NationStates Jolt Archive

What do you know about Pentecostals and the Christians who practice speaking in tongues? Ever been to one of their services? Ever been a member or done it yourself. Ever wondered if they were ‘faking it’ when they were doing it?

Brain scan research reveals that Pentecostals speaking in tongues are not ‘faking’ it, whatever is happening, their brains are responding to the event differently then normal prayer or meditation…

So the comparison state here was doing gospel-singing worship. They were up and about, dancing around, singing in English, compared to up and about, dancing around, singing but singing in tongues. One of the most interesting findings we saw in this particular study – These are four slices of the brain while they were singing, so these are just different levels through the brain –

…

… the same person, now speaking in tongues. If you look in the frontal lobe area, where the arrows are pointing, as I toggle back and forth, you can see there’s a lot less activity in the frontal lobes when the person is speaking in tongues. So when they started to speak in tongues, and we see this in all the people we studied, their frontal lobe activity goes down.

This actually makes a lot of sense because in contrast to the meditators and nuns, who are focusing on doing something, the way the Pentecostals describe speaking in tongues is they are not focusing on doing it; they let it happen. They just let their own will go away and allow this whole thing to take place. They don’t feel like they’re in control of this process. And the findings on the scan at least support the phenomenological experience they have.

…

Just to finish up this particular slide, the other thing we have found in almost all our subjects is the thalamus becomes much more active; you can see it’s much brighter during speaking in tongues. It was also much brighter in activity during prayer and meditation. The thalamus is a big relay in the brain; it allows all of our sensory information to come up to our brain. Because of that, I think, it makes sense that these are very active states for people, and, therefore, we see the thalamus reflecting that. In fact, the only practice where we saw a decrease in the thalamus, which I’m not going to present here today, was transcendental meditation, but that’s really much more of a relaxation process, at least for the individuals who were doing it for us. So I think that may explain why that was a little different.

…

In our studies, we found – going back to the thalamus that we talked about earlier – that people who were long-term practitioners and meditators tended to have a lot more asymmetry: One side of their thalamus was much more active than the other, compared to the normal population of people who are not long-term meditators. I don’t know what that means per se, but it seems to suggest that the ways in which we process information about the world might be fundamentally different.

…

Then when we looked at the scans – to the second part of your question – we saw a lot of different things going on. To me, one of the most important – Going back to the fact that the frontal lobes go down: Normally they are active when we are purposely making speech, when we are purposely in control of our behaviors. So the fact that it was lower during the speaking in tongues, I think, is consistent with their subjective description of what happens. This sound, this vocalization coming out of them is not under their control, per se. They just allow themselves to have this thing happen, and then blam, out it comes.

That is consistent with their experience. It is a very emotional experience, which I think has something to do with some of the changes we saw. Barbara mentioned the basal ganglia, which are part of our emotional responses, so the limbic system changed to some degree. Also, the thalamus got very active, suggesting it is a pretty active state for them. Of course, when you see them afterwards, and they’re exhausted, you can understand why that has such an impact on them.

In all the studies I do, I primarily focus on what are the physiological changes and are they associated with what the person is describing? To just pick up on what David said, part of what has separated us somewhat from others who are more atheistic is my ultimate conclusion that it’s not the brain that’s creating the experience. That may be the case. But it also may be the case that this is the way God interacts with us.

There’s no way to tell just on the basis of the brain scan what exactly is the reality of the experience. I think it enables us to explore that. I think it may provide more information for that. But we have a long way to go before we can say something more definitive.
Linky (http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=185)

What do you think?

Side topic: that link leads to a very large transcript of an event that took place on May 5th in Key West Florida. It had two speakers and then a huge question and answer session (you'll find it by scrolling down to the bottom half). Very, very informative stuff regardless of your personal religious or irreligious perspective. I think NSGers will find it interesting.

tl;dr, saw source, couldn't be fucked.

I've always been a little bit torn on this one. On the one hand, as a Christian, I believe that speaking in tongues is possible. On the other hand, on the few times I've been to churches where it has happened (always fundamentalist churches), I've thought the people were nutters.

So... they're not faking it, it's just their brains malfunctioning?

So... they're not faking it, it's just their brains malfunctioning?

Only if you think it's a malfunction to relax or meditate...apparently.

When the Holy Ghost came upon the Apostles they were able to speak so that EVERYONE COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY SAID! When "Christians" speak in tongues at these gatherings, they speak gibberish that NOT EVERYONE CAN UNDERSTAND! Do you see why a rationable human being (and a Christian myself) must seriously doubt these "Christians" who speak in tongues? Why can't the people of all nations and languages understand these people who are speaking in tongues today?

When the Holy Ghost came upon the Apostles they were able to speak so that EVERYONE COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY SAID! When "Christians" speak in tongues at these gatherings, they speak gibberish that NOT EVERYONE CAN UNDERSTAND! Do you see why a rationable human being (and a Christian myself) must seriously doubt these "Christians" who speak in tongues? Why can't the people of all nations and languages understand these people who are speaking in tongues today?

<- This.

The "purpose" of speaking in tongues is for people to understand them. Therefore, people who speak in tongues should be understood by everyone. That's not the case, hence, fail.

Only if you think it's a malfunction to relax or meditate...apparently.
They're not meditating though. The article says as much. What they're doing is the radical extreme of meditation - completely unhinging focused thought altogether, rather than simply clearing the mind of distraction.

I think that's a dangerous practice to get involved in, to be honest. I've done that before, although not in the context of religious worship, and believe me, there lies chaos. Skimming the surface of that kind of disorder through meditation can be insightful, and arguably is an integral part of the creative process. Actually diving headlong into it, though, crosses the line from genius to madness, and only those with the will to resist and a strong sense of self (more than I managed, anyway) can survive unscathed.

Wonder if one group from one church speaking in tongues can understand another group from a different church speaking in tongues? Is there only one "in toungues" language? :p

I have attended services where they claimed to speak in tongues. I don't believe it at all. Interesting article though.

Seen this in a BBC documentary. They actually got linguists to study the utterings and found absolutely no structure, pattern or meaningful repetitions. It's certainly not on purpose - there is a peculiar brain activity going on - which means it is plain and simple delirium.

Sometimes I can't stand meditating in silence as usual and feel like praying aloud. At those times if I don't know what to say or can't find the words then tongues just flows out instead of words. There is no need for words anyway as God already knows my situation.

I don't go to the churches where they do it all at once very often though. For me it's a tool in my personal prayer, not a group activity.

If only tongues worked for talking to other people too. In any situation where one is at a loss of words it'd be great if one could just flood them with tongues. :D

I don't really think it is delirium. I think it isn't a language though, so it really shouldn't be called "speaking in tongues" in my opinion. To me that implies communication "he is speaking in Spanish" we all realize is someone communicating in Spanish. "Speaking in tongues" isn't communication. I think it is more of a mystical/spiritual experience and somewhere along the way someone called it 'speaking in tongues' so that they could relate it to Biblical text and offer the experience more validity.

From what I have seen it is more of a 'state' a person goes into, a place they go in their mind. Prayer does that for many people too. These folks just make noise going there. jmo of course. :)

When the Holy Ghost came upon the Apostles they were able to speak so that EVERYONE COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY SAID! When "Christians" speak in tongues at these gatherings, they speak gibberish that NOT EVERYONE CAN UNDERSTAND! Do you see why a rationable human being (and a Christian myself) must seriously doubt these "Christians" who speak in tongues? Why can't the people of all nations and languages understand these people who are speaking in tongues today?

Right. This is the perspective I'm taught in my Church (Mormon). The Apostles spoke in tongues enabling them to preach the Gospel to those whom they could not otherwise have spoken. Speaking in Tongues also refers to any time a person speaks by divine inspiration, as when the Lord told Moses to go out and preach to the people, and Moses hesitated because he did not see himself as a good speaker. The Lord assured Moses that the words would be given to him.

I dunno what all that rolling around on the floor and babbling is about.

I don't really think it is delirium. I think it isn't a language though, so it really shouldn't be called "speaking in tongues" in my opinion. To me that implies communication "he is speaking in Spanish" we all realize is someone communicating in Spanish. "Speaking in tongues" isn't communication. I think it is more of a mystical/spiritual experience and somewhere along the way someone called it 'speaking in tongues' so that they could relate it to Biblical text and offer the experience more validity.

From what I have seen it is more of a 'state' a person goes into, a place they go in their mind. Prayer does that for many people too. These folks just make noise going there. jmo of course. :)

I once saw a TV program where they were comparing it with similar states entered into by people of various religions around the world. There must be some commonality to it that's being tapped into. Like I said before though, I wouldn't call it an authentic experience with the Holy Spirit.

When the Holy Ghost came upon the Apostles they were able to speak so that EVERYONE COULD UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY SAID! When "Christians" speak in tongues at these gatherings, they speak gibberish that NOT EVERYONE CAN UNDERSTAND! Do you see why a rationable human being (and a Christian myself) must seriously doubt these "Christians" who speak in tongues? Why can't the people of all nations and languages understand these people who are speaking in tongues today?

You take the extent of "so everyone could understand what they said" too far.

You forget pretty much ALL of 1 Corinthians chapter 14, it's all about gifts and prophesy and speaking in tongues and it repeatedly says that speaking in tongues requires an interpreter or an interpretation afterwords. Clearly then, not everyone 'understands' the language of the speaking in tongues because an interpretation is required...

1 Corinthians 14:13-19
Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say "Amen" to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up. I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Clearly, you are mistaken about limiting what it says 'tongues' is for and what it may sound like to others nearby.

Sometimes I can't stand meditating in silence as usual and feel like praying aloud. At those times if I don't know what to say or can't find the words then tongues just flows out instead of words. There is no need for words anyway as God already knows my situation.

I don't go to the churches where they do it all at once very often though. For me it's a tool in my personal prayer, not a group activity.

If only tongues worked for talking to other people too. In any situation where one is at a loss of words it'd be great if one could just flood them with tongues. :D

:)

What do you know about Pentecostals and the Christians who practice speaking in tongues? Ever been to one of their services? Ever been a member or done it yourself. Ever wondered if they were ‘faking it’ when they were doing it?

Brain scan research reveals that Pentecostals speaking in tongues are not ‘faking’ it, whatever is happening, their brains are responding to the event differently then normal prayer or meditation…

<snip>

There’s no way to tell just on the basis of the brain scan what exactly is the reality of the experience. I think it enables us to explore that. I think it may provide more information for that. But we have a long way to go before we can say something more definitive.[/indent]
Linky (http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=185)

What do you think?

I'm not going to go ahead and say it's all a lie. I personally don't believe Christians that engage in "speaking" in tongues do something real. I've seen it happen, I've been to one of 2 services where someone "convenietly" enough starts trembling, dancing and subsequently babbling tongues.

Is it possible? Of course it is. Anything is possible. Now, that Christians do it and that it's genuine... hard to stomach.

Humans are quite able to work themselves into hysteria. It's not an unusual phenomenon, and it's certainly not unique to these folks. Humans can consciously induce physiological and even neurological changes in themselves.

Indeed, the atmosphere of their religious ceremonies is ideal for creating this kind of group freak-out.

It doesn't remotely surprise me that these individuals show altered brain activity during their babbling. So there's low activity in the language centers? Well, um, gee...might be because they aren't producing language? They are making nonsense noises, so it makes perfect sense that they aren't using the higher processing regions that are responsible for meaningful communication.

Oh, and just FYI: one of the researchers on Dr. Newberg's team is a self-described "born-again Christian" who practices speaking in tongues. So yeah.

Humans are quite able to work themselves into hysteria. It's not an unusual phenomenon, and it's certainly not unique to these folks. Humans can consciously induce physiological and even neurological changes in themselves.

Indeed, the atmosphere of their religious ceremonies is ideal for creating this kind of group freak-out.

It doesn't remotely surprise me that these individuals show altered brain activity during their babbling. So there's low activity in the language centers? Well, um, gee...might be because they aren't producing language? They are making nonsense noises, so it makes perfect sense that they aren't using the higher processing regions that are responsible for meaningful communication.

Oh, and just FYI: one of the researchers on Dr. Newberg's team is a self-described "born-again Christian" who practices speaking in tongues. So yeah.

Ahhh...just the right dose of an anti-religion comment from Bottle...am satisfied.:D

You bring up the point about one of the researcher's background and say "so yeah". Could you clarify what you really want to say?

Ahhh...just the right dose of an anti-religion comment from Bottle...am satisfied.:D
Could you please point out what is "anti-religion" in my post?

Could you please point out what is "anti-religion" in my post?

Oh dear...I didn't mean "anti-religion" in that way. I meant it as a rejection of the phenomenon of the supernatural...sorry...:(

Oh dear...I didn't mean "anti-religion" in that way. I meant it as a rejection of the phenomenon of the supernatural...sorry...:(
Human beings making noises with their mouths is supernatural?

Could you please point out what is "anti-religion" in my post?

Um... the whole thing? Or is it just the tone?

Just curious, do you have to walk around with a towel in your hand to wipe up the spittle because you might have to speak about something to do with religion or spirituality?

Interesting, but not really a sound basis for any conclusions without a control group: I know of several ex-Pentacostals who can still 'speak in tongues' whenever they feel like it, and they describe it as relaxing and an acquired knack. They should compare the readings for a group of true believers to a group of ex-believers; that would be a very interesting study.

It's never struck me before but Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians describes the act of 'speaking in tongues' in terms that are reminiscent of the Greek Oracle at Delphi (a holy person prophesying inconprehensibly, while another translates for the benefit of listeners). Corinth was very close to Delphi. I wonder if there was some connection.

Human beings making noises with their mouths is supernatural?

That is what the thread is about...-_-'''

You bring up the point about one of the researcher's background and say "so yeah". Could you clarify what you really want to say?
It means that folks should always look into WHO is doing the research, because it does make a difference. Scientists are still people, and people always have biases. It's good to know what the biases are whenever you're dealing with research that requires subjective interpretation (as this particular research does).

For instance, if I'm doing research on a pain medication, and a member of my research team is currently taking that pain medication, that's something worth noting. Maybe it won't impact the results at all, but it's still an important source of bias. Good researchers (and good scientists) never ignore potential sources of bias.

Um... the whole thing? Or is it just the tone?

What's anti-religion about it?

The person who posted that comment has since clarified that THEY didn't mean "anti-religion" as stated, so clearly not everybody shares your assessment. You might want to clarify.


Just curious, do you have to walk around with a towel in your hand to wipe up the spittle because you might have to speak about something to do with religion or spirituality?
I'm not entirely sure what the point of this insult is. What do you hope to accomplish by saying this?

It means that folks should always look into WHO is doing the research, because it does make a difference. Scientists are still people, and people always have biases. It's good to know what the biases are whenever you're dealing with research that requires subjective interpretation (as this particular research does).

For instance, if I'm doing research on a pain medication, and a member of my research team is currently taking that pain medication, that's something worth noting. Maybe it won't impact the results at all, but it's still an important source of bias. Good researchers (and good scientists) never ignore potential sources of bias.

Cool. Thanks for the clarification. :) I thought your "so yeah" said a lot more than just that - that because this one researcher is who he/she is you can discount the findings of the study. But apparently you're not, so it's good.

It's also worth noting that some Buddhist monks have been observed to adopt unusual brain states while meditating: this phenomenon isn't limited to Christianity.

That is what the thread is about...-_-'''
I don't see how. It looked to me like the thread was about the brain activity of people who are participating in a particular physical activity.

Or are you saying that the brain patterns are supernaturally generated? Maybe I'm missing something here.

I don't see how. It looked to me like the thread was about the brain activity of people who are participating in a particular physical activity.

...that is labelled as a supernatural experience.


Or are you saying that the brain patterns are supernaturally generated? Maybe I'm missing something here.
Certain brain patterns may be supernaturally generated. Who knows?

Or are you saying that the brain patterns are supernaturally generated?

Well obviously this is the whole point of the topic, this is the matter that is being discussed.

Cool. Thanks for the clarification. :) I thought your "so yeah" said a lot more than just that - that because this one researcher is who he/she is you can discount the findings of the study. But apparently you're not, so it's good.
From what I've seen, the data from this study could be reproduced relatively easily. They didn't use any crazy new methods or anything, they simply applied well-established methods to study a particular phenomenon. That's solid science.

It's the interpretation of the data where you have to be careful. There are many, many possible explanations for what they observed, and even the researchers themselves are (rightfully!) careful not to make any absolute judgments because they obviously don't have the full picture yet.

It's also worth noting that some Buddhist monks have been observed to adopt unusual brain states while meditating: this phenomenon isn't limited to Christianity.

The link makes it very clear that the research is not Christian based nor Christian specific. In actuality, I think they concluded that moderated Buddhism was the likely end result of their collective research so far...

From what I've seen, the data from this study could be reproduced relatively easily. They didn't use any crazy new methods or anything, they simply applied well-established methods to study a particular phenomenon. That's solid science.

It's the interpretation of the data where you have to be careful. There are many, many possible explanations for what they observed, and even the researchers themselves are (rightfully!) careful not to make any absolute judgments because they obviously don't have the full picture yet.

Aye. In agreement.

Well obviously this is the whole point of the topic, this is the matter that is being discussed.
I thought the experience was supposed to be supernatural, as opposed to the brain patterns.

Interesting idea, though, that the brain patterns are what are manipulated by an outside force. That's one step removed from the "standard" superstitious ideas, I think.

The Pentecostal practices do not, in any way, fit into my religious worldview.

God does not operate outside of the laws of the universe, he operates through them.

The link makes it very clear that the research is not Christian based nor Christian specific. In actuality, I think they concluded that moderated Buddhism was the likely end result of their collective research so far...

I confess I haven't read any of the source beyond your summary yet atake the dog out in a minute.

Interesting, but not really a sound basis for any conclusions without a control group: I know of several ex-Pentacostals who can still 'speak in tongues' whenever they feel like it, and they describe it as relaxing and an acquired knack. They should compare the readings for a group of true believers to a group of ex-believers; that would be a very interesting study.

One thing I thought was interesting was a control they did use: they had the subjects sing a gospel song and sway with the music. Given the established emotional impact that music has on most people, I think that's actually a pretty elegant control to use with each subject. But you're right, I'd have liked to see more subjects and a bigger control pool for this.

I thought the experience was supposed to be supernatural, as opposed to the brain patterns.

Interesting idea, though, that the brain patterns are what are manipulated by an outside force. That's one step removed from the "standard" superstitious ideas, I think.

Well I think its more about the brain patterns being indicative of a supernatural experience, rather than some supernatural source explicitly and purposefully causing a change in the brain patterns.

Sometimes I can't stand meditating in silence as usual and feel like praying aloud. At those times if I don't know what to say or can't find the words then tongues just flows out instead of words. There is no need for words anyway as God already knows my situation.

I don't go to the churches where they do it all at once very often though. For me it's a tool in my personal prayer, not a group activity.

If only tongues worked for talking to other people too. In any situation where one is at a loss of words it'd be great if one could just flood them with tongues. :D
If I'm understanding you correctly, it sounds like you don't view "speaking in tongues" as particularly supernatural. I mean, you don't see it as God entering you and talking through you, or as some magical force commanding your actions, right? It sounds like you view it as parallel to a meditation technique, and the only "supernatural" element involved is that you are using this as a means of communicating with God.

Please correct me if I've misunderstood, here!

Oh, and 100% agree with that last sentence of yours. There are many times when I'll be unable to articulate important feelings or ideas, and it would be great if I could just somehow beam my stream of consciousness over to somebody else! :)

Well I think its more about the brain patterns being indicative of a supernatural experience, rather than some supernatural source explicitly and purposefully causing a change in the brain patterns.
Ahh.

It's kind of a cool distinction, if you think about it.

Put it this way: when somebody pricks your finger, you "feel" it with the mechanoreceptors in your skin, but your experience of the pain actually occurs in your brain. If you cut the lines of communication between the mechanoreceptor and the brain, you won't "feel" pain even if your mechanoreceptors do respond to the stimulus.

So, in this context, the theoretical supernatural force could work in several different ways. It could be an external force which acts upon the human body (like the prick on the finger), and then the non-supernatural processes within the human body relay that information to the brain. The changes in the brain patterns would thus be a response to an external stimulation.

On the other hand, there is such a thing as "phantom pain." This is when an individual experiences pain even if there is no external cause. Somewhere along the lines of communication, or within the brain itself, a pain pathway has become excited and is causing the individual to "feel" pain. This feeling is just as real as the feeling that is produced after an external stimulation like the finger prick!

So, in that context, a supernatural force could act directly at the CNS level. In which case there would be no objective external force at all. The experience would exist purely within the individual's brain.

I have to admit, that second notion does seem more elegant and...godly? I don't know if that's the right word to use, but if I were a god I think I'd want to act at that level. It's kind of like going straight to the source. Instead of indirectly stimulating a person's brain by stimulating their body, you stimulate their CNS right off the bat.

Ahh.

It's kind of a cool distinction, if you think about it.

Put it this way: when somebody pricks your finger, you "feel" it with the mechanoreceptors in your skin, but your experience of the pain actually occurs in your brain. If you cut the lines of communication between the mechanoreceptor and the brain, you won't "feel" pain even if your mechanoreceptors do respond to the stimulus.

So, in this context, the theoretical supernatural force could work in several different ways. It could be an external force which acts upon the human body (like the prick on the finger), and then the non-supernatural processes within the human body relay that information to the brain. The changes in the brain patterns would thus be a response to an external stimulation.

On the other hand, there is such a thing as "phantom pain." This is when an individual experiences pain even if there is no external cause. Somewhere along the lines of communication, or within the brain itself, a pain pathway has become excited and is causing the individual to "feel" pain. This feeling is just as real as the feeling that is produced after an external stimulation like the finger prick!

So, in that context, a supernatural force could act directly at the CNS level. In which case there would be no objective external force at all. The experience would exist purely within the individual's brain.



Hmmm...interesting.

If I'm understanding you correctly, it sounds like you don't view "speaking in tongues" as particularly supernatural. I mean, you don't see it as God entering you and talking through you, or as some magical force commanding your actions, right? It sounds like you view it as parallel to a meditation technique, and the only "supernatural" element involved is that you are using this as a means of communicating with God.

Please correct me if I've misunderstood, here!

Oh, and 100% agree with that last sentence of yours. There are many times when I'll be unable to articulate important feelings or ideas, and it would be great if I could just somehow beam my stream of consciousness over to somebody else! :)
It is a gift you acquire once. I can't distinguish if you learn it naturally from an experience of the supernatural or receive it by supernatural means. There is a clear difference between merely using your own ability to utter gibberish and the state of mind of speaking, i mean 'uttering' tongues. This state of mind can initially be found in the presence of God (as in a close spiritual connection, not physical proximity as God is always everywhere), the revelation called "baptism of the spirit".

After you have found this state of mind you know how to return to it on your own and then it is not supernatural in more ways than other forms of prayer. Also it's not a requirement for being a true believer in any way, it's just an optional extra gift.

I guess this can be compared to finding a state of mind through meditation and then using a meditation technique to return there at will.

Ahh.

It's kind of a cool distinction, if you think about it.

Put it this way: when somebody pricks your finger, you "feel" it with the mechanoreceptors in your skin, but your experience of the pain actually occurs in your brain. If you cut the lines of communication between the mechanoreceptor and the brain, you won't "feel" pain even if your mechanoreceptors do respond to the stimulus.

So, in this context, the theoretical supernatural force could work in several different ways. It could be an external force which acts upon the human body (like the prick on the finger), and then the non-supernatural processes within the human body relay that information to the brain. The changes in the brain patterns would thus be a response to an external stimulation.

On the other hand, there is such a thing as "phantom pain." This is when an individual experiences pain even if there is no external cause. Somewhere along the lines of communication, or within the brain itself, a pain pathway has become excited and is causing the individual to "feel" pain. This feeling is just as real as the feeling that is produced after an external stimulation like the finger prick!

So, in that context, a supernatural force could act directly at the CNS level. In which case there would be no objective external force at all. The experience would exist purely within the individual's brain.

I have to admit, that second notion does seem more elegant and...godly? I don't know if that's the right word to use, but if I were a god I think I'd want to act at that level. It's kind of like going straight to the source. Instead of indirectly stimulating a person's brain by stimulating their body, you stimulate their CNS right off the bat.

That makes a lot of sense.

Wait... Bottle and I agreeing on a religious-themed thread...

I'm frightened... somebody hold me...

;)

But in seriousness, this, incidentally, is not unlike the manner in which (I theorize) that God communicates higher concepts and ideas to people. By going directly to the brain itself rather than through one or more of the 5 senses, the input would be more efficient and clear.

You take the extent of "so everyone could understand what they said" too far.

You forget pretty much ALL of 1 Corinthians chapter 14, it's all about gifts and prophesy and speaking in tongues and it repeatedly says that speaking in tongues requires an interpreter or an interpretation afterwords. Clearly then, not everyone 'understands' the language of the speaking in tongues because an interpretation is required...

1 Corinthians 14:13-19
Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. What am I to do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray with my mind also; I will sing praise with my spirit, but I will sing with my mind also. Otherwise, if you give thanks with your spirit, how can anyone in the position of an outsider say "Amen" to your thanksgiving when he does not know what you are saying? For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up. I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Clearly, you are mistaken about limiting what it says 'tongues' is for and what it may sound like to others nearby.
:)

Tongue, in greek, means "language".

The references to tongues that Paul makes in 1 Corinthians is talking about the fruitlessness of preaching the gospel to someone in a language they don't understand. For example, what good is it to you if I preach to you in French and you don't speak French? "For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up.".

Furthermore, this passage clearly states that an "unknown" tongue is not of any use to the person speaking it either. "Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. " In other words, my spirit might be praying, but I have no idea what I'm actually saying. We should understand what we're saying, otherwise it does our minds no good and teaches us nothing. That's why we should "pray for the power to interpret".

This point is expanded further by the concluding statement. "Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue". Saying, I would rather speak five words I understand, then 10,000 words I don't.

It is a gift you acquire once. I can't distinguish if you learn it naturally from an experience of the supernatural or receive it by supernatural means. There is a clear difference between merely using your own ability to utter gibberish and the state of mind of speaking, i mean 'uttering' tongues. This state of mind can initially be found in the presence of God (as in a close spiritual connection, not physical proximity as God is always everywhere), the revelation called "baptism of the spirit".

After you have found this state of mind you know how to return to it on your own and then it is not supernatural in more ways than other forms of prayer. Also it's not a requirement for being a true believer in any way, it's just an optional extra gift.

I guess this can be compared to finding a state of mind through meditation and then using a meditation technique to return there at will.


hit.nail.head.

at my old church, praying aloud in tongues was fine, but an interpretation was waited upon, and always came...

i'm of the view that tongues are the language of the soul, and others may understand it, but more ofthen than not an interpretation is needed for it to be productive for others, otherwise its just your soul talking to God.

my 2p

It is a gift you acquire once. I can't distinguish if you learn it naturally from an experience of the supernatural or receive it by supernatural means. There is a clear difference between merely using your own ability to utter gibberish and the state of mind of speaking, i mean 'uttering' tongues. This state of mind can initially be found in the presence of God (as in a close spiritual connection, not physical proximity as God is always everywhere), the revelation called "baptism of the spirit".

After you have found this state of mind you know how to return to it on your own and then it is not supernatural in more ways than other forms of prayer. Also it's not a requirement for being a true believer in any way, it's just an optional extra gift.

I guess this can be compared to finding a state of mind through meditation and then using a meditation technique to return there at will.Makes sense.

I was not aware of this practice, your version of speaking in tongues. Is this something that your religious denomination teaches?

I ask because the only time I've heard about "speaking in tongues" when it comes to mainstream religions is the version where bunches of people do the public-gibberish thing...but I'm more than willing to believe that this is due largely to the fact that public babbling makes for more shocking news footage than quiet personal prayers.

Makes sense.

I was not aware of this practice, your version of speaking in tongues. Is this something that your religious denomination teaches?

I ask because the only time I've heard about "speaking in tongues" when it comes to mainstream religions is the version where bunches of people do the public-gibberish thing...but I'm more than willing to believe that this is due largely to the fact that public babbling makes for more shocking news footage than quiet personal prayers.

The church I used to go to believed it was a private prayer language and that you only really used it in a private prayer time. If someone was doing it in public or in church there was supposed to be a translator, otherwise they were just doing it for attention. I have been in churches that heavily believed that if you didn't speak in tongues that you weren't really "saved". There are many different views. I can say that even at my most devout it wasn't something that ever happened to me.

I remember one time that I actually spoke in tongues, mind you I am not a Pentecostal, but rather come from a Baptist background, now going to a non-denom church. Anyways, I was with two of my best friends, who have been spiritual brothers to me, meaning we all changed our lives about the same time, and we have matured at around the same pace. Well, we were praying something intense, and like I remember starting to rock back and forth just a bit, and like it says in Acts 2, it felt like a great wind flew through me and we all started speaking tongues at the same time. It was beautiful. Of course, it is not something one can turn on or off. We were simply granted a favor from the H.S. as we were praying intensely for God to fill us that day.

I really miss those guys.

Makes sense.

I was not aware of this practice, your version of speaking in tongues. Is this something that your religious denomination teaches?

I ask because the only time I've heard about "speaking in tongues" when it comes to mainstream religions is the version where bunches of people do the public-gibberish thing...but I'm more than willing to believe that this is due largely to the fact that public babbling makes for more shocking news footage than quiet personal prayers.
I haven't paid attention to the different theological theories on how it works or how supernatural it is but when it comes to practices I have gotten the impression that the most common view on tongues in different churches is that it's for personal use, not a group activity. I've encountered very few Christians who say it's fake and have only seen Pentecostals and Charismatics do it everyone together.

What I have not encountered so far is a church that follows the instructions in the Bible on how it should be done among people, one at a time and there must be an interpreter:
If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret.
As for my denomination I visit different Churches without regard to borders between denominations. My beliefs are a mix of different denominations and philosophy applied to the teachings and symbolic stories of the Bible.

On this issue I think individual verses can be taken out of context to support any position but the big overall picture in 1 Corinthians 14 is clear. That you should speak a language listeners understand and no-one but God understands tongues so it's mainly a private thing with God. Not so much a social thing with other people unless there is an interpreter who receives understanding through the spirit. Not having found any church with interpreters leaves me with personal use only which will do just fine.

Edit: To clarify, I believe interpretation of tongues would be equal to praying aloud in words in the first place. The only difference would be that the interpreter helps the praying person put things into words.

Tongue, in greek, means "language".

The references to tongues that Paul makes in 1 Corinthians is talking about the fruitlessness of preaching the gospel to someone in a language they don't understand. For example, what good is it to you if I preach to you in French and you don't speak French? "For you may be giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not being built up.".

Furthermore, this passage clearly states that an "unknown" tongue is not of any use to the person speaking it either. "Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue should pray for the power to interpret. For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays but my mind is unfruitful. " In other words, my spirit might be praying, but I have no idea what I'm actually saying. We should understand what we're saying, otherwise it does our minds no good and teaches us nothing. That's why we should "pray for the power to interpret".

This point is expanded further by the concluding statement. "Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue". Saying, I would rather speak five words I understand, then 10,000 words I don't.

The problem is that the 'listener' is not edified. The person speaking in tongues (in this case Paul himself) wants the tongues interpreted so the listener understands what is said, not himself (Paul) per se.

Paul does not say that it isn't useful to the speaker of the tongues. He doesn't say that at all. He said, For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed, no one understands him; he utters mysteries with his spirit (he utters mysteries, things unknowable or unknown ). Clearly he doesn't understand his own words either, and yet, he also says, He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself (so it is useful to pray in tongues even when you don't know what you are saying), and, I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you. Clearly Paul says it's good to do it.

But I do agree with you that Paul says it's better to prophesy and a speaker of tongues is required to have an interpreter of the tongues when it is done in a church or in a group...

Only if you think it's a malfunction to relax or meditate...apparently.A layperson could clearly tell that someone going on in "tongues" is not functioning properly, and they sure as fuck aren't "relaxing".
Doesn't take a lot of schooling to figure that out, and even more schooling results in the same conclusion.

A layperson could clearly tell that someone going on in "tongues" is not functioning properly, and they sure as fuck aren't "relaxing".
Doesn't take a lot of schooling to figure that out, and even more schooling results in the same conclusion.

Did you read the article? They described the brain pattern of someone speaking in tongues as similar to monks in transcendental meditation (or something like that)... I didn't make it up out of the blue, using the evidence at hand is where the reference came from.

The scan says their brain is/was relaxing, not my observation of the situation.

Perhaps I'm confusing myself with different sections and different evidences... I recall this: So when they started to speak in tongues, and we see this in all the people we studied, their frontal lobe activity goes down. and assume they mean an overall reduction in brain activity (like relaxing-meditation), when in fact perhaps they are talking only about the frontal lobe and the rest of the brain is highly active?

Did you read the article? They described the brain pattern of someone speaking in tongues as similar to monks in transcendental meditation (or something like that)... I didn't make it up out of the blue, using the evidence at hand is where the reference came from.

The scan says their brain is/was relaxing, not my observation of the situation.

EDIT: from the linky in the OP:
Just to finish up this particular slide, the other thing we have found in almost all our subjects is the thalamus becomes much more active; you can see it’s much brighter during speaking in tongues. It was also much brighter in activity during prayer and meditation. The thalamus is a big relay in the brain; it allows all of our sensory information to come up to our brain. Because of that, I think, it makes sense that these are very active states for people, and, therefore, we see the thalamus reflecting that. In fact, the only practice where we saw a decrease in the thalamus, which I’m not going to present here today, was transcendental meditation, but that’s really much more of a relaxation process, at least for the individuals who were doing it for us.

If i were citing your article i would've cited your article.
Alas, i, in its stead, cited your post ...

Upon further reading, though, i'll point out the bolded part as being a comparison to a different instance of decrease in thalamus activity.

If i were citing your article i would've cited your article.
Alas, i, in its stead, cited your post ...

Upon further reading, though, i'll point out the bolded part as being a comparison to a different instance of decrease in thalamus activity.

I agree. I'm confusing myself with different sections. I edited my post while you were posting.

It looks like I may be misunderstanding exactly what they are saying with the 'overall' picture of a person's brain between normal praying and meditation and speaking in tongues...


gotta go though, stanley cup calls :)

They're not meditating though. The article says as much. What they're doing is the radical extreme of meditation - completely unhinging focused thought altogether, rather than simply clearing the mind of distraction.

I think that's a dangerous practice to get involved in, to be honest. I've done that before, although not in the context of religious worship, and believe me, there lies chaos.

You say it as if that were a bad thing.

I once saw a TV program where they were comparing it with similar states entered into by people of various religions around the world. There must be some commonality to it that's being tapped into. Like I said before though, I wouldn't call it an authentic experience with the Holy Spirit.

A practitioner of Vodoon would call it "being ridden by a Loa".

Edit: Damn, no luck finding video of someone being ridden for comparison.

Well, since none of the poll options appear to apply to me...


I really don't understand the purpose of it in the first place. Of course, these people probably don't understand me going out in the dead of night for a good howl(not this werewolf crap, mind you, simply a loud, incoherent vocalization) just to de-stress, so I suppose it's a moot point.

It regards to comparing it with meditation, I read about it before that it is pretty much the opposite in terms of brain activity. From here (http://www.skepdic.com/glossol.html) (emphasis):

There is evidence that while speaking in tongues people experience a sharp decrease in frontal lobe function, the area of the brain that enables reason and self-control. There is also increased activity in the parietal region of the brain, which takes sensory information and tries to create a sense of self relating to the world. Psychiatrist Andrew Newberg, Director of the Center for Spirituality and the Mind at the University of Pennsylvania, studied five African-American Pentecostal women who frequently speak in tongues. As a control activity, Newberg had the women sing gospel tunes while moving their arms and swaying.*

Newberg gave the Pentecostals an intravenous injection of a radioactive tracer that allowed him to measure blood flow and "see" which brain areas were most active during the behaviors. Newberg and his associates published their findings in the November 2006 issue of Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging. During glossolalia, the part of the brain than normally makes a person feel in control was essentially shut down. The findings make sense, says Newberg, because speaking in tongues involves giving up control and feeling a "very intense experience of how the self relates to God."*

Newberg noted that the glossolalia responses were the opposite of those of people in a meditative state. When people meditate their frontal lobe activity increases, while their parietal activity decreases. In meditation, one loses the sense of self while controlling one's focus and concentration.

I'm not a Christian. In spite of attempts to be one, I just couldn't do it. One of the reasons for this is this phenomenon of speaking in tongues, which, to me, is just institutionalized gibberish. I observed the minister of the church I once attended as he indulged in this very act. It consisted of a lot of lalalalala sounds coupled with spitting (fortunately, I was not sitting in the front row so I was spared an up-close-and-personal experience of this - his family was not). After the service, everyone was oohing and ahing about how spiritual he was. I asked him what he was supposed to be saying - he said he didn't know, it was just the Holy Spirit pouring out of him. I pointed out that the Bible very specifically said that while speaking in tongues was supposed to be a gift of the Holy Spirit, it also very specifically said that the "tongue" in which the person was speaking was supposed to be a known language and that there was supposed to be someone there who could understand and translate because this "outpouring of the Holy Spirit" was supposed to be for everyone's benefit and not just to make him look Godly. I was asked to leave the church and not return until I had asked God's forgiveness for not respecting his ministerial authority and obvious sanctity. I never went back