Exactly.
Of course, I have no problem with any of that.
And that you can have problems with that & I don’t is what makes America great!
I disagree that either is “scandalous.” When heard in full context, Wright’s sermon was just the normal scolding of the congregation and community that all preachers engage in. Tirades about America’s moral decay are commonplace in right wing churches. Falwell and Robertson even said that America deserved 9/11. It was only because Wright was black (and because Fox News cut and pasted his words so as to intentially contrive an unhinged and “anti-American” caricature of Wright), that people became alarmed about it. Imagine if he had said America deserved 9/11.
The speaking in tongues isn’t scandalous either (and I’ve been in pentecostal churches and seen it…even tried it, just for the hell of it). It’s an expression of elevated religious emotion – in the throes of what is sometimes called an “ecstatic state” by academics. It’s harmless, if not always genuine (there’s always the people who are faking it, as I’m sure you know. That same lady is in every Pentacostal church).
Still, the McCain campaign appears to want to distance Palin from the practice because it looks crazy and embarrassing to outsiders. They might want to be careful about that. They could end up offending part of their base if they try to separate her too much.
Now picking up snakes and drinking poison…that IS crazy.
I think that they are less concerned about how it looks to the middle than to the RR base. This is a group that would’ve had a hard time with a Morman too.
It seems a tempest in a tea pot to me. Believe whatever you wish but don’t expect it to be respected by everyone. Everything is subject to ridicule and examination.
Well, I’ve never been to a Pentecostal service but I saw one in Borat – presumably authentic – and the speaking-in-tongues thing appears to be . . . not harmless. Just a gut impression, I can’t put my finger on any way it is harmful. It’s just effin’ scary.
When you’re in there and you know the people, it’s not so much :eek: as just :rolleyes:. I believe that some people get into genuinely elevated mental states, but a whole bunch of them just look like they’re trying to impress each other with how “full of the Spirit” they are. There’s a lot of exaggeration, theatrics and one-upsmanship going on. They’re not really as out of it as they look. They’re all totally awake and alert and aware.
I’m trying to think of an analogy and the best I can come up with is being around inexperienced drug users smoking a little bit of pot or drinking a little bit of beer and then trying o make a big show of how messed up they are maybe even convincing themselves that its true), when they’ve barely done enough to give a mouse a light buzz.
Anecdotally, but as pertains to an anaolgy, my pentecostal-raised buddy described it in terms of fans at a football game. Some fans cheer a bit, wear a jersey or a hat, but generally blend into the crowd. However, some fans go full-on into costuming, face-painting, and performance art. At heart, they are all just fans of the team and none is any more or less silly at root than any other.
I mean, once you’re in a church, you have bought into the concept. How odd is it for you to vocalize the Spirit while you’re there?
Klaatu barada nikto.
So, to be clear, you have no problem with the potential VP disrespecting the borders between church and state?
That can mean a lot of things. Specifics, please? By most Doper standards, I disrespect those borders also.
RE people faking it, oh, I know that! In fact, I consider Robert Tilton’s fake tongues to be way more offensive than any cartoon could be. As for “that same lady”, there are actually two types. One who is deliberately faking it, and one who doesn’t know she’s faking it. In my church, the latter was the “Mahiah Mashiah Makial Lady”. And she wasn’t doing in softly to herself. She was always speaking out during the “wait on the Spirit” time in the service & her utterance was always a variation of those same three words.
I’m right with you on the snakes & poison.
John Belushi, in Continental Divide: “They’re only 25 cents…”
Those two categories cover everyone, right?
Speaking in Tongues: Articulating in a “language” that doesn’t exist.
How does one not fake talking in a fake language?
Dude, they are Pentecostals, not Klingons!
You know what offends me, as a Christian? When people claim that spouting incomprehensible gibberish is “speaking in tongues”. Speaking in tongues, as the Bible describes the Apostles doing at Pentecost, means speaking such that everyone can understand you. If that were to happen, everyone would hail it as a miracle: Surely, only someone with a special connection to the supernatural would be able to pull that one off. Speaking such that nobody can understand you, though, is not only not a Gift of the Holy Spirit, it’s the exact opposite of speaking in tongues.
Sheesh, even the guys who write the D&D rules can understand this. Do you really want to advertise the fact that your church understands scripture less than the D&D books do?
I Corinthians 14- Paul recognizes a sort of speaking in tongues which will probably not be understood. He does not condemn or forbid it, but he does give guidelines for its use.
It’s not really like speaking a language, it’s more of a non-semantic or “meta-semantic” kind of verbal expression. It’s definitely an expression of genuine heightened emotion (when it’s genuine), but the subject is not attempting to simulate language. They’re using the tools of language (voice, tongue, etc.) to articulate feelings which do not have words. For lack of being able to think of a better analogy, I’ll say it’s something like scat-singing. It’s an expression of pure emotion which is verbal – or at least vocal – but not semantic.
YES!
Dio explains a religious phenomenon and I am in full agreement.
The Seventh Trumpet has sounded. See you all in the Rapture.
And I am in understanding … and yet I think “religious phenomenon” is a little off. Phenomenon? Kinda. If an emotional reaction can be a phenomenon. Religious? No, except for the context. That is, I pay no credence to any sort of divine intervention to kick of the scat-fest, as it were.