Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'd say that all parents "brainwash" their children. Christians, Hindus. Buddhists, Atheists, Agnostics, whoever, teach their children what they believe concerning God, what is right or wrong, true of false, and many other things. Most parents also understand that when children grow up they will ultimately decide for themselves what to believe despite past influences.
Then I'm sorry you have such an abysmal understanding of brainwashing.
It helps to understand how I approach a reading of these mentions of it in the NT. Actually, Paul's account should be taken as the earliest mention of it, not what Luke wrote in Acts many years later. I see Paul's speaking of it around 53 CE, in direct response to his actual encounter with an actual practice within a contemporary church of his time he had direct dealings with, as opposed to Luke's later story of something he had no direct experience of, written at least 50 years after the supposed event of the Pentecost event around 34 CE.
But what I mentioned in the earliest mention of it in 1 Corinthians by Paul clearly puts it outside the "intelligible language" camp. He explicitly calls it speaking "mysteries" by the Spirit. In other words, they are not known languages where anyone can understand them. He explicitly states that they "build up" the person doing it. It's not because that person understands the linguistic meaning of the words. It's because they are speaking "to God", "mysteries" "by the Spirit". The activity itself engages the person on a spiritual level between God and themselves, and as a result they are "building themselves up", being edified by the spiritual activity itself, like prayer does. (Prayer is not for God, nor for the benefit of others, but for the benefit of the person who is doing the praying).
This is curious since Paul says, " So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind?" That doesn't sound like it will convince them of anything other than you are mad!
He then continues, "But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all". In other words, if someone is speaking inspired thoughts from the heart, in known languages, it does much more to convince the heart of another than pulling magic rabbits out of hats. When people enter into a state where they express these things in glossolalia, it is all of the above. But it's not for the benefit of others, but the one praying.
Oh yes, the whole "interpretation" thing!
Yeah. Color me utterly unconvinced. What I find interesting is how many of these "interpretations" come out in King James English. Way back in the day, I was like "huh?" Don't get me started. "Yeah, verily I say unto thee.... I have heard thy prayers, etc." Except of course for the verses I cited.
Except of course for where Paul says explicitly, "He that speaks in an unknown tongue edifies himself", 1 Cor, 14.4. Very clearly, you do have private practice here being spoken about.
In the congregation, which is the whole point of what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor. 14. "In the church". He was contrasting it with private practice.
This is all very true, to a point. Enculturation is a normal part of all childhood development. But I think there are degrees of normal that occur, and degrees of sickness as well, taking it to extremes to the point it damages the psychology of children, abusive, obsessed, controlling, and so forth. You cannot discount that, nor ignore it in the mix. Very much of my points have been about seeing things on a scale, as a matter of degrees, rather than black and white evaluations. I'm sure you can see this if you look at it.
The stories become a launching pad to teach new understandings against. This is really what makes myth myth. It has legs, and can be reimagined and reinvented and reinterpreted again and again to adapt itself to speak to the evolving situations it finds itself in. To insist upon them having only one correct understanding and interpretation, as if they are matters of historical facts that cannot be reimagined, strips them of their power to communicate truth. There is a difference between truths and facts.
Luke's story reads very much like the telling of myth, at the very best it is not a firsthand account, and it stands as starkly different than Paul's where he is directly speaking to not only what he was seeing happening in his time in Corinth, but he was additionally speaking from his own personal experience as someone who spoke in tongues himself. This is a case of radically different witnesses and authority of the real events happening here. Paul's account is in fact earliest and first hand, not Luke's later telling of a story from who-knows what source, with who knows what embellishments. I definitely read Luke's story as mythic, and it does not fit any credible example the common phenomenon of glossolalia in religious practices. Miracle language acquisition is mythic, like Neo in The Matrix learning how to fly a helicopter or learning Kung Fu after it being uploaded to his brain from a computer in 5 seconds flat.
Exactly, because Paul has already said that the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the profit of all ( 1 Cor. 12:7) and he continues with...Therefore let him who speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret.(1 Cor. 14:13 ) and What is the conclusion then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will also pray with the understanding. I will sing with the spirit, and I will also sing with the understanding.(1 Cor. 14:15).
I see no contrast being presented by Paul. Of course he was being edified if his spirit was praising God. But the fact that he or one speaking in tongues is edified in their spirit is no proof that he was speaking of a "private practice" because the whole content of his message involves the church and the impact on others, including unbelievers who may come in, therefore the importance of interpretation and using the gift properly.
I could cite numerous examples of the mythic content. Here's one that just popped into my head as I read your objection.
You don't think Luke had his own points of view? There is clear evidence that he ended up with different theological points of view than Paul as is evidenced by the narrative of Acts and Paul's letters. But even for argument's sake that Luke was nothing but a Paul Clone, in fact somehow all the Apostles were moving miraculously (aka, magically) in absolute theological lock step without any normal human points of view, I still would not take Paul's interpretation of tongues and what they are about as the final word on anything.
I would disagree it allows you freedom to make of it what you will. The music they insert in the background of the scenes is pretty ominous and suggestive, which I found quite funny.
Sure, even without the music the scenes they show are pretty uncomfortable viewing. Still, the music takes it up a notch, and I don't know what kind of Christian the creator is, maybe he's a traditional who has an agenda against charismatics haha
It would have been nice to see the source footage, or ideally go to the camp itself, if I were in America. Just using the atmospheric music already tells me they're trying to sell it in a particular way.
