What is "speaking in tongues"?

[AugustTherese]

So this guy, in a suit and tie, clean shaven, bible in hand, says to me, " Frezupighezerpfftequefriklifipor " !!
:crazy_face: so I said all I could think of, " Shazbot. Na nu na nu "

This made me laugh out loud. Thank you!!!

 

[KyPerson]

I went to a Catholic prayer service once where people were speaking in tongues (babbling). It frankly, scared me. I am very suspicious of this and don’t think it’s inspiring or edifying.

 

[Augustinian]

Is it a good thing or a bad thing. I think it is mentioned in the New Testament and I think it has something to do with speaking a language you have never spoken before. Am I right?

Sort of, that was certainly my impression when I was first taught about it in religion classes in the late 1960’s.

But in the late 70’s, I watched Pat Robertson discuss it on Cable TV, and it turns that its really a bit different than that, not that “practical” at all. Yes, its speaking new languages, but its languages no one else but Almighty God can understand either. And translation is needed to make sense of it.

 

[TheLittleLady]

 

[rose321]

Is it a good thing or a bad thing. I think it is mentioned in the New Testament and I think it has something to do with speaking a language you have never spoken before. Am I right?

Respectfully opinion only:slightly_smiling_face:they were filled with the Holy Spirit 112 in the room on Pentecost day, were men/woman, Apostles, our Blessed Mother, spiritual knowledge (HS) understanding was given?

Preparing them and flows with Jesus commanding them all to go out and spread the good news?
Speaking maybe in different languages, tongues for there was 3,000 who heard on Pentecost Day, who repented, were baptized as written, is this true? How:thinking: can they hear or understand them if they spoke not in many different languages, to those who had gathered in all walks in life on Pentecost? Which was a yearly Feast Day commanded by God to come and gather before him, from all Nations, traveled down to Jerusalem?

Why speak if one cannot understand what one is saying?
Would be of no value would it?
If others hearing you speak, but do not understand what one is saying?
Could bare no good fruit?
Nor plant good seed?
Would not spread far and wide to the listening ears of others, would it or how could it?

Just opinion right or wrong questioning and examining in what all took place.

Flows in context does it not with?> Far better that I go, for my Father will send you the advocate to teach you, lead you, be head over you the HS? Peace.

 

[tifischer]

It’s when you are overcome by the Holy Spirit to speak or sing…God may speak or sing through you as He wills. Perhaps some people are so overcome by God that their utterances are not intelligible except to Angels or people who are gifted to interpret.

Lots of references to language but what about the fact that the disciples could have spoken in lots of languages but they were overcome to speak in a specific language that would not necessarily be the language of choice…and yet people understood them. It reminds me of God’s power uniting people again…in contrast to the dividing of people in language in the story of the Tower of Babel…God is so good.

 

[rose321]

Maybe not as far as you know. But St. Paul did, and he directed that it not be forbidden.

Respectfully can one give the written source within Scripture where St Paul states such? Not to be forbidden? Thank you kindly. Peace

 

[Medawlinno]

Apparently needs to be done in two posts due to size…

With respect to modern “tongues” –

If the history of the Pentecost movement is examined, one fact is very clear: at some point between 1906 and 1907, Pentecostal/Charismatic leaders were compelled to re-examine the narrative of Scripture with respect to “tongues”. The reason for this re-examination was that it quickly became embarrassingly obvious that their original supposition, xenoglossy, certainly wasn’t what they were producing.

This forced a serious theological dilemma — As a whole, either the Pentecostal movement would have to admit it was wrong about “tongues”, or the modern experience needed to be completely redefined. It seems the latter option was chosen.

The resulting implicit theology however was not a synthesis of revelation and philosophy, but rather a synthesis of trying to make sense of the modern “tongues experience” in light of the narrative of Scripture. A way to legitimize and justify the modern phenomenon by ‘proofing’ it in the Bible. The problem with this however, was an obvious overwhelming absence therein of anything resembling modern tongues.

Call it what you will, but for this group of Christians, the result was a virtual re-definition of scripture with respect to the understanding and justification of modern “tongues”; a re-interpretation of select texts to fit the modern practice/connotation of what ”tongues” was perceived to be.

The most damning result of this re-definition of scripture is the reading into texts of things that are just not there.

The “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an entirely self-created phenomenon. It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing sounds (phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with. It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns and over-simplification of syllable structure. One of the more noticeable results of these processes is that no two ‘speakers’ will ever have the same “tongue”.

With respect to the modern phenomenon, what Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians are doing today, 150 years ago, did not exist as a part of the Christian tradition.

People believe something to be supernatural because they can’t explain it otherwise. There are, of course, many things in religion which must be taken on faith; they can neither be proved nor disproved. “Tongues” however, is not one of these things. It is something very tangible; it is a phenomenon which can be (and has been) studied and analyzed.

There is absolutely nothing that “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot easily be explained in natural and/or linguistic terms.

Conversely, when it comes to something spoken, there are absolutely no Biblical references to “tongues” that do not refer to, and cannot be explained in light of, real rational language(s).

Cont…

 

[Medawlinno]

Continued form previous post…

Modern tongues is just another tool, like chanting or meditation, etc.; a way by which one may establish a closer relationship with the divine and strengthen one’s spiritual path. In this respect (i.e. as the tool it is), it can be quite powerful one to accomplish these goals, as attested by many of those who use it.

Most people who use ‘tongues’ are very keen on describing the ‘experience’; however, when examining the “mechanics” behind it, not so much. Indeed, when a person has experienced tongues, s/he is absolutely convinced as to the ‘scripturalness’ of his/her experience and the correctness of his/her doctrinal beliefs – this, despite the overwhelming scriptural absence of anything remotely akin to it.

Mind you, I’m not doubting or questioning the ‘experience’; as mentioned, glossolalia as the tool that it is, can be very powerful. It is important to note however that this same statement can be made for virtually any other culture that practices glossolalia.

“Tongues” is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience, but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best – the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In some cases, I would argue that it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience.

The common tongues-speakers’ catchphrase of “We don’t know what we’re saying…but it’s profound.” just doesn’t stand up.

Known by many different names, “tongues”, or more accurately “glossolalia”, is practiced by many cultures and religious beliefs from all over the world; it is relatively new to Christianity and certainly not unique to it.

 

[dann]

Yes you are right
. Saint Paul said if someone like you came to a prayer meeting and people were praying in tongues.

They WouldThink You Are CRAZY

 

[semper_catholicus]

No, it needs to be interpretable by someone else (another human), or else you dot know if you have the gift of tongues or not.

 

[lilypadrees]

Authentic speaking in tongues is a gift of God.

Unfortunately, what is considered speaking in tongues today is a bunch of gibberish and just mimicking what the speaker says. (See Marjoe Gortner.)

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Unfortunately, what is considered speaking in tongues today is a bunch of gibberish and just mimicking what the speaker says.

What do you mean by speaker? Like at a conference or something?

 

[lilypadrees]

lilypadrees:

Unfortunately, what is considered speaking in tongues today is a bunch of gibberish and just mimicking what the speaker says.

What do you mean by speaker? Like at a conference or something?

I mean, the person who is allegedly speaking in tongues. That’s why I said (See Marjoe Gortner.)

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Since tongues is considered the least of the gifts I don’t gets why it get so much attention, never mind the negative attention.

Do those who who are wary of the gift of tongues have a problem with the other gifts of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

I looked him up but I didn’t find what you think you thought I should because it doesn’t answer my question. How can it be mimicry when one is alone or when, in a group, everyone sounds different?

 

[lilypadrees]

I don’t know what website(s) you looked at, Bruised_Reed. But Marjoe Gortner has spoken in interviews about how he was able to mimic the “speaking in tongues” and that what he was really doing was just speaking gibberish.

Authentic speaking in tongues is not gibberish. It is a gift of God. None of today’s evangelists/evangelicals have the true gift of speaking in tongues. They all fake it.

 

[PLeeD]

PLeeD:

Maybe not as far as you know. But St. Paul did, and he directed that it not be forbidden.

Respectfully can one give the written source within Scripture where St Paul states such? Not to be forbidden? Thank you kindly. Peace

“39 Wherefore, brethren, be zealous to prophesy; and forbid not to speak with tongues.”

That’s from 1 Corinthians 14 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA).

 

[SacredHeartBassist]

In my opinion the apostles spoke actual languages. What most people do to today is cartoon noises and baby babble

And don’t these people need a translator for it to be speaking in tongues

 

[TheLittleLady]

Do those who who are wary of the gift of tongues have a problem with the other gifts of the Holy Spirit?

First, the Church does not list “tongues” as a gift nor fruit of the Holy Spirit. See the Catechism:

1831 The seven gifts of the Holy Spirit are wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord. They belong in their fullness to Christ, Son of David. They complete and perfect the virtues of those who receive them. They make the faithful docile in readily obeying divine inspirations.

1832 The fruits of the Spirit are perfections that the Holy Spirit forms in us as the first fruits of eternal glory. The tradition of the Church lists twelve of them: "charity, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, generosity, gentleness, faithfulness, modesty, self-control, chastity."

The sort of tongues that our Charismatic friends speak of are of a different breed than the charism mentioned in CCC 2003 “They are at the service of charity which builds up the Church.”. The sort of “fluid vocalizing of speech-like syllables that lack any readily comprehended meaning” tongues that came from the Azusa Street Revival become a pinnacle of Christianity to those who have taken up the practice. More of a litmus test for holiness than anything.

Those who ask rational questions, who believe that the chrism given at Pentecost and that has been documented with some Saints is xenolalia are shouted down as somehow lesser.

Heck, I ask why those who take Mark 16 as the proof text don’t also drink poison and take up rattlesnakes?

Do you believe that the Appalacian snake-handling Pentecostals are demonstrating the sort of holiness we should emulate?