There was a time in my life that I heard of a man called Paramhansa Yogananda.
I read in his "autobiography of a yogi", that he spoke in front an audience of differernt languages in his native tongue and all there his audience... heard him in their own tongue!
]heh i suppose that does not matter~~~
"But the Word is clear about those seeking signs."
quote: But the Word is clear about those seeking signs.
What about those seeking proof? Of any religious/spiritual claim?
Like we all did at varying points in our lives when we finally left/challenged TWI and its so-called 'authority'.
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of this idea that the demand of proof to out of the ordinary claims and spiritual/religious 'truths' is to be demeaned as somehow 'evil', immoral, arrogant and defiant of God, refusal to admit to a Higher Authority, yadayadayada, ad nauseum. Particularly since it was that same 'demanding of proof and validity' mindset that helped us get out of abusive situations like TWI!
More and more of us (like yours truly) are becoming free thinking skeptics, bound to no idiotology--err, ideology or orthodoxy. And if we demand a 'sign', proof, or reason for something that is touted as a spiritual incident, and some religious folks take offense to it, ..... Tough! Deal with it.
I suppose JAL needs to know what he thinks about his thoughts and for some leagal or self righteous reason he sends himself in the forms a Jeff and others.
I understand that back in 1972 a 'linguist' named: Dr. William J. Samarin 'studied' Speaking in tongues and considered it "other than real languages".
Having served on-board various subs as the Protestant Lay-Leader, I have attended training at the hands of Navy Chaplains and I have looked it up in their librarys (Xenoglossia, Glossolalia, pseudo-language. The 'professional' Chaplains certainly don't believe in Speaking in tongues.
I have to tell you though, of an experience that I once had.
In 1980, after one patrol, I was having doubts as to reality of Speaking-In-Tongues. I went on a roadtrip on my motorcycle for a couple weeks, during which time I spent a lot of time in prayer and Tongues. During that drive I 'developed' multiple tongues, a real fluency in multiple tongues. When I returned to my duty station, and went to a fellowship, I was called upon to Speak-In-Tongues and Interpret. I used one of my 'new' languages. One of the guys in the fellowship was crying when I finished the Interpretation. He started laughing and got up, he was terribly excited. He told us that my tongue was 'Northern Mandarin', a launguage that he knew and spoke. He gave us a word-for-word translation of what I had spoken in Mandarin, and while the Word-for-word did not match, the message did. My 'interpretation' was like a para-phrasing of the exact word-for-word.
Overall that cinched it for me. It was what I needed to really beleive that Speaking-In-Tongues is real and from G-d.
Our Heavenly Father does different things for different people. He works with each of us differently. This was how He worked with me to convince me.
kewl
CONvince you of what?
Tah de dah~~~ my tounge is angels beyound your men~~~ hmm ~~~ eh?
It was proof to me. At the time, I didn't need proof, wasn't looking for any. I still don't. I considered it an extra special blessing for myself at the time, and still do. Something God did for me of his own prerogative to bless me because I already believe, not so I _would _ believe. I still look at it that way.
To people who need proof? Hey, I can't convince you, it's between you and God what you believe.
But the Word is clear about those seeking signs.
Catcup, you don't need to defend what you saw, the Word backs you up. It's either the language of men or of angels. Some people will never believe even if they saw it.
By the way was it edification to the church or was it praise to God. That seems to be the essense of this thread. I still have trouble believing it could be God telling you to praise him when we have a heart and mind to do that from our own heart. I just cannot buy into praising God in the interpretation. So, that is why I asked about the language you heard and the interpretation, it would clarify something for me.
"He gave us a word-for-word translation of what I had spoken in Mandarin, and while the Word-for-word did not match, the message did. My 'interpretation' was like a para-phrasing of the exact word-for-word."
So was it praise to God or was it edification to the body of believers present? I am still trying to clarify JAL's position on tongues being praise to God and it would help if you could remember.
Seems to me that when Jesus Christ walked the earth he ran into plenty seeking a sign. If memory serves, He didn't pander to their desires, and even reserved the real meaty truth for those who trusted Him. In other words, even He didn't try to prove anything to the skeptics.
Here's something that I'd like those who say that they don't have to prove anything, or are even a little annoyed at some of the skepticism, to consider:
On one hand you say that these experiences were for you - personal, subjective, private - not for "the masses"; that it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.
Then you go ahead and post them on a discussion forum, and are miffed when people discuss them. Often they are presented in repsonse to someone's skepticism and doubt, as if your story settles it all.
I suppose it's your privelege to become indignant when someone expresses doubt in your account, but why should it surprise you? It's not always a manifestation of unbelief or atheism or secular humanism either, sometimes the questioning is just some honest "wanting to know what's what".
If I hear a story about how some miraculous thing has supposedly happened, the intelligent thing to do is question. If something supposedly miraculous happens to me, it's STILL the intelligent thing to do! When all my questions have been answered (and only I can determine what those are) I'll believe.
...and before anyone is tempted to think or type that I'll never believe, that nothing will convince me...
Just because I ask questions, just because I doubt, just because I'm a skeptic, just because I refuse to follow blindly, doesn't mean that I don't have faith, doesn't mean that there aren't things that I believe in, doesn't mean that I haven't experienced apparently supernatural events.
Maybe more so than those who claim to be so, by right of some "holier-than-thou-whatever-experience" that might have happened to them years ago, or even last night for that matter!!
Maybe to make it more analogous I should have said "Neither did Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, or Buddha."
If a person feels that looking for proof or verification is somehow devious or ill-mannered, boy there's a LOT of stuff they'll have to pay obeisance to. Flying saucers, crop circles, telekinesis, ESP, cold fusion, miraculous healings, and the list goes on.
It must be true if someone experienced it, isn't it? I mean, who am I to question the validity of anyone's experience? Why should one be so recalcitrant as to require proof?
A good person would simply accept it at face value, right?
..."Catcup, you don't need to defend what you saw, the Word backs you up. It's either the language of men or of angels. Some people will never believe even if they saw it."...
LornaDoone ,
What have you seen all your adventures this Word that would be so remarkable a claim that would back up CatCup?
So you saying that you saw "IT"? What did you see?
I know if I were a country bumpkin that was either scared of SIT or was apparently unable to perform and fell back on the Hebrew that I knew to get by at meetings...(Yes, yes, I do believe it is possible to be both country bumpkin and speaker of hebrew)...and was brought before Ralph Dubofski (is that how his name is spelled)
...Keep in mind this is the guy that taught the intermidiate class with strict "not too long, too short, too may breaks, must be proportionate to sit, must be this, be that, and not that etc etc"...
...also keeping in mind the fear that was instilled in many a "believer" back in our TWI days...
I don't think I would admit my fakery in front of him or the two "witnesses" when called on the rug.
Did your Northern Maderin speaking friend interpret your tongue by say..."now you said, 'Mow ting dae lo ping', which means My child I love you dearly....etc". Or did he just say, "word for word your tounge meant 'My Child I love you dearly'".
In other words, did he speak you whole tongue back to you or just interpret it for you?
Now I'm no linguist, but, I have seen enough Hong Kong flicks to know that what Dubofski said about your interpretation being relatively the same length and having relatively the same breaks as your tongue is total bunk.
..."Catcup, you don't need to defend what you saw, the Word backs you up. It's either the language of men or of angels. Some people will never believe even if they saw it."...
LornaDoone ,
What have you seen all your adventures this Word that would be so remarkable a claim that would back up CatCup?
So you saying that you saw "IT"? What did you see?
If Catcup "heard" with her ears, then obviously she "saw" the person with her eyes as they spoke in tongues, duh, unless she was on the moon at the time.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
13
13
13
43
Popular Days
Nov 11
23
Nov 6
22
Nov 7
13
Oct 31
10
Top Posters In This Topic
TheInvisibleDan 13 posts
George Aar 13 posts
socks 13 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame 43 posts
Popular Days
Nov 11 2004
23 posts
Nov 6 2004
22 posts
Nov 7 2004
13 posts
Oct 31 2004
10 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Speak In Tongues
arha e mo ko la ingw asomnetoa tome esh con ne tor sha a mo te~~~
now then should i interpret the tongue?
Damn I should be a greeter at walmart
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
There was a time in my life that I heard of a man called Paramhansa Yogananda.
I read in his "autobiography of a yogi", that he spoke in front an audience of differernt languages in his native tongue and all there his audience... heard him in their own tongue!
]heh i suppose that does not matter~~~
"But the Word is clear about those seeking signs."
absolutely shriner
shriners were infiltrated by the illuminnati~~~
do you know this Galen?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
What about those seeking proof? Of any religious/spiritual claim?
Like we all did at varying points in our lives when we finally left/challenged TWI and its so-called 'authority'.
Frankly, I'm sick and tired of this idea that the demand of proof to out of the ordinary claims and spiritual/religious 'truths' is to be demeaned as somehow 'evil', immoral, arrogant and defiant of God, refusal to admit to a Higher Authority, yadayadayada, ad nauseum. Particularly since it was that same 'demanding of proof and validity' mindset that helped us get out of abusive situations like TWI!
More and more of us (like yours truly) are becoming free thinking skeptics, bound to no idiotology--err, ideology or orthodoxy. And if we demand a 'sign', proof, or reason for something that is touted as a spiritual incident, and some religious folks take offense to it, ..... Tough! Deal with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
hi all,
just passin thru again...
imo, this form of "miraculous dialogos" is a bit more generic than canonical thinking will generally allow.
though, by "generic," i don't mean common.
I mean Generic.
Kinda. imo, a fool seeks em for proof. simply cuz they can't find em.
that the wise doesn't seek does not mean the wise don't see them.
the wise simply don't have to waste their time seeking.
cuz they have already found them.
everywhere. already. in all things. as usual.
they might even yawn at them.
or sing them praises all day long.
for what its worth,
peace...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Yo Sir G~~~
Your Karmaa displays an handsome gent seducing or loving a woman ~~~ i suppose both of you are in love?
~~~ or with yourself
for what it's worth~~~ 10~4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
Not to degrade the man, but he was a country bumpkin type with barely a high school diploma, and a thick southern drawl.
~~~
sure cat
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
I suppose JAL needs to know what he thinks about his thoughts and for some leagal or self righteous reason he sends himself in the forms a Jeff and others.
Loved the Devils Bathroom JAL~~~
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Jeff, bless you man.
I understand that back in 1972 a 'linguist' named: Dr. William J. Samarin 'studied' Speaking in tongues and considered it "other than real languages".
Having served on-board various subs as the Protestant Lay-Leader, I have attended training at the hands of Navy Chaplains and I have looked it up in their librarys (Xenoglossia, Glossolalia, pseudo-language. The 'professional' Chaplains certainly don't believe in Speaking in tongues.
I have to tell you though, of an experience that I once had.
In 1980, after one patrol, I was having doubts as to reality of Speaking-In-Tongues. I went on a roadtrip on my motorcycle for a couple weeks, during which time I spent a lot of time in prayer and Tongues. During that drive I 'developed' multiple tongues, a real fluency in multiple tongues. When I returned to my duty station, and went to a fellowship, I was called upon to Speak-In-Tongues and Interpret. I used one of my 'new' languages. One of the guys in the fellowship was crying when I finished the Interpretation. He started laughing and got up, he was terribly excited. He told us that my tongue was 'Northern Mandarin', a launguage that he knew and spoke. He gave us a word-for-word translation of what I had spoken in Mandarin, and while the Word-for-word did not match, the message did. My 'interpretation' was like a para-phrasing of the exact word-for-word.
Overall that cinched it for me. It was what I needed to really beleive that Speaking-In-Tongues is real and from G-d.
Our Heavenly Father does different things for different people. He works with each of us differently. This was how He worked with me to convince me.
kewl
CONvince you of what?
Tah de dah~~~ my tounge is angels beyound your men~~~ hmm ~~~ eh?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LornaDoone
Catcup, you don't need to defend what you saw, the Word backs you up. It's either the language of men or of angels. Some people will never believe even if they saw it.
By the way was it edification to the church or was it praise to God. That seems to be the essense of this thread. I still have trouble believing it could be God telling you to praise him when we have a heart and mind to do that from our own heart. I just cannot buy into praising God in the interpretation. So, that is why I asked about the language you heard and the interpretation, it would clarify something for me.
thanks
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LornaDoone
"He gave us a word-for-word translation of what I had spoken in Mandarin, and while the Word-for-word did not match, the message did. My 'interpretation' was like a para-phrasing of the exact word-for-word."
So was it praise to God or was it edification to the body of believers present? I am still trying to clarify JAL's position on tongues being praise to God and it would help if you could remember.
thanks,
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DrtyDzn
Seems to me that when Jesus Christ walked the earth he ran into plenty seeking a sign. If memory serves, He didn't pander to their desires, and even reserved the real meaty truth for those who trusted Him. In other words, even He didn't try to prove anything to the skeptics.
Jerry
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
"He didn't try to prove anything to the skeptics."
And neither did P.T.Barnum, Rich DeVoss, or Ron Popeil,
so?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Thanks socks, good explanation, good alliteration too
:D--> I appreciate it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Here's something that I'd like those who say that they don't have to prove anything, or are even a little annoyed at some of the skepticism, to consider:
On one hand you say that these experiences were for you - personal, subjective, private - not for "the masses"; that it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.
Then you go ahead and post them on a discussion forum, and are miffed when people discuss them. Often they are presented in repsonse to someone's skepticism and doubt, as if your story settles it all.
I suppose it's your privelege to become indignant when someone expresses doubt in your account, but why should it surprise you? It's not always a manifestation of unbelief or atheism or secular humanism either, sometimes the questioning is just some honest "wanting to know what's what".
If I hear a story about how some miraculous thing has supposedly happened, the intelligent thing to do is question. If something supposedly miraculous happens to me, it's STILL the intelligent thing to do! When all my questions have been answered (and only I can determine what those are) I'll believe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
...and before anyone is tempted to think or type that I'll never believe, that nothing will convince me...
Just because I ask questions, just because I doubt, just because I'm a skeptic, just because I refuse to follow blindly, doesn't mean that I don't have faith, doesn't mean that there aren't things that I believe in, doesn't mean that I haven't experienced apparently supernatural events.
But the questions aren't going away.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Oak -- news flash -- yer a believer!!
:D-->
Maybe more so than those who claim to be so, by right of some "holier-than-thou-whatever-experience" that might have happened to them years ago, or even last night for that matter!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Weren't they in it for the bucks?? Here on earth? Not "treasure in Heavan"??
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Yeah, they were in it for the bucks (I guess).
Maybe to make it more analogous I should have said "Neither did Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, or Buddha."
If a person feels that looking for proof or verification is somehow devious or ill-mannered, boy there's a LOT of stuff they'll have to pay obeisance to. Flying saucers, crop circles, telekinesis, ESP, cold fusion, miraculous healings, and the list goes on.
It must be true if someone experienced it, isn't it? I mean, who am I to question the validity of anyone's experience? Why should one be so recalcitrant as to require proof?
A good person would simply accept it at face value, right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Catcup
Thanks Lorna.
What Socks said.
And what my Gestalt professor said.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheSongRemainsTheSame
..."Catcup, you don't need to defend what you saw, the Word backs you up. It's either the language of men or of angels. Some people will never believe even if they saw it."...
LornaDoone ,
What have you seen all your adventures this Word that would be so remarkable a claim that would back up CatCup?
So you saying that you saw "IT"? What did you see?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I know if I were a country bumpkin that was either scared of SIT or was apparently unable to perform and fell back on the Hebrew that I knew to get by at meetings...(Yes, yes, I do believe it is possible to be both country bumpkin and speaker of hebrew)...and was brought before Ralph Dubofski (is that how his name is spelled)
...Keep in mind this is the guy that taught the intermidiate class with strict "not too long, too short, too may breaks, must be proportionate to sit, must be this, be that, and not that etc etc"...
...also keeping in mind the fear that was instilled in many a "believer" back in our TWI days...
I don't think I would admit my fakery in front of him or the two "witnesses" when called on the rug.
But then...that's just me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Galen,
Did your Northern Maderin speaking friend interpret your tongue by say..."now you said, 'Mow ting dae lo ping', which means My child I love you dearly....etc". Or did he just say, "word for word your tounge meant 'My Child I love you dearly'".
In other words, did he speak you whole tongue back to you or just interpret it for you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Of the few things I do know...
Now I'm no linguist, but, I have seen enough Hong Kong flicks to know that what Dubofski said about your interpretation being relatively the same length and having relatively the same breaks as your tongue is total bunk.
Sum ting wong!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LornaDoone
If Catcup "heard" with her ears, then obviously she "saw" the person with her eyes as they spoke in tongues, duh, unless she was on the moon at the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.