Speaking in tongues

bakkiesbotha

Now, what is this supposed to be about?

Speaking in tongues means speaking other languages, specifically, languages the person doesn't understand. When I see Christians at this, nobody speaks in tongues at all. They just go lalalalalalala.

There is an episode in The Loved One by Evelyn Waugh where a vulgar American is trying to build a replica of an English church - St Peter Without The Walls. He doesn't understand that without, in this context, means outside, and builds a church with no walls.

Is something similar going on here? Someone didn't understand what he was reading, and thought that the Bible was referring to some kind of tongue-speech? Like Tuvan throat singing?

Of course, it goes without saying that this is not a genuine religious experience. It is simply peope playing make-believe.

prinz

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

Of course, it goes without saying that this is not a genuine religious experience. It is simply peope playing make-believe.

Like the people you saw on God TV weren't having a religious experience? They were also "faking it" weren't they? One of the preachers you've seen was obviously a "charlatan" based upon a wikipedia page... Perhaps if you have anything to back up any of your assertions the thread may be more worthwhile to furthering your understanding. It does not in fact "go without saying". As it happens I don't understand it either but there have been plenty of threads on this subject.

bakkiesbotha

prinz wrote: »

Like the people you saw on God TV weren't having a religious experience? They were also "faking it" weren't they? One of the preachers you've seen was obviously a "charlatan" based upon a wikipedia page... Perhaps if you have anything to back up any of your assertions the thread may be more worthwhile to furthering your understanding. It does not in fact "go without saying". As it happens I don't understand it either but there have been plenty of threads on this subject.

Well nobody can back up an assertion when it comes to stuff like the existence of God, but that isn't a problem, is it?

Knowledge of human behaviour can back up assertions about human behaviour. So, while I can no more provide scientific proof of my assertions than you can provide such proof of your beliefs, I can put forth a proposition that is founded in the knowledge of human activity that I have so far acquired.

I freely admit I have had little exposure to Christians and their ways, so came to this forum to broaden my knowledge. Did I bring some preconceptions with me? Sure. But I am hoping that they will be challenged, and I will learn something new.

So far, all I have found is defensiveness.

philologos

See these other threads on the topic

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055575229
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055605895

Fanny Cradock

Yes, there is defensiveness. But then again the language that you use in your posts suggests that you might not be here to learn. I'll be watching this thread closely to see that it doesn't develop into another version of your last one.

prinz

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

I freely admit I have had little exposure to Christians and their ways, so came to this forum to broaden my knowledge. Did I bring some preconceptions with me? Sure. But I am hoping that they will be challenged, and I will learn something new.
So far, all I have found is defensiveness.

Judging by your responses to posts from Christians AND non-Christians on the other thread it became obvious you are not here to broaden your knowledge or learn something new. You treat these threads as a soap-box to repeat you preconceptions with little or no back up.

And even with this admitted little exposure you still see fit to make a judgement call on when someone is faking a religious experience, or to call someone a "charlatan" based upon a wikipedia article... hmmm.
With this "little experience" which you have somehow gained, how have you come by a knowledge of Christian behaviour which enables you to make assertions on them?

So, no I don't think you have found defensiveness. What you found was people (Christians and non-Christians) making logical reasoned arguments which disputed your view, and you didn't like it.

bakkiesbotha

prinz wrote: »

And even with this admitted little exposure you still see fit to make a judgement call on when someone is faking a religious experience, or to call someone a "charlatan" based upon a wikipedia article... hmmm.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60912858&postcount=10

I notice in this other thread, you don't raise any objections when the poster PDN calls this same person a fraudulent hypocrite.

prinz

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=60912858&postcount=10
I notice in this other thread, you don't raise any objections when the poster PDN calls this same person a fraudulent hypocrite.

You may also notice I responded once on that thread, with a post aimed directly at the OP. .

bakkiesbotha

I came here to see if anyone would say something like: yes, that kind of silly carry-on gives us all a bad name. We find it embarrassing. True Christianity is about ......

If I had heard that I would have looked favourably upon this forum as an open-minded place, where common sense and plain thinking apply.

Instead, I am finding an atmosphere where anything that can somehow come under the umbrella of "Christianity" is treated as unchallengeable.

Are you all completely unable to tell the difference between the works of God and the works of man?

Especially the very unimaginative man who saw "speaking in tongues" somewhere in the Bible, then thought to himself: wouldn't it be great if I could make that happen in my church? Who then realised it isn't going to happen unless God makes it happen? Who then decided to start pretending it was happening, but didn't even understand what it meant in the first place? And who ultimately ended up propagating a grotesque and offensive mockery of God?

bakkiesbotha

prinz wrote: »

You may also notice I responded once on that thread, with a post aimed directly at the OP. .

I did notice that, which is why I raised it with you. What I noticed was that you didn't have any issue with criticism of Todd Bentley on that thread, but you do on this one.

prinz

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

I came here to see if anyone would say something like: yes, that kind of silly carry-on gives us all a bad name. We find it embarrassing. True Christianity is about ......
If I had heard that I would have looked favourably upon this forum as an open-minded place, where common sense and plain thinking apply.
Instead, I am finding an atmosphere where anything that can somehow come under the umbrella of "Christianity" is treated as unchallengeable.

prinz wrote: »

As it happens I don't understand it either but there have been plenty of threads on this subject.

Second post .....

Turtwig

bakkiesbotha wrote: »

Now, what is this supposed to be about?

..

Of course, it goes without saying that this is not a genuine religious experience. It is simply peope playing make-believe.

Why ask a question that you're going to answer??

Some see those linguistics as a kind of spiritual language - a connection with the divine. That is what it is about, connecting with the divine. If I remember correctly Christianity calls it the 'Language of Angels'.

bakkiesbotha

Malty_T wrote: »

Why ask a question that you're going to answer??

Some see those linguistics as a kind of spiritual language - a connection with the divine. That is what it is about, connecting with the divine. If I remember correctly Christianity calls it the 'Language of Angels'.

Connecting with the divine?

I understood that believers believe that God is always in connection with us. Non-believers think we are never in connection with the divine.

Are you saying that there is a belief that we sometimes are and sometimes are not? Or that we can intesify that connection with this foolish lollygagging?

I would have thought that our level of connection with the divine was up to God and not that we can regulate it at will.

PDN

The troll has left the building.

He/she may be back in 7 days if they can learn to ask questions without deliberately being obnoxious.