I might find out that the Christian faith was all illusory and that really I should have been worshipping the Gooseberry Fairy from the Planet Zarg ...
I'm not suggesting that Christianity isn't true, of course. I believe it is. Otherwise I wouldn't be a Christian.
But the opposite of faith isn't doubt, it's certainty. I'm not making a virtue out of doubt. I'm not Richard Holloway.
It's perfectly legitimate to question these things. I don't see how that dishonours God in any way whatsoever.
As for my 'jihadist' reference - well, look at the context - that was rhetoric, hyperbole. I am clearly not suggesting that EE is a closet jihadist, simply drawing a comparison, an analogy. Rather like the apostle Paul with this 'tongues of angels' trope.
If you are clearly unable to recognise rhetorical flourishes then I seriously doubt your ability to exegete and understand the scriptures.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
There's an annoying whiff of 'prelest' running through the posts of many charismatics on these Boards. It's probably common to evangelicalism as a whole. Me and my Bible. Me and my Saviour. Me and my spiritual gifts, my prophecy, my tongues ... me, me, me, me, me, me, me.
It's infantile.
'I don't need a Patriarch to tell me what to believe,' Mudfrog trumpeted at me the other week. Thereby asserting his right to set aside whatsoever dominical injunctions he sees fit - such as baptism and the Lord's Supper.
Now, I like Muddie and will give him some slack, but one could argue that there's a lack of humility in a position like that. I know best. It's me and my Bible.
I submit that we're seeing a similar attitude with EE. 'I don't farkin' care what linguists and psychologists might say, this is my tongue ... it's mine, all mine, my preciousss ... God gave it to me, who are you to question it? God gave it to be because I'm so farkin' special ...'
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Read your own posts and tell me how much humility you can find. Pretty.damn.all.
--------------------
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
Now it's arrogant to come to a conclusion about something (after having gone through the appropriate process of discernment and testing). And apparently it's "humility" to have a relationship with someone you are not sure even exists.
Whatever next?
Great wisdom is flowing from Cheshire at the moment, I see.
--------------------
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
Where have I said that God doesn't exist?
Do you actually read my posts EE?
Do you actually read anyone posts?
--------------------
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
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
Speaking as one of no strong opinion either way, but stupid enough to step into the crossfie, it does seem as though you guys (Gamaliel and EtymologicalEvangelical) are talking past each other a bit.
Or perhaps it's more accurate to say that you're both reading each other's posts through the filters of what you're expecting to see, not what's actually there, but subtly so. Or maybe you know each other better than I know either of you, and I'm reading through my natural peacemaking filters
FWIW to my little brainy EE doesn't sound particularly arrogant or prideful about his (?) tongues schtick. It's more just a case of "this is how it is for me, go figure". So the accusations of being up his own bum on the thing probably wrankle.
OTOH, I can see how some of what EE posts contains trigger words for Gamaliel, given his Ship-known background and journey.
So I reckon that both of you have imported external baggage into this, and then got yourselves in a positive feedback loop of pink mist (not really strong enough to be red). Everybody step back, have a beer, and reset your perception filters.
Group hug?
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Where have I said that God doesn't exist?
You didn't. And I never said that you did say that.
But you did express a rather major doubt, which is tantamount to being less than certain of the existence of the One with whom I presume you would claim to have some kind of relationship (which is the point I made, but which you flagrantly misread). Shall I quote you?
quote:
For all I know when I die I might find out that the Christian faith was all illusory and that really I should have been worshipping the Gooseberry Fairy from the Planet Zarg ...
So it seems I do read your posts after all - quite obviously with far more care than you bother to read mine.
Do keep up...
--------------------
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
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags
Group hug?
I've got no problem being reconciled to anyone. I'm not the one doing the judging. Gammy's taken it upon himself to call me arrogant just because I believe in the authenticity of something God has given to me.
What am I supposed to do? Assert something I don't believe (i.e. tell a lie) just to please him? If I said that I believe that my gift of tongues could be phony, I would be lying, because I do not believe that. If he wants to think I am deluded by saying that, so what? His views are not going to stop me telling what I believe is the truth.
Gamaliel's been playing mind games with me, and he doesn't like that I have told him where to go. I'm the one who has presented linguistic evidence on this thread - he hasn't. I'm the one who gave an honest answer to his question early in the thread; he's the one who refuses to respect that.
All I have been doing is defending myself against relentless attacks by someone who insists on messing with my spiritual life, instead of doing what any mature person would do - mind his own business.
He apologised and I accepted his apology, and then he started all over again, which just proves that his original apology was totally phony. Not the attitude of someone at all interested in reconciliation.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Whilst I agree you are not making a virtue of doubt, it does seem to me that you are making a vice out of reasoned committment.
Whilst I can appreciate that we need to be philosophically tentative about something which is, of its essence, rather mysterious, in practical terms people have to have a belief system that enables them not only to reflect, but to live in the day to day. If you accept this proposition, then it seems to me you should have a mechanism by which you can test phenomena, and having tested them, and found them convincing, to put the matter to bed until such time as the evidence leads you to reconsider. This is pretty much where I am, and, ISTM, where EE is. If you find that lacking in humility, I'm not sure what I can do about that. But to caricature the testing process as described by EE as "me,me,me" seems to me to be unfounded. What are the processes that you use for testing, and how do they differ from those described by EE?
I actually think that a totally evidence based decision is not accesible to us. We can't know what was in Paul's mind when he penned the stuff about the tongues of angels. What if a linguistic study were to conclude that tongues definately did not conform to the requirements of being a human language? Would that invalidate it from use as Boogie describes, or even prove that it could not be an angelic, rather than human, language? At the end of the day, we look at the evidence, pays our money and takes our choice.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If I said that I believe that my gift of tongues could be phony, I would be lying, because I do not believe that.
I think part of this may come down to your confusing the word "believe" with the word "know". But belief and knowledge are two very different things.
I believe that God exists. I do not know that He does. You would presumably describe that as "tantamount to being less than certain of the existence of the One with whom I presume you would claim to have some kind of relationship", and I would agree with you about that analysis. It's just that I (and presumably Gamaliel, though he can speak for himself) simply do not see such doubt as a bad thing.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Whilst I agree you are not making a virtue of doubt, it does seem to me that you are making a vice out of reasoned committment.
Whilst I can appreciate that we need to be philosophically tentative about something which is, of its essence, rather mysterious, in practical terms people have to have a belief system that enables them not only to reflect, but to live in the day to day. If you accept this proposition, then it seems to me you should have a mechanism by which you can test phenomena, and having tested them, and found them convincing, to put the matter to bed until such time as the evidence leads you to reconsider. This is pretty much where I am, and, ISTM, where EE is. If you find that lacking in humility, I'm not sure what I can do about that. But to caricature the testing process as described by EE as "me,me,me" seems to me to be unfounded. What are the processes that you use for testing, and how do they differ from those described by EE?
I actually think that a totally evidence based decision is not accesible to us. We can't know what was in Paul's mind when he penned the stuff about the tongues of angels. What if a linguistic study were to conclude that tongues definately did not conform to the requirements of being a human language? Would that invalidate it from use as Boogie describes, or even prove that it could not be an angelic, rather than human, language? At the end of the day, we look at the evidence, pays our money and takes our choice.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
Oops, dunno what happened there. Maybe a kindly passing Host could delete the duplicate.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Baptist Trainfan: I can pray in tongues while I'm driving, for instance, with my mind fully alert yet dissociated from my actual words.
Hmm, do you mind if I try again? I can see that this subject is a bit sensitive (it has already spawned a Hell call ), but I hope that I'm allowed to try to approach it from a physiological angle, just to see where it will lead. I'm just trying, I'm not a neurologist, but the way I see it is something like this.
If we give our brain a task that takes some effort, and we repeat it a lot of times, then there comes a point where it becomes automatic, and the brain detaches itself from the task. However, because of this intensive process that is going on, our whole brain is entering a state that is somehow different than when it is at rest. It reaches a state of consciousness that is somehow different.
I can feel this when I'm playing an improvised trumpet solo. There is a point where my mind detaches from the actual notes, and enters a state that is different. I tried to do speaking in tongues yesterday (I found it quite easy) and I got the same feeling.
Maybe it has something to do with increasing blood flow to the brain, I don't know. But something is happening to our brain. The same thing happens with our bodies if we let our legs do some very physical excercise: the state of our whole body changes.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word 'trance', because it carries negative associations for some people (on this thread, someone even called it a 'subversion of the brain'). This 'different state' of our brain doesn't mean that we walk around like unconscious zombies, unaware of our surroundings. I'm not surprised that you're able to drive under these conditions, I'm guessing that you can even be more alert in this state.
Of course, if we take this process much farther, then we can enter a real trance. In fact, a number of religious practices around the world use this very process to reach a trance state. But I'm guessing that most people who speak in tongues get nowhere near that stage.
Just to be clear, by approaching this from a physiological angle, I'm not trying to remove God from the picture. I think that we're in this state, we can reach out to something higher, and this can very well be God.
I'm also not trying to bash speaking in tongues. I'm a lib'rul but I have nothing against it (as long as it's not of the if-you-can't-do-it-you're-not-a-real-Christian kind). But is this 'physiological' approach really so wide off the mark?
This is similar to what I have been hypothesizing. I would call it a "neurological" approach, rather than "psychological". It is simply explaining the biology behind what is happening. As mentioned before, I think it dovetails nicely with research that show increased activity in the "God spot" of the brain when persons (of any faith) speak in tongues-- as well as when they engage in other sorts of intense religious experiences such as chanting, meditation, etc. The common denominator seems to be experiences that evoke "transcendence"-- that get you out of our "self" in union (we suppose) with the Almighty.
There is, of course, two ways to understand this. To a skeptic it would be evidence that tongue-speaking and other sorts of religious experiences are "mere biology"-- evolutionary quirks, simple brain chemistry.
For believers such as myself, it is evidence that we were created for union with God. We were created for these sorts of experiences.
Similarly, the fact that the same effect can be achieved through different means and in relation to different deities could be interpreted as:
1. evidence the whole experience is a sham
2. evidence of Satanic influence-- "false prophesy"
3. (my choice) evidence that we were created for union with God, so that even our brains are "hardwired" for it. The experiences of believers of other faiths while misdirected (from a Christian pov) are still attempts to unite with the Almighty and therefore have similar neurological components.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
ok - let's back up a bit ...
I think Snags is right in that both EE and I are reading things into one another's posts that might not necessarily be there.
For instance, he's interpreted a point I've made - which Marvin has elaborated (and done so much better than I) - to infer that I doubt the existence of God. I don't. I'm just saying, as Marvin has said that belief and knowledge are different things.
I believe that there is a God. I cannot prove that there is a God.
I really don't see what is so contentious about that. It's mainstream Christian belief.
Equally, and I'm not suggesting that EE takes me up on this necessarily, I would definitely feel more comfortable if EE said something like: 'I believe in speaking in tongues and believe that God has given me that gift' - rather than presenting it as some kind of incontrovertible fact.
Because as I've attempted to show - and as he refuses to accept - there are alternative explanations to his 'take' on the tongues phenomena.
I don't how he can explain, for instance, how Boogie can speak in tongues without having any faith in the evangelical/charismatic sense or understanding of the term. Unless he were to revert to yet another circular argument such as 'The gifts and call of God are irrevocable ... therefore as an ex-charismatic Boogie can still speak in tongues because God hasn't taken the gift away ...'
Which would strike me as a very odd argument, but YMMV.
Equally, I don't see how he can explain how Le Roc apparently found it easy to 'speak in tongues' the other day even though he didn't believe it was some kind of supernatural gift but simply a form of scat - rather like jazz improvisation.
I know I've been at this one like a dog with a bone and I can see why EE has got narked. I apologied to him. Happy to do so.
However, what subsequently riled me again - after that first exchange - was an apparent recalcitrance (from my point of view) to even accept the possibility that there was any alternative way to consider these things. It's God's gift and that's all there is to it.
That's not how I operate and I don't believe it's how scripture and Christian belief in general operates.
I've repeatedly said that I believe in the supernatural, that I believe in the Creeds and that I do believe in the possibility of speaking in tongues. And yet EE takes snippets of my posts out of context and beats me over the head with them to suggest that it is me, and not him, who is being stubborn and recalcitrant.
If I had time I could send him references to all manner of studies on glossolalia that back up the things that I've been saying. But I doubt he'd take any notice. All he does is throw out a few linguistic examples of unusual examples in a show-offy, look-at-me kind of way (or so it seems to me) and thinks that this will put the matter to rest. It won't. I am not a linguist - although I do have a modicum of knowledge about some aspects - but I do respect academic linguistic findings. Rather more than EE appears to.
I'm quite prepared to have a group hug and to stop sparring with EE. I can be an argumentative git but equally part of me doesn't like confrontation.
I still think that EE hasn't properly engaged with some of the points I've raised, though, but I'm prepared to let that slide. He doesn't come across to me as someone with a great capacity for nuance, an understanding of rhetoric nor the possibility of alternative views other than his own.
I'd call him to Hell but it wouldn't be worth it. He's in an arrogant and blinkered Hell of his own making already.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
And if I may use my own post (how arrogant is that?) to attempt to speak for Gamaliel (in an attempt to resolve the standoff w/ EE that, yes, often looks a bit like "posting past each other"), I hear Gamaliel as saying something close to:
quote:
For believers such as myself, it is evidence that we were created for union with God. We were created for these sorts of experiences.
while wanting EE to acknowledge the ever-present possibility of:
quote:
:
There is, of course, two ways to understand this. To a skeptic it would be evidence that tongue-speaking and other sorts of religious experiences are "mere biology"-- evolutionary quirks, simple brain chemistry.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Cliffdweller, interesting ...
I also wonder whether some of the 'feelings' that people describe in relation to charismatic activity - a sense of 'release' of joy etc etc are also connected with this. And also the sense that there is something slightly 'transgressive' going on (not in the sinful sense) but of pushing back barriers, a stepping outside of comfort-zones and convention.
I once attended an Orthodox service where they were venerating a particularly well-known icon of the Virgin Mary (believed to be supernatural in origin and imbued with supernatural powers).
Part way through, I decided to throw Protestant caution to the wind and dive straight in and do what the Orthoes were doing. I venerated the icon, I chanted the Akathist with them, I was anointed with oil three times in succession by three priests - on the forehead, eyes, earlobes, nostrils, mouth, chest and on the back of my hands if I remember rightly.
There was at once both a sense of cognitive-dissonance ('I'm a Protestant!!!') and not quite exhilaration or euphoria - but a sense of joy in a way that reminded me of some of the charismatic experiences I'd had back in my full-on charismatic days.
I wonder if this is the same sort of thing you're describing?
--------------------
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
Backing up a bit more ... I'm not being literal, of course, about the 'Hell' of EE's apparent own making ... and I'm not sure it's a very helpful comment anyway.
I would like to apologise for it and withdraw it.
The rest of that post I will stand by.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Cliffdweller, interesting ...
I also wonder whether some of the 'feelings' that people describe in relation to charismatic activity - a sense of 'release' of joy etc etc are also connected with this. And also the sense that there is something slightly 'transgressive' going on (not in the sinful sense) but of pushing back barriers, a stepping outside of comfort-zones and convention.
I once attended an Orthodox service where they were venerating a particularly well-known icon of the Virgin Mary (believed to be supernatural in origin and imbued with supernatural powers).
Part way through, I decided to throw Protestant caution to the wind and dive straight in and do what the Orthoes were doing. I venerated the icon, I chanted the Akathist with them, I was anointed with oil three times in succession by three priests - on the forehead, eyes, earlobes, nostrils, mouth, chest and on the back of my hands if I remember rightly.
There was at once both a sense of cognitive-dissonance ('I'm a Protestant!!!') and not quite exhilaration or euphoria - but a sense of joy in a way that reminded me of some of the charismatic experiences I'd had back in my full-on charismatic days.
I wonder if this is the same sort of thing you're describing?
My guess would be yes. We'd have to plug you into an MRI or at Cat-scan or something to know for sure.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, next time I'd down your way and passing a scanner you can connect me up ...
I suspect you are spot on, incidentally ...
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Equally, and I'm not suggesting that EE takes me up on this necessarily, I would definitely feel more comfortable if EE said something like: 'I believe in speaking in tongues and believe that God has given me that gift' - rather than presenting it as some kind of incontrovertible fact.
We can argue forever about the distinction between "knowledge" and "belief". I am quite happy to engage with that argument, because I am deeply interested in epistemology. It can be argued that we do not actually "know" that the earth orbits the sun, but we believe it on the basis of evidence (and this evidence we "believe" without "knowing"). Even though I would say that we can "know" that the earth orbits the sun, we cannot be absolutely certain (in a strictly philosophical sense) that when we look at the sun or the earth - or any other empirically perceived object - we are actually seeing those objects, and not hallucinations that seem to work in a conveniently regular way. So there is a sense that "knowledge" (as understood in daily parlance) is really "belief with 99.9999999% certainty".
So to talk about "belief" as some kind of tacit acknowledgment of doubt (that is more than a minute percentage of merely philosophical - Cartesian - doubt) is fallacious. In daily life, "belief" means: "as far as I am - and common sense is - concerned, this is true".
quote:
Because as I've attempted to show - and as he refuses to accept - there are alternative explanations to his 'take' on the tongues phenomena.
But I have NOT said anything of the sort!!
I am not denying that tongues can be fabricated or generated naturally. I am not denying that there can be satanic tongues or occult tongues. And, of course, I certainly do not deny that the physical and neurological act of speaking in tongues can be reduced to certain biological mechanisms.
But what I do not accept is the idea that I am just "making it up" when I speak in tongues. When I speak in tongues something is certainly happening in my brain, in my vocal chords, in my nervous system. The body is good and God uses the body. So what?
And why do I believe that I am not "making it up"? Because of the witness of the Holy Spirit. Is God so small that he is not able to give any certainty or assurance about this matter - or indeed about anything? Doesn't the Bible say that the Holy Spirit "leads us into all truth"? It doesn't say "leads us into all doubt or confusion", does it?
But when I testify to the witness of the Holy Spirit, I then get accused of being arrogant.
Just look at your last post:
You call me "stubborn and recalcitrant".
You say that I was showing off when I presented linguistic evidence: "in a show-offy, look-at-me kind of way".
This is just appalling behaviour (and I acknowledge that you withdrew your "hell" comment). You originally asked me a straightforward question, and I answered it honestly and politely. Since then I have been subjected to vitriol, beginning with this nasty piece of slander:
quote:
What strikes me about Daron and EytemologicalEvangelical is that they are quite prepared to accept that it might be phoney for other people but not for them - as if somehow they are above all of that. 'That person over there might be making it up but I'm not ...'
Nothing that I said justified this comment. The implication was that I - and Daron - and conceited, and the language you have used subsequently confirms this. I have tried to be honest, but you just cannot accept my honest position.
You may think otherwise (in fact, you've said as much), but I think I am generally fairly thick-skinned. When debating with others over some issue - e.g. atheists - I have been called terrible things, and most of the time I just laugh at it. But in those situations we are sparring over issues. At the end of the day we have to "agree to disagree". BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT, CAN YOU?
And what is worse, you can't leave an issue that is highly personal. It's almost as if the deeply personal aspect of this subject is like blood to a shark. You smell blood and go in for the kill. You can't seem to bear the fact that I am utterly confident that I have received a genuine spiritual gift from God. If this actually affected you directly, then I could understand your concern, but it doesn't.
We can talk about the nature of the gift of tongues and may have a heated discussion without getting so personal. A cessationist would, of course, tell me that my gift of tongues was not "of God". I would just say: "Fair enough, that's your position. I disagree. Let's leave it there." Usually such a person would just walk away. But you can't do that. It's as if you can't bear not actually invading my own personal life and trying to change my thinking and personal spiritual walk. It feels almost like a kind of spiritual or psychological rape (yes, I really mean that).
This conversation is not a debate. It's an attack on me as a person and as a Christian. Your insults are clear evidence of this. I admit that I used fairly bad language in "hell" to tell you to back off, but that was no less than you deserved, quite frankly.
To sum up: I acknowledge that there are different ways to obtain the gift of tongues. It is not for me to sit in judgment on anyone. But I testify that I believe that God has given me the genuine gift of tongues as spoken of in the Bible. I do not harbour doubts about this. Why? Because this gift is inextricably bound up with my experience of the work of the Holy Spirit, who is able to give assurance.
Now this position does not affect you at all. It is entirely my business. It is not arrogant for me to testify to the work of God in my life. Since when has that ever been an act of arrogance?
I repeat: I am not looking down on anyone. If you think I am, then show me the clear evidence.
If you insist on carrying on insulting me, then do so. Others are intelligent enough to see you for what you are.
[ 01. June 2012, 16:46: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
3. (my choice) evidence that we were created for union with God, so that even our brains are "hardwired" for it. The experiences of believers of other faiths while misdirected (from a Christian pov) are still attempts to unite with the Almighty and therefore have similar neurological components.
Yes - my choice too. But I don't think other faiths are misdirected, just different in approach.
(I can't even begin to understand what EE and Gamaliel are now arguing about, both are splitting hairs imv - but I think they should go back to hell with it. The air quite obviously wasn't cleared )
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie
I can't even begin to understand what EE and Gamaliel are now arguing about, both are splitting hairs imv - but I think they should go back to hell with it. The air quite obviously wasn't cleared
I'm as sick of this as you are. Gamaliel apologised in hell. I accepted his apology. I thought that was the end of it, but then he carried on as if nothing had happened.
This is my last post on this thread. I will state my position very clearly.
Gamaliel asked me a simple question, as follows:
quote:
@EytemologicalEvangelical - how do you KNOW that the tongues you've experienced are the genuine article and not 'fake'? Because you haven't gone into a trance-like state and it feels normal and not wierd?
...
How do you KNOW that what you've experienced isn't the same as what I've just described?
I answered this question honestly and politely, as follows:
quote:
One could ask the same question about one's own relationship with God. How does any Christian "know" that he is in contact with God and not the devil or just some hallucination? Is God or the Holy Spirit only "safe" when He is a construct that can be fully explained in some entirely intellectual way? Is there no such thing as spiritual experience that we can actually come to recognise as genuine and therefore trust?
The experience of speaking in tongues cannot be isolated from one's whole experience of God through the Holy Spirit. And therefore it is through my own relationship with and experience of God that I judge the validity of particular spiritual gifts. I know that this may sound subjective (in one sense it is), but I have no need to convince anyone else that my experience of speaking in tongues is valid. It's an issue for me and me alone. I have resolved it within myself to my own satisfaction.
Since then I have been subjected to a stream of abuse, against which I have tried to defend myself.
That is the issue, Boogie. It's not hair-splitting. It's a simple matter of one person refusing to respect the spiritual testimony of another.
NO MORE FROM ME ON THIS THREAD.
--------------------
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
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
Sticking my head momentarily above the parapet…
The reason I haven’t wanted to engage with this thread, despite being one of the (I imagine) minority of tongues-speakers on board, is precisely what EE has said several times. It’s also why I didn’t respond to bib’s attempt to get back to the OP. Viz., for many of us who speak in tongues, it is a deeply personal and intimate thing. It’s like talking about kissing your beloved. That being the case, discussing it with skeptics - which many of the contributors here are, either that or people with a superior or judgmental attitude to non-liturgical Christians* - feels a bit like skinny-dipping with sharks.
(Full disclosure – I was raised Baptist and tongues speaking pretty much freaked me out when I first came across it. I looked in the Bible and couldn’t construct a good reason for why it wasn’t a gift of the Spirit, to which my initial reaction was basically “oh bugger I wanted that not to be in the Bible”. No one ever prayed for to speak in tongues or anything like that. I just got to a point where I was sure I could do it. I tried – alone in my room – and found out I was right. I think a lot of my fear about tongues was because I believed it to be out of the person’s control. As a tongues speaker myself, I have discovered this to be completely untrue, in my own case at least. When I pray in tongues, I am always in control.)
Anyway, I understand why EE’s upset. Have I considered the possibility that my tongues are not from God? Yes, and I've rejected it. (Incidentally, for what precious little it’s worth, I am perfectly bilingual and have a languages degree.) I’m not stupid. But I’ve decided to go on the side of belief, not the side of skepticism. It’s what my heart tells me is right. The thing is, the repeated question of “yes, but you accept it might not be from God, don’t you?” sounds more like “come on, think about it hard enough and you know it’s probably not from God really”, which is patronising and hurts, especially when talking about something so intimate.
Gamaliel, I know you’ve been round the block, but you often seem not to realise that others of us have been in the same environment and we like it there and are confident that we're in the spot where God intends for us to be. We don’t stay just because we’re too naïve or deluded to move to the spot where you are. It didn’t work for you. It works for us. What you call healthy doubt looks like too much like cynicism to me for me to want to go there (which doesn't mean I don't ask intelligent questions about anything). Not for the first time, I kind of want to tell you to just Build a Sodding Bridge and Get Over It. In Christian love.
<ducks back behind the parapet>
*I'm not naming names here. Whether you fit into either of these categories I leave entirely to your own conscience.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
