The IRS allows "ordained ministers" who are employed by a religious institution to exempt the money they pay to maintain a residence from taxation ("Parsonage Allowance"). This is not a deduction but an exemption (full amount is substracted from income). The only limit on the amount is the "fair market rental value" of the house. So, a Mega Church Pastor, such as Creflo Dollar (or Eddie Long, or T.D. Jakes, or Rick Warren, or Joel Osteen or whoever), can exempt the fair market rental value on his home from his income. Fortunately he can only do this for his primary residence (as they usually own several homes).
Let's say that the Pastor's primary residence is valued at $5 million. A general rule of thumb for fair market rental value is 1% of the value of the home. In this case, it would $50,000 a month or $600,000 a year. That money is exempted from his income. He doesn't have to pay federal, state, or Social Security taxes on it. In addition, if he has a mortgage, he can also deduct the interest paid on it. This amounts to a double deduction but it is legal under IRS rules. Assuming his interest rate was 5%, that would be another $240,000 a year that could be deducted from his income. At this point, he could make well over $850,000 a year without owing any taxes.
If that is not bad enough, as an ordained minister, the Pastor is also allowed to opt out of Social Security. That means a savings of at least another 15% of his income. This is a special privilege available to ministers.
Granted, most Pastor's do not have the income of a Creflo Dollar or a Bishop Eddie Long but they are entitled to the same perks from the Government. This is, in my opinion, a clear violation of church and state. Why is the IRS giving special tax breaks to religious leaders? It forces every other taxpayer to subsidize religions that they may not believe in.
With the deep debt that the USA is in, we need to look for more revenue sources. One way to get some immediate relief is to quit subsidizing pastors and churches. Why won't politicians call for eliminating these tax breaks? Because it would be political suicide and most only care about getting re-elected.
We need statesmen today not politicians. Thomas Jefferson, in The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom, written three years after he penned the Declaration of Independence, said: "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical."
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Friday, October 15, 2010
Why I Am An Atheist
I come from a very religious Christian family, I've read the bible. I'm also working on the Qur'an, the Tanakh, and the Dhammapada. I have done research on many religions. I have homosexual friends. I have Atheist friends, Christian friends, Pagan friends and Agnostic friends. They are good people and shouldn't be judged by a certain kind of followers.
let me be clear exactly what I don't believe in, along with a higher being...Just so we are clear and you will see how this will also give a good reason why I don't believe in the other things that I will mention.
1.Souls/Spirits
2.Magic of any kind
3.Miracles
The reason for these I think is because I have never experienced an encounter that I could not use logic to understand.
I am an Atheist because I HAVE known God's word, as well as other god's words. I have prayed to God to show me that he does exist, and to change my mind about my beliefs. Since then I have come to accept the fact that it is not in my character to believe in higher beings. This was not a choice for me. I cant help the fact that I analyze and question everything. It's in my nature. In this scary; confusing world, why would I willingly choose to not have a savior?
That being said, after reading the bible I know that there is a lot of issues that God takes a stand against that I find intolerant and ridiculous. Also after learning the history of Christianity, I know that there are inconsistencies and contradictions. Even when you take away the traditions that are based on other religions and are not original, you are left with just what the bible tells you. which was written by men in a different language, which was translated at least twice over long periods of time, which were then translated again into easier to read versions. This compilation of stories were based off of documents that listed Hebrew law and parables and should not be taken literally.
There is also scientific proof against the written history of the bible, but I'm not going to comment on them because if you are reading this as a christian, you are only going to close you're mind to them to protect you're faith. I beleive that The difference between people of faith and people of science is when science changes or errors, the people of science changes with it, always moving forward.
Unlike Christians, I beleive that the bible is not a good thing to base you're morals off of. Even the ten commandments only has 2 laws that even apply to life. The rest only prove that God is a jealous being. The commandments that are not good laws, are only suggestions on how to live a life that seems Moral because it is what our society has come to accept as moral.
My life experiences have given me everything I need to form my own beliefs and provide me with morals. It's ridiculous to think that morals only come from religion.
I find hope in the beauty of life, this earth and every living thing. Friendship, love, passion, and the beauty that surrounds you is reason enough to live you're life. To want anything more is selfish.
The people who think that they are God's chosen ones are the same people who thought that the earth was the center of the universe. To think that humans are any more important then any other living thing is narcissistic. Another example of this narcissism is when someone is searching for religion, some of them pick the God who seems the closest to being human like. Any other God that Christians rule out our not "made in our image". Also that heaven's rewards consist of earthly treasures according to the bible.
I beleive Narcissism, fear, hopelessness and the inability to answer questions are the biggest reasons people "find" religion.
The only thing I ask of anyone, is that they judge me based on how well they know me. Nothing more. How could you know my thoughts? My morals? My Philosophies?
I don't need God to be good,
And please remember the first amendment.
Not all of my reasons are there, and the ones that are there, need more of an explanation that I have time for right now. I'm sure if you follow my blog, or ask me questions you will better understand my views.
let me be clear exactly what I don't believe in, along with a higher being...Just so we are clear and you will see how this will also give a good reason why I don't believe in the other things that I will mention.
1.Souls/Spirits
2.Magic of any kind
3.Miracles
The reason for these I think is because I have never experienced an encounter that I could not use logic to understand.
I am an Atheist because I HAVE known God's word, as well as other god's words. I have prayed to God to show me that he does exist, and to change my mind about my beliefs. Since then I have come to accept the fact that it is not in my character to believe in higher beings. This was not a choice for me. I cant help the fact that I analyze and question everything. It's in my nature. In this scary; confusing world, why would I willingly choose to not have a savior?
That being said, after reading the bible I know that there is a lot of issues that God takes a stand against that I find intolerant and ridiculous. Also after learning the history of Christianity, I know that there are inconsistencies and contradictions. Even when you take away the traditions that are based on other religions and are not original, you are left with just what the bible tells you. which was written by men in a different language, which was translated at least twice over long periods of time, which were then translated again into easier to read versions. This compilation of stories were based off of documents that listed Hebrew law and parables and should not be taken literally.
There is also scientific proof against the written history of the bible, but I'm not going to comment on them because if you are reading this as a christian, you are only going to close you're mind to them to protect you're faith. I beleive that The difference between people of faith and people of science is when science changes or errors, the people of science changes with it, always moving forward.
Unlike Christians, I beleive that the bible is not a good thing to base you're morals off of. Even the ten commandments only has 2 laws that even apply to life. The rest only prove that God is a jealous being. The commandments that are not good laws, are only suggestions on how to live a life that seems Moral because it is what our society has come to accept as moral.
My life experiences have given me everything I need to form my own beliefs and provide me with morals. It's ridiculous to think that morals only come from religion.
I find hope in the beauty of life, this earth and every living thing. Friendship, love, passion, and the beauty that surrounds you is reason enough to live you're life. To want anything more is selfish.
The people who think that they are God's chosen ones are the same people who thought that the earth was the center of the universe. To think that humans are any more important then any other living thing is narcissistic. Another example of this narcissism is when someone is searching for religion, some of them pick the God who seems the closest to being human like. Any other God that Christians rule out our not "made in our image". Also that heaven's rewards consist of earthly treasures according to the bible.
I beleive Narcissism, fear, hopelessness and the inability to answer questions are the biggest reasons people "find" religion.
The only thing I ask of anyone, is that they judge me based on how well they know me. Nothing more. How could you know my thoughts? My morals? My Philosophies?
I don't need God to be good,
And please remember the first amendment.
Not all of my reasons are there, and the ones that are there, need more of an explanation that I have time for right now. I'm sure if you follow my blog, or ask me questions you will better understand my views.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Glossolalia - "Speaking in tongues"
In my opinion, speaking in tongues is not a normal result of having been saved. Rather, Pentecostals are motivated to speak in this way because of the expectations of their religious culture. They are expected to speak in tongues; this expectation is internalized; they end up speaking in tongues.
Here is an essay written about the subject on psychohistorian.org:
Speaking in tongues
Speaking in tongues has been practiced for many centuries, but despite its long history, differences of opinion accompany almost all questions regarding the phenomenon: is it sent from God? Is it of the Devil? Need it be a religious experience at all? Is it the result of a mental disease?
1. Introduction
I first learned about "speaking in tongues" as a 19th century phenomenon found amongst spiritualists and mediums during séances. This was an era when mildly interesting people would sit around in the dark in a heavily draped room and summon up spirits of the dead and hold conversations with them. Communication was generally facilitated by a medium, who would on occasion speak in a funny way.
I was thus surprised to hear that this garbled way of speaking was still popular today, although this time it was happening in the context of the Christian Pentecostal movement. In particular, some members of two Christian organizations in Stellenbosch (His People Christian Church, and Shophar Christian Church) were speaking in tongues. A colleague introduced me to an acquaintance of his, Denise M., who had been a member of the His People organization and had spoken in tongues, and now had some unanswered questions. We met and had several discussions, during which she agreed to write down her personal testimony. During the discussion I learned that in the Bible, two kinds of tongues are reported: a gift of diverse kinds of tongues (speaking in human languages) and the gift of speaking in an unknown tongue (a heavenly language).
The first type of tongues is called xenoglossia (xenos = foreign, glossa = tongue), a phrase coined by Charles Richet (1850-1935), a leading investigator of the paranormal from the 1870s to the 1930s (who also won the Nobel Prize for Physiology (1913) for his work on allergic responses). Xenoglossia is the use of an actual foreign language by a person who has had no conscious knowledge of that language. Since Denise M. does not claim to have experienced xenoglossia, I will only briefly examine this phenomenon.
The second category is commonly labeled glossolalia (glossa = tongue, lalia = speaking) and is what Denise M. and many other people have experienced.
The claim is sometimes made that glossolalia is a supernatural phenomenon. If this were true, then a scientific account or explanation of the behavior would not be possible. This is what I hope to examine in this article: is there any credible explanation for glossolalia?
2. Anomalous event or normal behavior?
Marcello Truzzi, sociologist and long-time CSICOP collaborator (currently at the Center for Scientific Anomalies Research) investigates anomalous events that seem unexplained by our current bio-physical/psychological models. He notes:
"…we can distinguish between the abnormal, the paranormal and the supernatural. If something is rare or extraordinary in science but it is explainable, we call it abnormal. The term paranormal refers to something that science can explain some day but at the present moment cannot. These are the scientific frontiers. However, there are things that are fundamentally inexplicable by science, the supernatural." (quoted in Solovey 1990)
I will examine glossolalia with reference to Truzzi's three categories: supernatural, paranormal, and abnormal, as well as asking if it could be normal behavior. I will first briefly review the supernatural perspective, and then take a look at tongues as it appears in the paranormal literature. Tongues could also be some kind of abnormality: language, psychopathology and altered mental states will be examined as possible explanations. Of course, tongues could also be a normal event that is merely being interpreted as something else.
3. How is glossolalia to be defined?
The definition of glossolalia depends very much on where you look. in the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) it is recorded as "a charisma that enables the recipient to praise God in miraculous speech." According to the New Encyclopedia Britannica (1990) it is "a neurotic or psychotic symptom." Seen anthropologically, it is one of the ways "man uses language when he practices religion" (Samarin 1972). Other phrases used are "tongue jabbering", "meaningless neologisms" and "unintelligible words". It would appear that the context within which the behavior is observed significantly influences its definition.
For now, I would suggest simply that glossolalic discourse be described as a human utterance apparently devoid of semantic meaning or syntax.
4. Who speaks in tongues?
The practice of speaking in tongues in Christianity goes back all the way to the beginning of this religion (see "glossolalia and the supernatural" below). Several studies of religious glossolalia have shown that those who speak in tongues are deeply touched by the experience. Goodman (1972) reports a "before and after" phase in the lives of the tongue-speakers, with a clear, decisive "change" in-between. Kildahl (1975) notes that Christian glossolalics reported positive, and negative consequences, following their exercise of tongue-speaking (for example, an increase in personal happiness, a sense of greater personal power, a joyful and warm personal fellowship among tongue-speakers, dependency on the leader who introduced the person to tongue-speaking and divisiveness that polarizes the religious community).
Tongues is not confined to Christianity, however. In all ages, and all parts of the world, people have spoken in apparently unintelligible fashion (Eliade 1987). May (1956) describes the prevalence of tongue-speaking amongst the Hindus in India. The physical manifestations appear to be analogous to what happens in a Christian context, though the belief system connected with the experience is quite different.
Anthropologist G J Jennings (1968) carried out an ethnological study of glossolalia and observed this behavior amongst Tibetan monks, certain North American Indians, the Haida Indians of the Pacific Northwest, the Aborigines of Australia, the aboriginal peoples of the subarctic regions of North America and Asia, the Curanderos of the Andes, the Dyaks of Borneo, the Chaco Indians of South America, shamans in the Sudan, Siberia and Greenland, and in various cults (Voodoo in Haiti, Zor in Ethiopia, Shango on the west coast of Africa, and the Shago in Trinidad).
I have heard anecdotal claims that tongue-speaking occurs in the New Age movement, and would appreciate reports from anyone who has knowledge or experience of this. [2006-11-16: See "Comments" below for an update]
5. What about xenoglossia?
Claims of xenoglossia are well known, and are found mainly within the Pentecostal Movement and in the literature of psychic research. In the broader Christian context, there are several historical accounts. For example, in the 18th century work Lives of the Saints, Alban Butler tells of St Pachomius, the Egyptian founder of the first Christian monastery, who could speak in Greek and Latin although he had never learned them.
In The Pentecostal Movement in the Catholic Church, (Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press 1971) E D O'Connor claims several cases of xenoglossia. Sumrall (1993:126) gives an example of a man who spoke in tongues after a sermon. Another man interpreted his message. "When they had finished, a young man walked to the front and spoke in a foreign language to the one who had given the message. The brother answered: 'I'm sorry, sir, but I don't understand any other language.' The man replied: 'But you spoke my language beautifully. I am Persian.' . the brother answered: 'No, it was the spirit who spoke to you. it was God talking to you, not me.' "
Not all Christian commentators, however, readily endorse the reality of xenoglossia; Harold Lindsell, in a Christianity Today article, comments:
"there is no known case in which a missionary received the gift of speaking the language of the group he sought to reach. Missionaries have always had to learn to speak the required languages the hard way."
In the paranormal literature, numerous cases of xenoglossia are encountered, where it is commonly explained as a feature associated with mediumship, or more rarely, as a manifestation of thought-reading.
An early case of xenoglossia involved a French medium, Madam X. This turn-of-the-century spiritualist wrote long sentences in modern Greek, a language she had not studied. Subsequent investigation showed that many of the phrases came from a particular Greek-French dictionary and it is thought that Madame X may have experienced cryptomnesia - the repetition of forgotten memories.
In his Polyglot Mediumship (1932), Ernesto Bozzano (1862-1945) describes thirty-five case histories of xenoglossia, attributing the ability to spirit possession. Bozzano was a leading Italian parapsychologist, and a vocal proponent of the spiritualistic interpretation of the phenomena of mediumship. He was one of the researchers who investigated the famous medium Eusapia Palladino.
In They Speak With Other Tongues (1964), J L Sherrill claims to have encountered a number of people who exhibited xenoglossia. Jennings (1968) tells of Tibetan monks who, in their ritual dances, spoke "in English with quotations from Shakespeare and with profanity like drunken soldiers, or in German, or French."
Inglis (1985:229) recounts several cases of xenoglossia. In 1857, for example, there is an account of a New York judge, J W Edmonds, who had a daughter, Laura, who was psychic. At a dinner party, Laura spoke in Greek with a Greek guest, carrying on an hour-long conversation. At other times, she could also speak Spanish and American Indian. The American medium George Valiantine could speak in Russian, German, Spanish and Welsh. A Brazilian medium, Carlos Mirabelli, was reported to be able to speak nearly thirty languages (including Syrian and Japanese) and could even write in hieroglyphics.
Modern scholars are more reserved in their judgment, however. Anthropological linguist W T Samarin (1972:112) notes:
"It is extremely doubtful that the alleged cases of xenoglossia (miraculous speech in real languages) are real. Anytime one attempts to verify them, he finds that the stories have been greatly distorted or that the 'witness' turns out to be incompetent or unreliable from a linguistic point of view."
Kildahl (1975) points out that:
"There are no reported instances of a glossolalist speaking a language which was then literally translated by an expert in that language…"
Malony & Lovekin (1985:5) conclude:
"Although tongue speakers often claim that their new language is French or Italian or Spanish, and so on – languages they never knew before – scientific studies to date have not confirmed their claims."
6. Glossolalia and the supernatural
Explaining glossolalic speech as divinely inspired has a long tradition. Motley (1967) points out that a tongue-speaker will usually assert that speech is divinely inspired and that his unknown tongue is a manifestation of the work of his God.
Tongue-speaking was known to Plato, who described its use by Greek and Roman oracles. The priests of Apollo, for example, engaged in prophetic glossolalia. Virgil wrote about a Roman Sibyl who spoke that way, in the Aeneid, book six.
In Christian scriptures, glossolalia is traced back to Acts 2, verse 4:
"They are all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to talk in other tongues, as the spirit gave them power of utterance."
There are numerous other historical accounts, several detailed by Cutten (1927:48-66). In the late 17th century, when the Roman Catholic Church was attempting to exterminate Protestants in southern France, several Huguenot children are said to have spoken correct French, which differed considerably from their native patois of the Cevennes Mountains.
During the 18th century, tongues was a common feature among British Quakers and American Methodists. In the early 19th century it was found among members of the Catholic Apostolic Church in England, and in the US among members of Mormon churches. Later in the 19th century, it became common within the Holiness Churches.
In the early 20th century, speaking in tongues as a religiously-endorsed activity became perhaps the defining characteristic of the Pentecostal and Charismatic Christian groups.
Bynum (1999) describes the origin of modern-day tongues:
"In 1900 Charles F. Parham opened the Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas. Under his teaching and ministry, Miss Agnes Ozman was influenced to speak in tongues. Within a short time a dozen more students had this experience."
The Cape Town-based His People Christian Church, in their New Foundations Course (p17) explain:
"With the baptism of the Holy Spirit, comes the ability to speak in tongues. This is the evidence that someone has in fact received the Holy Spirit … speaking in tongues is a very special gift from God … it is a sign for the unbelievers … speaking in tongues is a way of worshiping God … your mind will not understand what you will say in tongues. Do not let this be a blockage to flowing naturally in tongues … you have control over what you say. It is an act of your will. The Holy Spirit gives you the ability but you do the speaking."
Sumrall (1993:117) explains that tongues "is a supernatural utterance, which comes from God through the person of the Holy Spirit" and "when you speak in tongues, you are speaking supernaturally to God" (:122). He also cautions that the Devil seeks to counterfeit the gift of speaking in tongues: "I have seen dozens and dozens of people uttering things that could not be understood either by the other native people in the meeting or by me as a foreign visitor. They were merely stammering out words under demonic power."
7. Paranormal glossolalia
The first studies of glossolalia were carried out at the turn of the century by investigators of spiritualism. Alcock (1987) points out:
"The study of the paranormal was historically associated with the so-called occult sciences such as astrology and numerology; a more direct progenitor was the spiritualism craze of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries."
Investigators examined spirit messages, apparitions by persons at the point of death, automatic writing, clairvoyance and so on. By the early 1920s the term "parapsychology" (besides or alongside psychology) was in use, instead of "psychical research", and may be defined as the scientific study of anomalous events associated with human experience.
A case reported in 1897 to the Society for Psychical Research described an account of glossolalia that was attributed to a spirit talking through the speaker:
When [the spirit] ceased giving me prose, it gave poetry in 'unknown tongues'. As the foreign verbiage came via voice, I penciled it down, mostly in an archaic mono-phonetic form…"
Another report described a woman:
"When she gave herself permission, her vocal organs would articulate nonsense-syllables with the greatest volubility and animation of expression and with no apparent fatigue, and then stop at the behest of her will."
A few years later, Theodore Flournoy (1854-1921) published From India To The Planet Mars, describing the spiritualistic glossolalia of Helene Smith, who claimed she was speaking in a Martian language. The author describes the experience:
"Presently, Helene begins to recite with increased volubility and incomprehensible jargon . after a few minutes, Helene interrupts herself, crying out "Oh, I have had enough of it; you say such words to me I will never be able to repeat them."
Flournoy was a leading psychologist and psychic investigator. His skepticism about mediums was modified by his experiences with Helene Smith; he showed that although a great deal of her reincarnation testimony was false, he could not explain all her accounts. His later investigation of Eusapia Palladino convinced him that she was a genuine medium.
The Swiss psychologist C G Jung, one-time croney of Sigmund Freud, was very fond of the supernatural. His doctoral dissertation described the case of a girl who exhibited glossolalia while in a séance:
"She went on speaking in the same conversational tone but in a strange idiom that sounded like French and Italian mixed . it was possible to make out a few words, but not to memorize them, because the language was so strange."
Not all early investigators, however, were convinced that this speech was a sign of anything paranormal. Best (1925:1707) writes:
"As to the absurd nonsense talked by mediums when they are possessed by their familiar demons or spirits, such matter is scarce worth regarding, as is appears to be, in most cases, meaningless gibberish."
As the 20th century drew to a close, séances seemed to have become déclassé, and the spirit world less eager to contact us through mediums, mystics and others sensitives sitting around in dingy rooms. Now, they seem to prefer the bright lights of a TV studio. In May of 2000, the American Fox TV network broadcast a two-hour special, "Powers Of The Paranormal: Live On Stage," which included the "séance of the century". The medium, Bill Burns, settled down, and after some standard spirit-possession twitches went into trance and summoned the spirits of Marilyn Monroe and Andy Kaufman. The spirits rambled on about how "I remember this and that." but when the séance was over, Burns explained that the spirits are always confused when they're contacted because "memory is the first thing to leave the spirit when you die."
A better class of dead people are contacted regularly by John Edwards, whose "Crossing Over" TV show regularly features quite intelligible spirits.
South Africa is not behind in this industry, as we now have our own tannie who regularly speaks to the dead on TV.
8. Glossolalia as psychological abnormality
Ask a member of the public how they determine if someone is mentally ill, and they are likely to reply that the person was "difficult to talk to" (Reda 1992). This layman's attitude towards madness is not entirely unreasonable, and seems to have inspired early researchers in the field. Glossolalics have been described as schizophrenic, hysteric, cataleptic, regressed, emotionally unstable, immature, neurotic, excessively dependent and highly dogmatic (Spanos & Hewitt 1979:429). As recently as 1990, the New Encyclopedia Britannica refers to it as 'a neurotic or psychotic symptom.'
Around the turn of the century, scientists understood glossolalia as a form of mass hysteria or psychosis. Cutten (1927), for example, wrote that glossolalics were "schizophrenics at worst or hysteric neurotics at best." However, with no reliable empirical evidence to back up the claim, such a statement is unwarranted.
As psychoses and schizophrenia became better understood, and further studies were conducted into the nature of glossolalia, the psychopathology hypothesis started to weaken. (A broader issue is the fascinating relationship between religious experience, belief in the paranormal, and mental health; see for example my "Psychology and religion reference list", particularly Aronoff et.al. 2000 and Peters et.al. 1999).
One of the earliest studies that looked into the psychopathology of tongues-speaking was undertaken by Lincoln Vivier for his 1960 PhD dissertation at the University of Witwatersrand (South Africa). This often-quoted and controversial work found that glossolalics were psychologically well-adjusted.
Hine (1969) in a study of Pentecostal glossolalia concluded: "Quite clearly, available evidence requires that an explanation of glossolalia as pathological be discarded."
Spanos and Hewitt (1979) showed no difference between glossolalics and non-glossolalics regarding self-esteem, depressive affects, psychosomatic symptoms, neuroticism, extroversion and dogmatism, noting that this "contradicts the common but empirically unfounded view that glossolalia is symptomatic of psychopathology."
The latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association) does not list glossolalia as a symptom of psychosis. In fact, it isn't recognized as a diagnostic criteria for any disorder.
Grady and Loewenthal (1997) examined the broader context within which tongues is spoken - they investigated the frequency, content, associated behaviors, feelings and meanings associated with glossolalia. They found that:
Glossolalia was reported by those who practiced it to be a frequent, usually daily occurrence, more likely to happen out of religious settings than in them. It was reported to be more likely while driving, relaxing or engaged in domestic activities (thus in relatively private settings) than in explicitly religious contexts or activities. Typically the emotions reported are positive, calm ones, or sometimes 'no particular' emotions.
Those who had not practised glossolalia saw it differently:
"The non-glossolalics believed that glossolalia occurs less than daily, and that it normally occurs in religious settings and while engaged in religious activities, that it is accompanied by high arousal, usually positive emotions (ecstasy and the like)…"
The authors speculate that the data show that there are two forms of glossolalia – the private and the public. Type A (calm, private) is characterized by being frequent (daily or several times weekly), usually/often in private, mundane settings, self-aware while speaking, can attend to other claims on attention. In contrast, type B (excited, public) is occasional (weekly or less), usually/only in public/religious setting, not self-aware/dissociation/altered state of consciousness, cannot attend to other claims on attention. They then speculate that:
"Use of type A glossolalia is unlikely to be associated with psychopathology. It is suggested that even though a regular practitioner of glossolalia would engage in a more public and ecstatic form of glossolalia, he is likely to practice in private as well. It is suggested that glossolalia with some features of type b only might be more likely to co-occur with psychopathology, but this is obviously a matter for further investigation."
The claim is often made that schizophrenic speech is glossolalia. This is plainly false. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders characterizes speech in schizophrenia as vague, overly abstract or concrete, repetitive or stereotyped (less commonly, neologisms, perseveration and clanging may be found). Leff (1993:68) provides a sample of a schizophrenic's disorganized speech:
"In my mind is a gist of something that's coming you see and to get them prepared unto on and then when the Lord is ready that gist that's back in my head when the Lord says so my Lord there's then supplied the people who who's ready to who have been applied to come in and coincide their in on the thing the Lord bringeth forth to for me to say on that day on how and how and there and when to coincide their in unto with me."
Leff points out that in schizophrenese, individual words are recognizable, but the links between them cannot readily be followed. Even in the most disintegrated form of schizophrenic speech disorder, known as 'word salad', the units of speech are intact. What is obscure, is the meaning of the words. In glossolalia, on the other hand, although the sounds are incomprehensible, the symbolic meaning of the utterances is clear.
Another important distinction is that whereas glossolalia lasts for only a few minutes, the speech disorder of schizophrenics continues for days, weeks, or occasionally for years.
These observations suggest that glossolalia differs in some important respects from unintelligible forms of speech associated with psychopathology in general and schizophrenia in particular.
9. Abnormal mental states
During the 1960s a number of authors published work describing glossolalia in terms of some type of altered state of consciousness - cognitive disorganization, hypnotic susceptibility, trance state, or dissociation.
Are people who engage in speaking in tongues especially receptive to hypnotic suggestion? Hypnosis is a consciousness phenomenon, induced by suggestion, ranging from mild hypersuggestibility to a deep trance like state. Electrical activity in the brain, as measured by an electroencephalograph (EEG), has shown that the hypnotic state is only apparently a state of sleep, since the EEG patterns of the hypnotized person resemble those of someone awake and not those of a person in any of the phases of sleep. About eight out of ten people can be hypnotized, although only an estimated four will be "good" subjects.
The earliest investigations of a possible link between hypnotic susceptibility and glossolalia yielded inconclusive results, which can probably be attributed to the vagaries of the assessment techniques used (Malony & Lovekin (1985) briefly describe several of these studies).
Lincoln Vivier's 1960 study (mentioned in the previous section) used self-report inventories to determine that glossolalics scored lower on suggestibility than non-glossolalics.
On the other hand, Kildahl (1975) in the USA thought hypnotizability to be a hallmark feature of the glossolalia experience:
"If one can be hypnotized, then one is able under proper conditions to learn to speak in tongues. While people who speak in tongues are not hypnotized, the induction of glossolalia is very similar to the induction of hypnosis. There is a further connection. After a person has been hypnotized for the first time, it becomes increasingly easy for him to be hypnotized on repeated occasions. This holds true also for the tongue-speaker."
Kildahl's work drew attention from the popular media at the time; the New York Times (1974 January 21) reported as follows: "John P. Kildahl, a clinical psychologist and professor at New York Theological Seminary, said here today that the Pentecostal practice of speaking in tongues constituted 'learned behavior.' Dr. Kildahl, an ordained Lutheran clergy man and former chief psychologist at the Lutheran Medical Center in Brooklyn, recently published a study of glossolalia... In his address, he said that on the basis of his research and extensive correspondence with charismatic Christians it appeared that five elements were normally present when someone began speaking in tongues. These are a 'magnetic' relationship with a group leader, a sense of personal distress, and 'intense emotional atmosphere,' a supporting group, and the prior learning of a rationale of its religious significance. In the case of people who begin to speak in tongues when they are alone, he said 'these five conditions have been present in the days or weeks preceding the initial experience.' "
Kildahl's hypothesis was tested by Spanos and Hewitt (1979). They examined the trait of absorption in imaginative experiences - the openness to absorbing and self-altering encounters, and to be engrossed in everyday activities such as daydreaming, watching a movie or reading. This trait is known to be an indicator of hypnotic susceptibility. They also employed a standardized technique (the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility) for directly assessing hypnotic susceptibility. Their findings showed - contrary to Kildahl's expectation - that glossolalics did not differ from non-glossolalics on either of these measures.
Thus, being particularly sensitive to hypnosis does not seem a necessary condition for experiencing glossolalia.
The foremost proponent of the trance approach to glossolalia is Felicitas Goodman (1972), who analyzed twenty-nine case histories of tongue-speakers and concluded that speaking in tongues always involves a change of mental state similar to trance (with linguistic and cultural influences):
The trance-like state (an altered state of consciousness) - rather than the speaking in tongues - was the focus of their conversion experience; this trance is achieved or learned initially and is the primary manifestation, while the glossolalia is a secondary feature.
She holds that glossolalic speech is a consequence of being in a trance state:
"In my terms, when a person has removed himself from awareness of the ordinary reality surrounding him, he is in an altered mental state . I use dissociation to characterize the subject's divorcement from ordinary reality . the mental state of the glossolalist, with its obvious somatic agitation, seems to me hyperaroused."
Goodman spent a great deal of time observing the participants in her study, and became impressed with the kinetic behaviors (movements) they exhibited, ranging from trembling, shaking, twitching to jumping, rocking, bowing and arm lifting. To her, this was an essential part of the experience:
"While dissociated, the subjects are rarely ever motionless. There is movement, kinetic behavior, during all phases of this type of mental state."
The response to Goodman's glossolalia-as-hyperarousal was strong. It was rejected by most Pentecostal and Charismatic Christian tongues-speakers, who were against the idea that tongues was usually spoken in an ecstatic state, or as product of a trance. Sumrall (1993:119), an evangelical preacher, comments on his use of tongues:
"When I am speaking in my prayer language, I am alone most of the time. I get more inspiration walking around by myself or driving alone in my car, talking to the Lord."
Scientists, too, provided anecdotal reports that individuals sometimes engage in glossolalia while carrying out activity that involves sustained visual attention to the external environment (Kelsey 1965, Samarin 1972). Samarin notes: "any valid explanation must account for the behavior of one of my respondents: he talks to himself in tongues while testing new aircraft in the air!" As far as Samarin is concerned:
Glossolalia is sometimes associated with some degree of altered state of consciousness, that this occasionally involves motor activity that is involuntary or, rarely, a complete loss of consciousness, and that in any case subsequent use of glossolalia (that is, after the initial experience), is most often independent of dissociative phenomena.
Spanos and Hewitt (1979) directly tested the trance hypothesis, seeing if glossolalia could be repeated in the laboratory and under distinct non-trance like conditions. They recruited twelve young adults from a Charismatic Roman Catholic youth prayer group and studied their tongues-speaking, and concluded:
"Glossolalia was spoken easily with eyes open as well as closed and was neither accompanied by kinetic activity nor followed by disorientation. During glossolalia subjects receptivity to external events and their ability to use information learned before glossolalia was demonstrated…"
Thus, while tongues may be accompanied by kinetic activity, eye closure and disorientation in some social settings, it can easily occur in the absence of these behaviors.
The evidence thus strongly suggests that glossolalia is not a trance-like state, nor is it related to hypnotic suggestibility.
10. Is glossolalia an abnormal language phenomenon?
Part of the human condition is a need to understand experiences, and to explain new observations in the light of old, in terms of what is already known. People want to integrate that which is strange into a system of what is known and knowable.
It is thus entirely reasonable to equate glossolalic vocalizations with speech, fitting the audio-signal of tongue-speech into a previously prepared category, namely language. However, careful linguistic analysis of glossolalic speech samples contradict this common-sense view.
Motley (1967) concluded that there was no evidence that glossolalia represented a known language, structurally it had some similarities to human speech ("was quite language-like"), and did not closely resemble the speakers native language.
Samarin's extensive study of glossolalia leads him to conclude that "in spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia fundamentally is not language" (Samarin 1972). He characterized it as
"…strings of meaningless syllables made up of sounds taken from those familiar to the speaker and put together more or less haphazardly . glossolalia is language-like because the speaker unconsciously wants it to be language-like." (quoted in Nickell, 1993: 108)
11. Glossolalia as normal behavior
Glossolalics behave in various ways. Some go into convulsions or lose consciousness, others are less dramatic. Some seem to go into a trance, some claim to have amnesia of their speaking in tongues. It appears that their behavior is determined by the social expectations of their community and that this behavior is learned. Glossolalics behave the way they do, because it is acceptable and even expected, within their cultural context.
Gerlach and Hine (1968) conducted a study amongst pentecostal Christians and asked them to rank in importance the factors that influenced them to seek the experience of tongues. the study revealed that the most significant factor was contact with an individual who had already had the experience.
At least two studies have been undertaken with the express goal of teaching glossolalia. Samarin (1968) reported that he had taught members of his linguistic class how to speak in tongues, outside of any religious context, and as expected there were no feelings of euphoria as a result of the speaking.
Spanos et.al. (1986) carried out a similar experiment, showing that glossolalia was a learnable skill. After hearing a recorded sample of genuine glossolalia, 20% of his subjects were able to speak in tongues immediately without further training. After some coaching, 70% of the trained subjects were fluent in glossolalia. the authors conclude:
"Glossolalia, therefore, seems likely to be a type of learned behavior rather than a special altered state of mind."
Kildahl (1975) concludes that "the evidence is strong that one may learn to speak in tongues under certain prescribed conditions" and details what he calls the "induction process" leading up to glossolalic speech and summarizes his perspective as follows:
"My glossolalia research has convinced me that it is a learned behavior which can bring a sense of power and well-being. It may also lead to excesses resulting in community disruption. It is the use of glossolalia which determines whether or not it is constructive."
Micah said that true religion was to do justice, love kindness, and to walk humbly with God. If the practice of glossolalia produces these fruits, then it appears to me to be a responsible use of the experience.
A similar sentiment is echoed by Peters et.al. (1999), who examined the incidence of delusional ideation in cults ('New Religious Movements' is the preferred term). Hare Krishnas and Druids were compared to Christians, non-religious people, and deluded psychotics.
New religious movement members were found to share a number of less florid delusional ideas with psychotic patients, were equally convinced of their veracity, but were not as preoccupied or distressed by these experiences. These findings suggest that form may be more important diagnostically than content: it is not what you believe, it is how you believe it.
12. Conclusion
Glossolalia is perhaps best understood as a vocal behavior that can be acquired by almost anyone who possesses the necessary motivation and who is exposed regularly to social environments that encourage such utterances. In our culture, the social groups that encourage glossolalia are almost invariably religious. Therefore, the motivations for engaging in it can usually be best understood in terms of the shared meaning ascribed to this behavior by the religious groups that practice it.
http://www.psychohistorian.org/psychology/articles/2005/speaking_in_tongues.php
Here is an essay written about the subject on psychohistorian.org:
Speaking in tongues
Speaking in tongues has been practiced for many centuries, but despite its long history, differences of opinion accompany almost all questions regarding the phenomenon: is it sent from God? Is it of the Devil? Need it be a religious experience at all? Is it the result of a mental disease?
1. Introduction
I first learned about "speaking in tongues" as a 19th century phenomenon found amongst spiritualists and mediums during séances. This was an era when mildly interesting people would sit around in the dark in a heavily draped room and summon up spirits of the dead and hold conversations with them. Communication was generally facilitated by a medium, who would on occasion speak in a funny way.
I was thus surprised to hear that this garbled way of speaking was still popular today, although this time it was happening in the context of the Christian Pentecostal movement. In particular, some members of two Christian organizations in Stellenbosch (His People Christian Church, and Shophar Christian Church) were speaking in tongues. A colleague introduced me to an acquaintance of his, Denise M., who had been a member of the His People organization and had spoken in tongues, and now had some unanswered questions. We met and had several discussions, during which she agreed to write down her personal testimony. During the discussion I learned that in the Bible, two kinds of tongues are reported: a gift of diverse kinds of tongues (speaking in human languages) and the gift of speaking in an unknown tongue (a heavenly language).
The first type of tongues is called xenoglossia (xenos = foreign, glossa = tongue), a phrase coined by Charles Richet (1850-1935), a leading investigator of the paranormal from the 1870s to the 1930s (who also won the Nobel Prize for Physiology (1913) for his work on allergic responses). Xenoglossia is the use of an actual foreign language by a person who has had no conscious knowledge of that language. Since Denise M. does not claim to have experienced xenoglossia, I will only briefly examine this phenomenon.
The second category is commonly labeled glossolalia (glossa = tongue, lalia = speaking) and is what Denise M. and many other people have experienced.
The claim is sometimes made that glossolalia is a supernatural phenomenon. If this were true, then a scientific account or explanation of the behavior would not be possible. This is what I hope to examine in this article: is there any credible explanation for glossolalia?
2. Anomalous event or normal behavior?
Marcello Truzzi, sociologist and long-time CSICOP collaborator (currently at the Center for Scientific Anomalies Research) investigates anomalous events that seem unexplained by our current bio-physical/psychological models. He notes:
"…we can distinguish between the abnormal, the paranormal and the supernatural. If something is rare or extraordinary in science but it is explainable, we call it abnormal. The term paranormal refers to something that science can explain some day but at the present moment cannot. These are the scientific frontiers. However, there are things that are fundamentally inexplicable by science, the supernatural." (quoted in Solovey 1990)
I will examine glossolalia with reference to Truzzi's three categories: supernatural, paranormal, and abnormal, as well as asking if it could be normal behavior. I will first briefly review the supernatural perspective, and then take a look at tongues as it appears in the paranormal literature. Tongues could also be some kind of abnormality: language, psychopathology and altered mental states will be examined as possible explanations. Of course, tongues could also be a normal event that is merely being interpreted as something else.
3. How is glossolalia to be defined?
The definition of glossolalia depends very much on where you look. in the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) it is recorded as "a charisma that enables the recipient to praise God in miraculous speech." According to the New Encyclopedia Britannica (1990) it is "a neurotic or psychotic symptom." Seen anthropologically, it is one of the ways "man uses language when he practices religion" (Samarin 1972). Other phrases used are "tongue jabbering", "meaningless neologisms" and "unintelligible words". It would appear that the context within which the behavior is observed significantly influences its definition.
For now, I would suggest simply that glossolalic discourse be described as a human utterance apparently devoid of semantic meaning or syntax.
4. Who speaks in tongues?
The practice of speaking in tongues in Christianity goes back all the way to the beginning of this religion (see "glossolalia and the supernatural" below). Several studies of religious glossolalia have shown that those who speak in tongues are deeply touched by the experience. Goodman (1972) reports a "before and after" phase in the lives of the tongue-speakers, with a clear, decisive "change" in-between. Kildahl (1975) notes that Christian glossolalics reported positive, and negative consequences, following their exercise of tongue-speaking (for example, an increase in personal happiness, a sense of greater personal power, a joyful and warm personal fellowship among tongue-speakers, dependency on the leader who introduced the person to tongue-speaking and divisiveness that polarizes the religious community).
Tongues is not confined to Christianity, however. In all ages, and all parts of the world, people have spoken in apparently unintelligible fashion (Eliade 1987). May (1956) describes the prevalence of tongue-speaking amongst the Hindus in India. The physical manifestations appear to be analogous to what happens in a Christian context, though the belief system connected with the experience is quite different.
Anthropologist G J Jennings (1968) carried out an ethnological study of glossolalia and observed this behavior amongst Tibetan monks, certain North American Indians, the Haida Indians of the Pacific Northwest, the Aborigines of Australia, the aboriginal peoples of the subarctic regions of North America and Asia, the Curanderos of the Andes, the Dyaks of Borneo, the Chaco Indians of South America, shamans in the Sudan, Siberia and Greenland, and in various cults (Voodoo in Haiti, Zor in Ethiopia, Shango on the west coast of Africa, and the Shago in Trinidad).
I have heard anecdotal claims that tongue-speaking occurs in the New Age movement, and would appreciate reports from anyone who has knowledge or experience of this. [2006-11-16: See "Comments" below for an update]
5. What about xenoglossia?
Claims of xenoglossia are well known, and are found mainly within the Pentecostal Movement and in the literature of psychic research. In the broader Christian context, there are several historical accounts. For example, in the 18th century work Lives of the Saints, Alban Butler tells of St Pachomius, the Egyptian founder of the first Christian monastery, who could speak in Greek and Latin although he had never learned them.
In The Pentecostal Movement in the Catholic Church, (Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press 1971) E D O'Connor claims several cases of xenoglossia. Sumrall (1993:126) gives an example of a man who spoke in tongues after a sermon. Another man interpreted his message. "When they had finished, a young man walked to the front and spoke in a foreign language to the one who had given the message. The brother answered: 'I'm sorry, sir, but I don't understand any other language.' The man replied: 'But you spoke my language beautifully. I am Persian.' . the brother answered: 'No, it was the spirit who spoke to you. it was God talking to you, not me.' "
Not all Christian commentators, however, readily endorse the reality of xenoglossia; Harold Lindsell, in a Christianity Today article, comments:
"there is no known case in which a missionary received the gift of speaking the language of the group he sought to reach. Missionaries have always had to learn to speak the required languages the hard way."
In the paranormal literature, numerous cases of xenoglossia are encountered, where it is commonly explained as a feature associated with mediumship, or more rarely, as a manifestation of thought-reading.
An early case of xenoglossia involved a French medium, Madam X. This turn-of-the-century spiritualist wrote long sentences in modern Greek, a language she had not studied. Subsequent investigation showed that many of the phrases came from a particular Greek-French dictionary and it is thought that Madame X may have experienced cryptomnesia - the repetition of forgotten memories.
In his Polyglot Mediumship (1932), Ernesto Bozzano (1862-1945) describes thirty-five case histories of xenoglossia, attributing the ability to spirit possession. Bozzano was a leading Italian parapsychologist, and a vocal proponent of the spiritualistic interpretation of the phenomena of mediumship. He was one of the researchers who investigated the famous medium Eusapia Palladino.
In They Speak With Other Tongues (1964), J L Sherrill claims to have encountered a number of people who exhibited xenoglossia. Jennings (1968) tells of Tibetan monks who, in their ritual dances, spoke "in English with quotations from Shakespeare and with profanity like drunken soldiers, or in German, or French."
Inglis (1985:229) recounts several cases of xenoglossia. In 1857, for example, there is an account of a New York judge, J W Edmonds, who had a daughter, Laura, who was psychic. At a dinner party, Laura spoke in Greek with a Greek guest, carrying on an hour-long conversation. At other times, she could also speak Spanish and American Indian. The American medium George Valiantine could speak in Russian, German, Spanish and Welsh. A Brazilian medium, Carlos Mirabelli, was reported to be able to speak nearly thirty languages (including Syrian and Japanese) and could even write in hieroglyphics.
Modern scholars are more reserved in their judgment, however. Anthropological linguist W T Samarin (1972:112) notes:
"It is extremely doubtful that the alleged cases of xenoglossia (miraculous speech in real languages) are real. Anytime one attempts to verify them, he finds that the stories have been greatly distorted or that the 'witness' turns out to be incompetent or unreliable from a linguistic point of view."
Kildahl (1975) points out that:
"There are no reported instances of a glossolalist speaking a language which was then literally translated by an expert in that language…"
Malony & Lovekin (1985:5) conclude:
"Although tongue speakers often claim that their new language is French or Italian or Spanish, and so on – languages they never knew before – scientific studies to date have not confirmed their claims."
6. Glossolalia and the supernatural
Explaining glossolalic speech as divinely inspired has a long tradition. Motley (1967) points out that a tongue-speaker will usually assert that speech is divinely inspired and that his unknown tongue is a manifestation of the work of his God.
Tongue-speaking was known to Plato, who described its use by Greek and Roman oracles. The priests of Apollo, for example, engaged in prophetic glossolalia. Virgil wrote about a Roman Sibyl who spoke that way, in the Aeneid, book six.
In Christian scriptures, glossolalia is traced back to Acts 2, verse 4:
"They are all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to talk in other tongues, as the spirit gave them power of utterance."
There are numerous other historical accounts, several detailed by Cutten (1927:48-66). In the late 17th century, when the Roman Catholic Church was attempting to exterminate Protestants in southern France, several Huguenot children are said to have spoken correct French, which differed considerably from their native patois of the Cevennes Mountains.
During the 18th century, tongues was a common feature among British Quakers and American Methodists. In the early 19th century it was found among members of the Catholic Apostolic Church in England, and in the US among members of Mormon churches. Later in the 19th century, it became common within the Holiness Churches.
In the early 20th century, speaking in tongues as a religiously-endorsed activity became perhaps the defining characteristic of the Pentecostal and Charismatic Christian groups.
Bynum (1999) describes the origin of modern-day tongues:
"In 1900 Charles F. Parham opened the Bethel Bible School in Topeka, Kansas. Under his teaching and ministry, Miss Agnes Ozman was influenced to speak in tongues. Within a short time a dozen more students had this experience."
The Cape Town-based His People Christian Church, in their New Foundations Course (p17) explain:
"With the baptism of the Holy Spirit, comes the ability to speak in tongues. This is the evidence that someone has in fact received the Holy Spirit … speaking in tongues is a very special gift from God … it is a sign for the unbelievers … speaking in tongues is a way of worshiping God … your mind will not understand what you will say in tongues. Do not let this be a blockage to flowing naturally in tongues … you have control over what you say. It is an act of your will. The Holy Spirit gives you the ability but you do the speaking."
Sumrall (1993:117) explains that tongues "is a supernatural utterance, which comes from God through the person of the Holy Spirit" and "when you speak in tongues, you are speaking supernaturally to God" (:122). He also cautions that the Devil seeks to counterfeit the gift of speaking in tongues: "I have seen dozens and dozens of people uttering things that could not be understood either by the other native people in the meeting or by me as a foreign visitor. They were merely stammering out words under demonic power."
7. Paranormal glossolalia
The first studies of glossolalia were carried out at the turn of the century by investigators of spiritualism. Alcock (1987) points out:
"The study of the paranormal was historically associated with the so-called occult sciences such as astrology and numerology; a more direct progenitor was the spiritualism craze of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries."
Investigators examined spirit messages, apparitions by persons at the point of death, automatic writing, clairvoyance and so on. By the early 1920s the term "parapsychology" (besides or alongside psychology) was in use, instead of "psychical research", and may be defined as the scientific study of anomalous events associated with human experience.
A case reported in 1897 to the Society for Psychical Research described an account of glossolalia that was attributed to a spirit talking through the speaker:
When [the spirit] ceased giving me prose, it gave poetry in 'unknown tongues'. As the foreign verbiage came via voice, I penciled it down, mostly in an archaic mono-phonetic form…"
Another report described a woman:
"When she gave herself permission, her vocal organs would articulate nonsense-syllables with the greatest volubility and animation of expression and with no apparent fatigue, and then stop at the behest of her will."
A few years later, Theodore Flournoy (1854-1921) published From India To The Planet Mars, describing the spiritualistic glossolalia of Helene Smith, who claimed she was speaking in a Martian language. The author describes the experience:
"Presently, Helene begins to recite with increased volubility and incomprehensible jargon . after a few minutes, Helene interrupts herself, crying out "Oh, I have had enough of it; you say such words to me I will never be able to repeat them."
Flournoy was a leading psychologist and psychic investigator. His skepticism about mediums was modified by his experiences with Helene Smith; he showed that although a great deal of her reincarnation testimony was false, he could not explain all her accounts. His later investigation of Eusapia Palladino convinced him that she was a genuine medium.
The Swiss psychologist C G Jung, one-time croney of Sigmund Freud, was very fond of the supernatural. His doctoral dissertation described the case of a girl who exhibited glossolalia while in a séance:
"She went on speaking in the same conversational tone but in a strange idiom that sounded like French and Italian mixed . it was possible to make out a few words, but not to memorize them, because the language was so strange."
Not all early investigators, however, were convinced that this speech was a sign of anything paranormal. Best (1925:1707) writes:
"As to the absurd nonsense talked by mediums when they are possessed by their familiar demons or spirits, such matter is scarce worth regarding, as is appears to be, in most cases, meaningless gibberish."
As the 20th century drew to a close, séances seemed to have become déclassé, and the spirit world less eager to contact us through mediums, mystics and others sensitives sitting around in dingy rooms. Now, they seem to prefer the bright lights of a TV studio. In May of 2000, the American Fox TV network broadcast a two-hour special, "Powers Of The Paranormal: Live On Stage," which included the "séance of the century". The medium, Bill Burns, settled down, and after some standard spirit-possession twitches went into trance and summoned the spirits of Marilyn Monroe and Andy Kaufman. The spirits rambled on about how "I remember this and that." but when the séance was over, Burns explained that the spirits are always confused when they're contacted because "memory is the first thing to leave the spirit when you die."
A better class of dead people are contacted regularly by John Edwards, whose "Crossing Over" TV show regularly features quite intelligible spirits.
South Africa is not behind in this industry, as we now have our own tannie who regularly speaks to the dead on TV.
8. Glossolalia as psychological abnormality
Ask a member of the public how they determine if someone is mentally ill, and they are likely to reply that the person was "difficult to talk to" (Reda 1992). This layman's attitude towards madness is not entirely unreasonable, and seems to have inspired early researchers in the field. Glossolalics have been described as schizophrenic, hysteric, cataleptic, regressed, emotionally unstable, immature, neurotic, excessively dependent and highly dogmatic (Spanos & Hewitt 1979:429). As recently as 1990, the New Encyclopedia Britannica refers to it as 'a neurotic or psychotic symptom.'
Around the turn of the century, scientists understood glossolalia as a form of mass hysteria or psychosis. Cutten (1927), for example, wrote that glossolalics were "schizophrenics at worst or hysteric neurotics at best." However, with no reliable empirical evidence to back up the claim, such a statement is unwarranted.
As psychoses and schizophrenia became better understood, and further studies were conducted into the nature of glossolalia, the psychopathology hypothesis started to weaken. (A broader issue is the fascinating relationship between religious experience, belief in the paranormal, and mental health; see for example my "Psychology and religion reference list", particularly Aronoff et.al. 2000 and Peters et.al. 1999).
One of the earliest studies that looked into the psychopathology of tongues-speaking was undertaken by Lincoln Vivier for his 1960 PhD dissertation at the University of Witwatersrand (South Africa). This often-quoted and controversial work found that glossolalics were psychologically well-adjusted.
Hine (1969) in a study of Pentecostal glossolalia concluded: "Quite clearly, available evidence requires that an explanation of glossolalia as pathological be discarded."
Spanos and Hewitt (1979) showed no difference between glossolalics and non-glossolalics regarding self-esteem, depressive affects, psychosomatic symptoms, neuroticism, extroversion and dogmatism, noting that this "contradicts the common but empirically unfounded view that glossolalia is symptomatic of psychopathology."
The latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association) does not list glossolalia as a symptom of psychosis. In fact, it isn't recognized as a diagnostic criteria for any disorder.
Grady and Loewenthal (1997) examined the broader context within which tongues is spoken - they investigated the frequency, content, associated behaviors, feelings and meanings associated with glossolalia. They found that:
Glossolalia was reported by those who practiced it to be a frequent, usually daily occurrence, more likely to happen out of religious settings than in them. It was reported to be more likely while driving, relaxing or engaged in domestic activities (thus in relatively private settings) than in explicitly religious contexts or activities. Typically the emotions reported are positive, calm ones, or sometimes 'no particular' emotions.
Those who had not practised glossolalia saw it differently:
"The non-glossolalics believed that glossolalia occurs less than daily, and that it normally occurs in religious settings and while engaged in religious activities, that it is accompanied by high arousal, usually positive emotions (ecstasy and the like)…"
The authors speculate that the data show that there are two forms of glossolalia – the private and the public. Type A (calm, private) is characterized by being frequent (daily or several times weekly), usually/often in private, mundane settings, self-aware while speaking, can attend to other claims on attention. In contrast, type B (excited, public) is occasional (weekly or less), usually/only in public/religious setting, not self-aware/dissociation/altered state of consciousness, cannot attend to other claims on attention. They then speculate that:
"Use of type A glossolalia is unlikely to be associated with psychopathology. It is suggested that even though a regular practitioner of glossolalia would engage in a more public and ecstatic form of glossolalia, he is likely to practice in private as well. It is suggested that glossolalia with some features of type b only might be more likely to co-occur with psychopathology, but this is obviously a matter for further investigation."
The claim is often made that schizophrenic speech is glossolalia. This is plainly false. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders characterizes speech in schizophrenia as vague, overly abstract or concrete, repetitive or stereotyped (less commonly, neologisms, perseveration and clanging may be found). Leff (1993:68) provides a sample of a schizophrenic's disorganized speech:
"In my mind is a gist of something that's coming you see and to get them prepared unto on and then when the Lord is ready that gist that's back in my head when the Lord says so my Lord there's then supplied the people who who's ready to who have been applied to come in and coincide their in on the thing the Lord bringeth forth to for me to say on that day on how and how and there and when to coincide their in unto with me."
Leff points out that in schizophrenese, individual words are recognizable, but the links between them cannot readily be followed. Even in the most disintegrated form of schizophrenic speech disorder, known as 'word salad', the units of speech are intact. What is obscure, is the meaning of the words. In glossolalia, on the other hand, although the sounds are incomprehensible, the symbolic meaning of the utterances is clear.
Another important distinction is that whereas glossolalia lasts for only a few minutes, the speech disorder of schizophrenics continues for days, weeks, or occasionally for years.
These observations suggest that glossolalia differs in some important respects from unintelligible forms of speech associated with psychopathology in general and schizophrenia in particular.
9. Abnormal mental states
During the 1960s a number of authors published work describing glossolalia in terms of some type of altered state of consciousness - cognitive disorganization, hypnotic susceptibility, trance state, or dissociation.
Are people who engage in speaking in tongues especially receptive to hypnotic suggestion? Hypnosis is a consciousness phenomenon, induced by suggestion, ranging from mild hypersuggestibility to a deep trance like state. Electrical activity in the brain, as measured by an electroencephalograph (EEG), has shown that the hypnotic state is only apparently a state of sleep, since the EEG patterns of the hypnotized person resemble those of someone awake and not those of a person in any of the phases of sleep. About eight out of ten people can be hypnotized, although only an estimated four will be "good" subjects.
The earliest investigations of a possible link between hypnotic susceptibility and glossolalia yielded inconclusive results, which can probably be attributed to the vagaries of the assessment techniques used (Malony & Lovekin (1985) briefly describe several of these studies).
Lincoln Vivier's 1960 study (mentioned in the previous section) used self-report inventories to determine that glossolalics scored lower on suggestibility than non-glossolalics.
On the other hand, Kildahl (1975) in the USA thought hypnotizability to be a hallmark feature of the glossolalia experience:
"If one can be hypnotized, then one is able under proper conditions to learn to speak in tongues. While people who speak in tongues are not hypnotized, the induction of glossolalia is very similar to the induction of hypnosis. There is a further connection. After a person has been hypnotized for the first time, it becomes increasingly easy for him to be hypnotized on repeated occasions. This holds true also for the tongue-speaker."
Kildahl's work drew attention from the popular media at the time; the New York Times (1974 January 21) reported as follows: "John P. Kildahl, a clinical psychologist and professor at New York Theological Seminary, said here today that the Pentecostal practice of speaking in tongues constituted 'learned behavior.' Dr. Kildahl, an ordained Lutheran clergy man and former chief psychologist at the Lutheran Medical Center in Brooklyn, recently published a study of glossolalia... In his address, he said that on the basis of his research and extensive correspondence with charismatic Christians it appeared that five elements were normally present when someone began speaking in tongues. These are a 'magnetic' relationship with a group leader, a sense of personal distress, and 'intense emotional atmosphere,' a supporting group, and the prior learning of a rationale of its religious significance. In the case of people who begin to speak in tongues when they are alone, he said 'these five conditions have been present in the days or weeks preceding the initial experience.' "
Kildahl's hypothesis was tested by Spanos and Hewitt (1979). They examined the trait of absorption in imaginative experiences - the openness to absorbing and self-altering encounters, and to be engrossed in everyday activities such as daydreaming, watching a movie or reading. This trait is known to be an indicator of hypnotic susceptibility. They also employed a standardized technique (the Harvard Group Scale of Hypnotic Susceptibility) for directly assessing hypnotic susceptibility. Their findings showed - contrary to Kildahl's expectation - that glossolalics did not differ from non-glossolalics on either of these measures.
Thus, being particularly sensitive to hypnosis does not seem a necessary condition for experiencing glossolalia.
The foremost proponent of the trance approach to glossolalia is Felicitas Goodman (1972), who analyzed twenty-nine case histories of tongue-speakers and concluded that speaking in tongues always involves a change of mental state similar to trance (with linguistic and cultural influences):
The trance-like state (an altered state of consciousness) - rather than the speaking in tongues - was the focus of their conversion experience; this trance is achieved or learned initially and is the primary manifestation, while the glossolalia is a secondary feature.
She holds that glossolalic speech is a consequence of being in a trance state:
"In my terms, when a person has removed himself from awareness of the ordinary reality surrounding him, he is in an altered mental state . I use dissociation to characterize the subject's divorcement from ordinary reality . the mental state of the glossolalist, with its obvious somatic agitation, seems to me hyperaroused."
Goodman spent a great deal of time observing the participants in her study, and became impressed with the kinetic behaviors (movements) they exhibited, ranging from trembling, shaking, twitching to jumping, rocking, bowing and arm lifting. To her, this was an essential part of the experience:
"While dissociated, the subjects are rarely ever motionless. There is movement, kinetic behavior, during all phases of this type of mental state."
The response to Goodman's glossolalia-as-hyperarousal was strong. It was rejected by most Pentecostal and Charismatic Christian tongues-speakers, who were against the idea that tongues was usually spoken in an ecstatic state, or as product of a trance. Sumrall (1993:119), an evangelical preacher, comments on his use of tongues:
"When I am speaking in my prayer language, I am alone most of the time. I get more inspiration walking around by myself or driving alone in my car, talking to the Lord."
Scientists, too, provided anecdotal reports that individuals sometimes engage in glossolalia while carrying out activity that involves sustained visual attention to the external environment (Kelsey 1965, Samarin 1972). Samarin notes: "any valid explanation must account for the behavior of one of my respondents: he talks to himself in tongues while testing new aircraft in the air!" As far as Samarin is concerned:
Glossolalia is sometimes associated with some degree of altered state of consciousness, that this occasionally involves motor activity that is involuntary or, rarely, a complete loss of consciousness, and that in any case subsequent use of glossolalia (that is, after the initial experience), is most often independent of dissociative phenomena.
Spanos and Hewitt (1979) directly tested the trance hypothesis, seeing if glossolalia could be repeated in the laboratory and under distinct non-trance like conditions. They recruited twelve young adults from a Charismatic Roman Catholic youth prayer group and studied their tongues-speaking, and concluded:
"Glossolalia was spoken easily with eyes open as well as closed and was neither accompanied by kinetic activity nor followed by disorientation. During glossolalia subjects receptivity to external events and their ability to use information learned before glossolalia was demonstrated…"
Thus, while tongues may be accompanied by kinetic activity, eye closure and disorientation in some social settings, it can easily occur in the absence of these behaviors.
The evidence thus strongly suggests that glossolalia is not a trance-like state, nor is it related to hypnotic suggestibility.
10. Is glossolalia an abnormal language phenomenon?
Part of the human condition is a need to understand experiences, and to explain new observations in the light of old, in terms of what is already known. People want to integrate that which is strange into a system of what is known and knowable.
It is thus entirely reasonable to equate glossolalic vocalizations with speech, fitting the audio-signal of tongue-speech into a previously prepared category, namely language. However, careful linguistic analysis of glossolalic speech samples contradict this common-sense view.
Motley (1967) concluded that there was no evidence that glossolalia represented a known language, structurally it had some similarities to human speech ("was quite language-like"), and did not closely resemble the speakers native language.
Samarin's extensive study of glossolalia leads him to conclude that "in spite of superficial similarities, glossolalia fundamentally is not language" (Samarin 1972). He characterized it as
"…strings of meaningless syllables made up of sounds taken from those familiar to the speaker and put together more or less haphazardly . glossolalia is language-like because the speaker unconsciously wants it to be language-like." (quoted in Nickell, 1993: 108)
11. Glossolalia as normal behavior
Glossolalics behave in various ways. Some go into convulsions or lose consciousness, others are less dramatic. Some seem to go into a trance, some claim to have amnesia of their speaking in tongues. It appears that their behavior is determined by the social expectations of their community and that this behavior is learned. Glossolalics behave the way they do, because it is acceptable and even expected, within their cultural context.
Gerlach and Hine (1968) conducted a study amongst pentecostal Christians and asked them to rank in importance the factors that influenced them to seek the experience of tongues. the study revealed that the most significant factor was contact with an individual who had already had the experience.
At least two studies have been undertaken with the express goal of teaching glossolalia. Samarin (1968) reported that he had taught members of his linguistic class how to speak in tongues, outside of any religious context, and as expected there were no feelings of euphoria as a result of the speaking.
Spanos et.al. (1986) carried out a similar experiment, showing that glossolalia was a learnable skill. After hearing a recorded sample of genuine glossolalia, 20% of his subjects were able to speak in tongues immediately without further training. After some coaching, 70% of the trained subjects were fluent in glossolalia. the authors conclude:
"Glossolalia, therefore, seems likely to be a type of learned behavior rather than a special altered state of mind."
Kildahl (1975) concludes that "the evidence is strong that one may learn to speak in tongues under certain prescribed conditions" and details what he calls the "induction process" leading up to glossolalic speech and summarizes his perspective as follows:
"My glossolalia research has convinced me that it is a learned behavior which can bring a sense of power and well-being. It may also lead to excesses resulting in community disruption. It is the use of glossolalia which determines whether or not it is constructive."
Micah said that true religion was to do justice, love kindness, and to walk humbly with God. If the practice of glossolalia produces these fruits, then it appears to me to be a responsible use of the experience.
A similar sentiment is echoed by Peters et.al. (1999), who examined the incidence of delusional ideation in cults ('New Religious Movements' is the preferred term). Hare Krishnas and Druids were compared to Christians, non-religious people, and deluded psychotics.
New religious movement members were found to share a number of less florid delusional ideas with psychotic patients, were equally convinced of their veracity, but were not as preoccupied or distressed by these experiences. These findings suggest that form may be more important diagnostically than content: it is not what you believe, it is how you believe it.
12. Conclusion
Glossolalia is perhaps best understood as a vocal behavior that can be acquired by almost anyone who possesses the necessary motivation and who is exposed regularly to social environments that encourage such utterances. In our culture, the social groups that encourage glossolalia are almost invariably religious. Therefore, the motivations for engaging in it can usually be best understood in terms of the shared meaning ascribed to this behavior by the religious groups that practice it.
http://www.psychohistorian.org/psychology/articles/2005/speaking_in_tongues.php
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
My Hometown: Northumberland Pa.
History
*Northumberland was founded in 1772.
*purchased from the Iroquois in the first Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768, and the village was laid out in 1772. During the American Revolution, Northumberland was evacuated during the Big Runaway in 1778, and only finally resettled in 1784.
Geography
*It sits at the confluence of the north and west branches of the Susquehanna River.
*According to the United States Census Bureau, the borough has a total area of 1.6 square miles (4.1 km²), all of it land.
Demographics
*Population - 3,714
*Male - 47.4%
*Female - 52.6%
*White - 96.38%
*African American - 0.73%
*Hispanic or Latino - 0.62%
*Native American - 0.13%
*Asian - 0.19%
*Other - 0.40%
*two or more - 0.16%
*Median Income - $31,891
*Males - $31,162
*females - $22,203
*Under Poverty Line - 7.7%
*Education
*78% Graduation Rate
*2005 11th grade
*49% Proficient In Math
*62% Proficient in reading
*Ranked 384/606
*Notable Residents
*Joseph Priestley - English Chemist and Co-Discoverer of Oxygen.
*Paul Tibbets - Piliot that Droped Bomb on Hiroshima, Japan.
Crime (in the last 7 years)
*Murder - 1
*rape - 12
*Robbery - 3
*Assault - 11
*burglary - 163
*Theft - 460
*Auto Theft - 32
*Arson - 2
*Northumberland was founded in 1772.
*purchased from the Iroquois in the first Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768, and the village was laid out in 1772. During the American Revolution, Northumberland was evacuated during the Big Runaway in 1778, and only finally resettled in 1784.
Geography
*It sits at the confluence of the north and west branches of the Susquehanna River.
*According to the United States Census Bureau, the borough has a total area of 1.6 square miles (4.1 km²), all of it land.
Demographics
*Population - 3,714
*Male - 47.4%
*Female - 52.6%
*White - 96.38%
*African American - 0.73%
*Hispanic or Latino - 0.62%
*Native American - 0.13%
*Asian - 0.19%
*Other - 0.40%
*two or more - 0.16%
*Median Income - $31,891
*Males - $31,162
*females - $22,203
*Under Poverty Line - 7.7%
*Education
*78% Graduation Rate
*2005 11th grade
*49% Proficient In Math
*62% Proficient in reading
*Ranked 384/606
*Notable Residents
*Joseph Priestley - English Chemist and Co-Discoverer of Oxygen.
*Paul Tibbets - Piliot that Droped Bomb on Hiroshima, Japan.
Crime (in the last 7 years)
*Murder - 1
*rape - 12
*Robbery - 3
*Assault - 11
*burglary - 163
*Theft - 460
*Auto Theft - 32
*Arson - 2
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Marriage
I've seen discussions in the community about marriage among atheists. Some people don't feel that it is necessary to be married. That is totally up to the life style that you chose to live. There certainly are benefits that come from marriage, and there is nothing religious about it.
In these discussions, people were talking about our rights and benefits. I think that a lot were left out so I decided to make a list for myself.
On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
* joint parenting;
* joint adoption;
* joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
* status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
* joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
* dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
* immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
* inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
* joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
* inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
* benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
* spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co- owner of the home;
* veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
* joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
* wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
* bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
* decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
* crime victims' recovery benefits;
* loss of consortium tort benefits;
* domestic violence protection orders;
* judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
* and more....
Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.
as you can see their are many secular reasons for marriage.
In these discussions, people were talking about our rights and benefits. I think that a lot were left out so I decided to make a list for myself.
On the order of 1,400 legal rights are conferred upon married couples in the U.S. Typically these are composed of about 400 state benefits and over 1,000 federal benefits. Among them are the rights to:
* joint parenting;
* joint adoption;
* joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
* status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
* joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
* dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
* immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
* inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
* joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
* inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
* benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
* spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co- owner of the home;
* veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
* joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
* wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
* bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
* decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
* crime victims' recovery benefits;
* loss of consortium tort benefits;
* domestic violence protection orders;
* judicial protections and evidentiary immunity;
* and more....
Most of these legal and economic benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for. For example, absent a legal (or civil) marriage, there is no guaranteed joint responsibility to the partner and to third parties (including children) in such areas as child support, debts to creditors, taxes, etc. In addition, private employers and institutions often give other economic privileges and other benefits (special rates or memberships) only to married couples. And, of course, when people cannot marry, they are denied all the emotional and social benefits and responsibilities of marriage as well.
as you can see their are many secular reasons for marriage.
Taking The Bible Literally
I've heard a lot lately that most Christians in these modern times only believe that the stories in the bible are only parables to teach us how to live our lives. I don't believe that. I believe that with all of the details included in most of these stories, the bible really was intended to be taken literally. The details thrown in are to make you think everything actually happened as it was written.
There are so many details to every story. The measurements and construction of Noah's ark, The begetting of generations, the exact materials and measurements of temples...these are just a few small examples. If these stories were not intended literally, why are these here?
again..The details thrown in are to make you think everything actually happened as it was written.
I think the reason most Christians say that these stories are only parables is because of the violence and hatred in the old testament. I understand that Christians put most of their focus in the new testament because it tells of their savior. But to completely disown the old testament is ignorant. Is Jesus not the son of god? the two testaments go hand in hand. It explains history of the land before Jesus walked the earth. It also explains the tyranny of their newly found Messiah's father. would you put your faith in Hitler's son if he said he was sent by his dad to save you? ...even though this is a dramatized question, it works as a good analogy.
While we are talking about the interpretation of the old testament, wouldn't it make more sense to be Jewish? I mean, it is the original belief that God himself set forward and Jewish people are considered His chosen people. If the creator of the universe tells you one thing, why would you believe a man that tells you differently? There is a reason Jesus was crucified. he was a blasphemer according to God's original laws. He was killed for claiming to be the messiah. Those Jewish people who believed him are catholic and Catholicism broke into separate branches of protestants. I really cant see how those Jewish people who believed him could not see what was going on. Then again, the bible even contradicts itself when it comes to the messiah. So how could you know this was actually the chosen savior?
anyway, I think that whoever wrote the bible wanted to make it pretty clear that it was intended to be taken literally. And the people who DO take it literally are the ones who you have to look out for. Extremists in any group are a bad thing.
The Bible says that not one interpretation is private, but I think you certainly should draw the line somewhere when it comes to a book that you are putting you're absolute faith in.
There are so many details to every story. The measurements and construction of Noah's ark, The begetting of generations, the exact materials and measurements of temples...these are just a few small examples. If these stories were not intended literally, why are these here?
again..The details thrown in are to make you think everything actually happened as it was written.
I think the reason most Christians say that these stories are only parables is because of the violence and hatred in the old testament. I understand that Christians put most of their focus in the new testament because it tells of their savior. But to completely disown the old testament is ignorant. Is Jesus not the son of god? the two testaments go hand in hand. It explains history of the land before Jesus walked the earth. It also explains the tyranny of their newly found Messiah's father. would you put your faith in Hitler's son if he said he was sent by his dad to save you? ...even though this is a dramatized question, it works as a good analogy.
While we are talking about the interpretation of the old testament, wouldn't it make more sense to be Jewish? I mean, it is the original belief that God himself set forward and Jewish people are considered His chosen people. If the creator of the universe tells you one thing, why would you believe a man that tells you differently? There is a reason Jesus was crucified. he was a blasphemer according to God's original laws. He was killed for claiming to be the messiah. Those Jewish people who believed him are catholic and Catholicism broke into separate branches of protestants. I really cant see how those Jewish people who believed him could not see what was going on. Then again, the bible even contradicts itself when it comes to the messiah. So how could you know this was actually the chosen savior?
anyway, I think that whoever wrote the bible wanted to make it pretty clear that it was intended to be taken literally. And the people who DO take it literally are the ones who you have to look out for. Extremists in any group are a bad thing.
The Bible says that not one interpretation is private, but I think you certainly should draw the line somewhere when it comes to a book that you are putting you're absolute faith in.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
childhood indoctrination
I don't want my kids to think the way I think. I want them to think the way THEY think. they are real people, not clones for us to live vicariously.
I think the real problem is that parents want their kids to be just like them, to achieve where they couldn't and to believe what they always wanted the rest of the world to beleive. Also, to not be unruly. I wonder..if the bible didn't tell us to honor our mothers and fathers, would we have more personality? hm...
I think that a parent's job is to give children the necessary means to grow up on their own, not mold them in their image. I think that a parents job is to teach kids about everything, not just something in a narrow point of view.
doing otherwise is just making them vulnerable in real life situations.
It doesn't mater to me what belief my children have in the future, what matters to me is that they have the right to do so, and to choose freely.
and don't even get me started on parents who disown their homosexual children...
I think the real problem is that parents want their kids to be just like them, to achieve where they couldn't and to believe what they always wanted the rest of the world to beleive. Also, to not be unruly. I wonder..if the bible didn't tell us to honor our mothers and fathers, would we have more personality? hm...
I think that a parent's job is to give children the necessary means to grow up on their own, not mold them in their image. I think that a parents job is to teach kids about everything, not just something in a narrow point of view.
doing otherwise is just making them vulnerable in real life situations.
It doesn't mater to me what belief my children have in the future, what matters to me is that they have the right to do so, and to choose freely.
and don't even get me started on parents who disown their homosexual children...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)