Milton

Well, they are supposed to have one meaning only. A Christian is one who subscribes to the teachings of Jesus Christ, as a whole.

A fundamentalist is one who believes in the fundamental principles, or the practice of religion as close as possible to the one prescribed in Scripture.

But you have some who would like to say that they are Christians, despite their denial of Jesus' teachings. These may continue to label themselves as Christians, but they don't fit the description of one. Since Christianity relies on the Bible, anyone denying the reliability of the Bible cannot qualify as a Christian.

Well, I am considered a heretic among most trinitarians. So, if going by their idea of tradition, I don't qualify as a Christian. But according to the Bible, I qualify. There is no requirement in the Bible for me to believe in a Triune God--the only requirement is that I believe that Jesus is the Son of God (as far as Jesus' nature goes). There is no connection between been the Son of God and being the God himself.

Furthermore, the Trinity itself is not supported by Scripture, not even hinted at.

It was not my intention that you think that I denied that "speaking in tongues" is a gift of the Spirit. My statement was that this particular claim, that these people are actually speaking in tongues, is false. The letter to the Corinthians describes much of this, from chapter 12-14. Here is one verse,

1 Corinthians 14:26-28
What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has a psalm, has a teaching, has a revelation, has a tongue, has an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. 27 If anyone speaks in a tongue, it should be by two or at the most three, and each in turn, and one must interpret; 28 but if there is no interpreter, he must keep silent in the church; and let him speak to himself and to God.

Since we believe that the Bible is inspired, and that Paul was writing the things of the Spirit, then the above rule must be followed. If not followed, then it is not the Spirit that is doing it. This is just one of the differences between this modern 'speaking in tongues' thing, and the speaking in tongues of the Bible.

The greatest problem here is that speaking in tongues is supposed to edify, and it only edifies when there is understanding--which comes by way of interpretation. Paul also wrote that no more than one should speak at a time, and only two or three per meeting. How many do you think do it in a charismatic meeting? All do it. Yet, no interpretation. Some will argue that this only applies if they have a message to give. But the Scripture also says what happens if there is no one to interpret a message...keep it to yourself!

Anyway, this is just a couple of the problems I have with this form of speaking in tongues. I don't doubt that there could be some legitimate speakers, somewhere in the world. But so far, the ones I have encountered have been false.

EDIT: I just wanted to clarify that part where I say "somewhere" above. I do not believe this particular speaking in tongues (of the Chrismatics), but maybe there is some other group, not part of the Word of Faith/Charismatic/Pentecostal movement, that actually practices speaking in tongues (the one spoken of in the Bible).

Doctor X

"Here, at the Third Church of the Holy Roller Christ, we know that only the unbelievers need to fear!

Granted, it seems that a lot of our flock have turned out to be unbelievers--currently 8 dead, 13 wounded, and 4 missing-but presumed ascended. . . ."

--J.D.

Gawdawful

An absolute atheistic epiphany came to me during a Christian music concert Jesus freak rally type event when the close friend I went there with began speaking in tongues using the same fake Spanish words I'd heard him use before when he was joking around mimicking that foreign language. Up to that point, I was probably as fully indoctrinated in Southern Baptist Paulism as a 16 year old can be, however, this event was Methodist, rather than SBC. At that moment, it dawned on me, they're all faking it, even the ones that delude themselves into believing they're not. There seemed to be some serious trance-like state most people there were in at the time. I know what they felt because I'd felt it just moments before, kind of a connectedness, a feeling of belonging, of well-being, brought on by words and song, which I now believe are used in a certain rhythm which induces this state of mind. Listen to TV evangelists, they all sound so similar in terms of rhythm and cadence, almost a sing-song lilt that can be pretty hypnotic. I wonder if they teach this at seminary, or is it just imitated.

Thank you Jesus freaks for your glossolalia, you led me right to atheism.

Warren in Oklahoma, near Tulsa, the Buckle of the Bible Belt (TM)

ex-xian

I think this is a good summation of supernatural manifestations. But I would say that it's all fake, rather than saying that they are all faking it. To me, "faking it" implies consciously trying to decieve someone. I think that the vast majority actually think that something supernatural is happening.

Some really flaky groups sing the same chorus over and over for hours at a time, accompanied by "mood" music. I know b/c I visited some of these place when I was a seeker. The feelings would be identical, in some cases, to what I feel when I've taken narcotic medicines. I think that people vastly underestimate the ability of the mind to affect the body, and the power of suggestion.

JEST2ASK

Thanks for the additional input ... However

John 1-3 : In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him. nothing was made that was made [emphasis mine].

This and other such issues further convince me that "Doctrine" is subjective ... even if one "assumes" the validity of the Bible

I also want to thank you for the depth of explaination RE Speaking in tongues

:notworthy :notworthy

JEST2ASK

True That

JEST2ASK

* but presumed ascended *

Opera Nut

Yeah, Warren, I feel for ya. This shitfight I described happened in Tulsa and BF had to get the hell outta there, he was too bright to be able to stand it so he left the cow and the two kids b/c she refused to leave Mommy. Actually it was in a new yuppie palace in Broken Arrow. If I never go back there it will be way too soon.....

One thing that amazed me is that they don't seem to have any liberal protestants up there. The Methodists up there were fundies, and the U of Tulsa, which is supposedly Presbyterian, had a fundie physics dept, according to the BF who got his Masters degree there. When even the Presbyterians are fruitcakes they got a real problem.

I got my BA from a Presbyterian school in Texas (Trinity University) and got an excellent education, including some very non-doctrinal and interesting religion courses.

souperman

Hi again all, just replying to thank you for your explanation and history on the speaking in tongues.

The history about the topic is interesting, especially the fact that it dates back to the time of the Oracles. So does this mean that Paul was just copying a earlier form of communication with the gods, and using it for his own version of beliefs?

Biff the unclean

No, Paul may very well be historic. The author who was writing these stories used pieces from several different Hellenistic religions to make christianity. There is really nothing original, not even the title "Christ."