AMEN MY DESTINY IS IN HEAVEN AND MY ASSIGNMENT IS ON EARTH...my God my father I pray for supernatural healing. my GOD open doors that no man can shut.😢🙏😭
Why is a politician preaching in a church? Politics does not belong anywhere near churches or church services. I'm from the Bible belt of the South and we never had politics in our services. Your website says you are a non-denominational church that welcomes all who believe in the Lord & are open to His miracles to be worked upon them & through them, but you don't do that through political stunts. I had hoped that I could find a church here, but evidently I'm going to have to be my own.
“Interpretation of tongues”, frequently going hand-in-hand with ‘speaking in tongues’, may also be said to be a self-created phenomenon. Interpretation is a ‘spiritual improv’ of sorts, inspired by one’s deep faith and beliefs. Interpretations are typically characterized by being inordinately longer than the actual glossic utterance, rather generic and non-specific in nature, and perhaps not surprisingly, open to multiple non-related ‘interpretations’. In other words, have ten interpreters listen to a glossic string and you’ll get ten different (typically unrelated) “interpretations”. In ‘tongues’, ‘The big brown dog is slow’, can also be ‘The small white cat is quick’. These characteristics do not suggest anything that is divinely inspired. It fails even the most basic tests and criteria that define ‘communication’ itself. The common come-back to the multiple interpretation issue is that God/the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations to different people. As someone once put it, “Pentecostal Darwinism does not exist - there’s no mutation or transformation of one message into several for the sake of justifying an obvious discrepancy. If this were the case, it would completely eradicate the need for ‘tongues’ in the first place”. There is nothing mysterious about Biblical "tongues" - when referring to something spoken, they are nothing more than real, rational language(s); perhaps unknown to those listening to them, but always known by the speaker(s) - it’s their native language. The “tongues” Pentecostal and Charismatic Christians are producing today is an _entirely self-created phenomenon_ . It is non-cognitive non-language utterance; random free vocalization based upon a subset of the existing sounds (phonemes) of the speaker’s native language, and any other language(s) the speaker may be familiar with or have had contact with. It is, in part, typically characterized by repetitive syllables, plays on sound patterns and over-simplification of syllable structure. It is occasionally sprinkled with recognizable praise words/phrases (things like ‘hallelujah’, ‘praise Jesus’, ‘Meshiach’, etc.). One of the most immediately obvious results of these processes is that no two ‘speakers’ will ever have the same “tongue”…ever. Occasionally some speakers will use two or more subsets of phonemes to generate glossolalia, producing what, to them, sounds like two (or more) distinct “tongues languages”, thus claiming to be able to speak in “divers tongues”. Here’s the thing, if a person or being produces a stream of speech, in order for it to be ‘language’, regardless of whether spoken in front of you, in some remote corner of the word, on some alien planet, or on some heavenly/spiritual plain of existence, to be 'language', it must contain at a minimal two features - these two features are universal, _regardless_ of _where_ or _by whom_ the speech is being produced; 'tongues-speech’ contains neither one of these two features. It is simply a facade of language. Neither, by the way, is modern tongues/glossolalia gibberish. Gibberish does not seek to mimic language. Glossolalia does. People believe something to be supernatural because they can't explain it otherwise. There are, of course, many things in religion which must be taken on faith; they can neither be proved nor disproved. "Tongues" however, is not one of these things. It is something very concrete and tangible; it is a phenomenon which can be (and has been) studied and analyzed. As one writer bluntly put it: tongues speakers need to understand they are making a very testable claim, and the test has failed, every single time. There is absolutely _nothing_ that “tongues-speakers” are producing that cannot easily be explained in natural and/or linguistic terms. Conversely, when it comes to something spoken, there are absolutely no Biblical references to “tongues” that do not refer to, and cannot be explained in light of, real rational language(s), though it may not be the explanation you want to hear, and it may be one which is radically different from what you believe/were taught. With respect to the concept of scriptural re-definition mentioned further above, the best two examples of this are the phrase “praying in the Spirit”, and the word “tongue(s)” itself. “Praying in the Spirit” does _not_ refer to the words one is saying. Rather, it refers to _how_ one is praying. In the three places it is used (Corinthians, Ephesians, and Jude), there is absolutely zero reference to 'languages' in connection with this phrase. “Praying in the Spirit” should be understood as praying in the power of the Spirit, by the leading of the Spirit, and according to His will. In Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the phase has come to be equated with modern “tongues”, i.e. when one “prays in the Spirit”, one is typically engaged in some form of tongues-speech. The word “tongue(s)” itself is simply a more archaic word for (real) “language(s)”, nothing more. Replace “tongue(s)” with “language(s)” in these various passages and the whole modern Pentecostal/Charismatic concept of “tongues” begins to become difficult to posit - “language(s)” sounds a lot less mysterious, and in many cases, adds more clarity to the text. Again, in Pentecostal/Charismatic parlance however, the word has come to be equated with the modern concept of “tongues-speech”. Indeed, one of the most mindboggling responses I ever received in reference to the above is “They would not be called ‘tongues’ if they were languages.” - it’s honestly difficult to know where to even begin to go with that type of mentality! The popular modern distinction/classification of ‘four types of tongues’ is also the direct result of the Pentecostal redefinition of ‘tongues’ in order to fit the modern phenomenon/understanding. The most damning result of this re-definition is the reading into scriptural texts of things that are just not there. Modern tongues is a _tool_ , remotely akin to chanting, deep prayer, or meditation, etc.; a way by which one may establish a closer relationship with the divine and strengthen one’s spiritual path. In this respect (i.e. as the _tool_ it is), it can be quite powerful one to accomplish these goals, as attested by many of those who use it. Most other cultures that practice glossolalia realize it's a 'spiritual tool'. It is only in certain Christian denominations where is it construed as something it never was. Most people who use ‘tongues’ are very keen on describing the ‘experience’. Indeed, for those that use it, it is very psychologically, physically, and spiritually fulfilling. It’s almost like primal screaming. When people practice ‘tongues’, they feel a sense of sweet release in that all stress can be gone after the experience. People can describe the experience, but in examining the “mechanics” behind it…well, not so much. When a person has experienced tongues, s/he is absolutely convinced as to the ‘scripturalness’ of his/her experience and the correctness of his/her doctrinal beliefs - this, despite the overwhelming scriptural absence of anything remotely akin to it. Mind you, I'm not doubting or questioning the 'experience'; as mentioned, glossolalia as the tool that it is, can be very powerful. Again though, it is important to note that this same statement can be made for virtually _any other culture that practices glossolalia_ . The glossolalia they are producing is in no way different from the glossolalia today's Pentecostal/Charismatic Christians are producing. “Tongues” is to some Christian believers a very real and spiritually meaningful experience but consisting of emotional release via non-linguistic ‘free vocalizations’ at best - the subconscious playing with sounds to create what is perceived and interpreted as actual, meaningful speech. In _some_ cases, I would argue that it is clearly a self/mass delusion prompted by such a strong desire to “experience God” that one creates that experience via “tongues”. Known by many different names, “tongues”, or more accurately “glossolalia”, is practiced by many cultures and religious beliefs from all over the world; it is relatively new to Christianity and certainly not unique to it.
