Speaking in Tongues- Part of Christianity or Just Silly?

[outhouse]

it would not be a leap to assume that he had his own language.

Now I think that would be a huge leap for two reasons. One you have to assume god exist, and two that speaking gibberish is all he could understand.

people speak in gibberish because they are feeling while making noise. This causes a little euphoria. Singing can cause this.

this is not a communication thing as one is not communicating with anyone.

this is mental masterbation for the human feeling it produces, the euphoria is giving the illusion of a higher power if one thinks that way

One could do this to tell santa what toys he wants with the same results

If

is to big a leap of faith in this case

 

[Reverend Rick]

1 Corinthians 14-4

He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church.

1 Corinthians 14-22

Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophesy, however, is for believers, not unbelievers.

1 Corinthians 14-27

If anyone speaks in a tongue, two or at the most three should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

NIV

 

[Rainbow Mage]

1 Corinthians 14-27

If anyone speaks in a tongue, two or at the most three should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret. 28 If there is no interpreter, the speaker should keep quiet in the church and speak to himself and God.

NIV

Right, showing it's an actual language that can be interpreted if it's real tongues, just like the book of Acts says.

 

[fallingblood]

No true Scotsman eh.

In any case, it was your claim that "First, it is not meant to be another language per se. The practitioners are not claiming such." But as I have shown, and you have all but agreed, you were wrong. People speaking in tongues certainly do claim they're speaking a language.

It was a generalization. I didn't see a reason to point out that a minority does have a different view, for the same reason that most people don't feel the need to.

I agree that some do claim it is another language. However, when asked further for clarification, many of them, as I briefly mentioned in another post, would not consider it a formal language in the same sense as English is. So there is a big difference here.

 

[fallingblood]

Right, showing it's an actual language that can be interpreted if it's real tongues, just like the book of Acts says.

Not at all. It doesn't have to be an actual language in the sense that English is an actual language. The fact that it needs interpreting means that it is not a common thing in that area. We really aren't told enough here at all.

 

[fallingblood]

Now I think that would be a huge leap for two reasons. One you have to assume god exist, and two that speaking gibberish is all he could understand.

Those two assumptions really aren't fair though. Yes, one has to assume God exists. And yes, that is based on faith. However, it is not against what the evidence shows, as there is no evidence either way.

However, one would not have to assume that the only thing that God understands is gibberish. That is quite the contrary. If God exists, it would be safe to assume that it could understand all languages. It would also be safe to assume that a supreme being would be able to understand more than what a human is able to understand. So it wouldn't be a leap to assume that God gave humans a tool in which to express themselves when one's language simply did not cut it.

people speak in gibberish because they are feeling while making noise. This causes a little euphoria. Singing can cause this.

That isn't completely true. Many people speak in tongues just because they want to pray. And they do it to themselves. It isn't causing euphoria in those cases.

this is not a communication thing as one is not communicating with anyone.

Again, that is stepping a little to far. Your statement is based on the assumption there is no God. However, that is not a fact, so you are starting on a faulty assumption.

If there is a God (we have to keep the if here), then it would be communicating with God.

this is mental masterbation for the human feeling it produces, the euphoria is giving the illusion of a higher power if one thinks that way

One could do this to tell santa what toys he wants with the same results

That is a very biased statement that can not be backed up by facts. In many instances, there is no euphoria. There is no feelings that are produced. For me, I used to do it just from time to time. Sometimes it was a way to calm myself. Sometimes it was just to pray to God, as I saw it a duty. I wasn't feeling euphoric during those times.


For some people, speaking in tongues is also used as a way to meditate. There are true benefits in meditating, and this is just one more example.

 

[Jacksnyte]

Not at all. It doesn't have to be an actual language in the sense that English is an actual language. The fact that it needs interpreting means that it is not a common thing in that area. We really aren't told enough here at all.

Oh really?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"On the day of Pentecost Jesus' apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other tongues. Those who heard this speech each heard it in his own language, even though they were from many different countries (Acts 2:1-13). Even though the apostles were speaking in an unknown language, the listeners were able to understand, each in his own language."[/FONT]

There was no translation needed! The whole point was the fact that they were understood by all! Seems a bit pointless if it just sounds like gibberish to all present, and needs a translator. What people are doing when speaking gibberish is very much like what the oracle at Delphi was doing, not what the apostles supposedly did at Pentecost. Seems a little blasphemous, considering most christians would consider such oracles to be not of god!

 

[fallingblood]

Oh really?

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"On the day of Pentecost Jesus' apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and began speaking in other tongues. Those who heard this speech each heard it in his own language, even though they were from many different countries (Acts 2:1-13). Even though the apostles were speaking in an unknown language, the listeners were able to understand, each in his own language."[/FONT]

Different verse. We can not assume Paul was referring to that event, or that he even knew anything about it. So we have to use just what Paul said.

Paul does not signify that it is in another known language. He does not signify that it has anything to do with what is described in Acts.

 

[Jacksnyte]

Different verse. We can not assume Paul was referring to that event, or that he even knew anything about it. So we have to use just what Paul said.

Paul does not signify that it is in another known language. He does not signify that it has anything to do with what is described in Acts.

And you forget one very important detail: Paul was not there!

 

[fallingblood]

And you forget one very important detail: Paul was not there!

I didn't forget that point. That is something I was trying to stress. Paul did not know what happened at Pentecost. Therefore, we can not take the information in Acts to be information that Paul was aware of. Thus, what Acts says in this case means nothing when trying to figure out what Paul was saying in 1 Corinthians about speaking in tongues.

That being so, there is no suggestion from Paul that they were speaking in a different known language.

 

[fallingblood]

There was no translation needed! The whole point was the fact that they were understood by all! Seems a bit pointless if it just sounds like gibberish to all present, and needs a translator. What people are doing when speaking gibberish is very much like what the oracle at Delphi was doing, not what the apostles supposedly did at Pentecost. Seems a little blasphemous, considering most christians would consider such oracles to be not of god!

That is a key point. Acts says there was no translation needed. However, Paul states exactly the opposite. That people speaking in tongues need to have translators.

 

[Jacksnyte]

That is a key point. Acts says there was no translation needed. However, Paul states exactly the opposite. That people speaking in tongues need to have translators.

And Paul...WAS NOT THERE! I suspect he based his version on ecstatic oracles like the one at Delphi, since he did not see the events of Pentecost when they took place. The problem with using the writings of Paul to refute the events of the lives of Christ and the apostles is the mere fact that he was not a witness to these events, and anything he says about them is likely to be at least 4th hand information. I have never understood why christians base the majority of their religion on the writings of someone who was not a witness to any of the events of Jesus life or death!

 

[fallingblood]

And Paul...WAS NOT THERE! I suspect he based his version on ecstatic oracles like the one at Delphi, since he did not see the events of Pentecost when they took place. The problem with using the writings of Paul to refute the events of the lives of Christ and the apostles is the mere fact that he was not a witness to these events, and anything he says about them is likely to be at least 4th hand information. I have never understood why christians base the majority of their religion on the writings of someone who was not a witness to any of the events of Jesus life or death!

The author or Acts and the Gospels were not eyewitnesses either. They are 3rd 4th hand information. More so, they are greatly effected by an event that was Earth shattering for Jews and the fledgling Christian faith; the destruction of the temple.

Paul is the closest individual we have to Jesus. Even better, he was in contact with the brother of Jesus, as well as Jesus' major disciple; Cephas. Not to mention the other disciples and possibly other siblings of Jesus. So he is a great source of information.

More so, Paul is speaking about events that he did witness and knew about. He isn't talking about Pentecost. He is talking about people speaking in tongues in congregations or churches that he knew very well. So yes, he is a great source as he is reporting on events that were happening in a congregation that he knew well.

 

[Skwim]

It was a generalization. I didn't see a reason to point out that a minority does have a different view, for the same reason that most people don't feel the need to.

I agree that some do claim it is another language. However, when asked further for clarification, many of them, as I briefly mentioned in another post, would not consider it a formal language in the same sense as English is. So there is a big difference here.

In as much as I haven't come across a single case--not one--wherein the speaker has claimed he wasn't speaking a language, I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that the majority of them say they don't. Care to share?

 

[Jacksnyte]

The author or Acts and the Gospels were not eyewitnesses either. They are 3rd 4th hand information. More so, they are greatly effected by an event that was Earth shattering for Jews and the fledgling Christian faith; the destruction of the temple.

Paul is the closest individual we have to Jesus. Even better, he was in contact with the brother of Jesus, as well as Jesus' major disciple; Cephas. Not to mention the other disciples and possibly other siblings of Jesus. So he is a great source of information.

More so, Paul is speaking about events that he did witness and knew about. He isn't talking about Pentecost. He is talking about people speaking in tongues in congregations or churches that he knew very well. So yes, he is a great source as he is reporting on events that were happening in a congregation that he knew well.

Yes, people doing ecstatic glossolalia, not the same as what is described in Acts, which means it is not any different than the gibberish one might have heard from the oracle at Delphi, or the maddened followers of Dionysus.
I am fully aware that none of the accounts included in the New Testament other than Paul were written by who they claim to have been written by, and that Paul is the founder of Christianity. IMO, I think it should be called Paulianity, as the vast majority of Christendom are actually following Paul's teachings, and not the teachings of Jesus.

 

[gerobbins]

Does the New Testament say that the tongues were just babble, or was it actual languages?

From what I interpet it says that when the apostles were speaking in tongues others heard what they were saying in their own language.

 

[Jacksnyte]

From what I interpet it says that when the apostles were speaking in tongues others heard what they were saying in their own language.

Exactly my point

 

[fallingblood]

In as much as I haven't come across a single case--not one--wherein the speaker has claimed he wasn't speaking a language, I'm curious as to how you came to the conclusion that the majority of them say they don't. Care to share?

It is primarily based on having been ordained in a non-denominational church (and later in an Assemblies of God) which practiced such. Part of the ordination process (I actually had to go through it twice because one didn't transfer to the other) was a study of this subject.

Yes, some will call it a language. And really, I see that out of ease (now there may be some denominations that are very conservative or hard headed on the matter, that would disagree, but I haven't met one myself). It is a lot easier to explain speaking in tongues as a language than something else.

However, when one really gets down to it, most adherents will admit that it is not a language in the typical usage of that word. It isn't a form of communication that is taught (I believe there are some who try to, but that is a minority, and really an extremist minority). It isn't a form of communication that has really any structure. There isn't and alphabet or actual words that show up. There isn't a consistency from one person to another as it is meant to be something personal. It isn't even meant to be understood by humans unless one is granted the gift of interpretation.

When it gets down to it, speaking in tongues simply does not fit a basic definition of language, and most adherents would agree with that. Calling it a language really is one of ease, even though the meaning of language in this context greatly changes.

Adherents, for the most part, do understand this. I have heard some say that it is the language of the angels, or of God, but like many heavenly things, it takes on a very different meaning.

So I guess I would agree that some call it a language. However, most don't mean it is a language in the typical fashion. It is something quite different.

 

[fallingblood]

Yes, people doing ecstatic glossolalia, not the same as what is described in Acts, which means it is not any different than the gibberish one might have heard from the oracle at Delphi, or the maddened followers of Dionysus.
I am fully aware that none of the accounts included in the New Testament other than Paul were written by who they claim to have been written by, and that Paul is the founder of Christianity. IMO, I think it should be called Paulianity, as the vast majority of Christendom are actually following Paul's teachings, and not the teachings of Jesus.

I won't really go on Paul, as that would be for a whole new thread, but I would argue that many of this teachings were actually similar to those of Jesus.

However, Paul does describe speaking in tongues, and I don't think it can be equated to what was happening with the oracle at Delphi. The influence is quite different, and the reasoning behind it is quite different.

 

[Jacksnyte]

I won't really go on Paul, as that would be for a whole new thread, but I would argue that many of this teachings were actually similar to those of Jesus.

However, Paul does describe speaking in tongues, and I don't think it can be equated to what was happening with the oracle at Delphi. The influence is quite different, and the reasoning behind it is quite different.

Ah, but the methodology and result is disturbingly similar to the oracle, and completely different than what is described in the writings about the Pentecost!