Bioux went on to say that one has no control over Tongues and one�s pastor can not speak some magic word and make Tongues happen to you. He said that Tongues is a gift given when one is witnessing for Christ and there is a language barrier.

I disagree with some of that. I believe that we do have control over Tongues, in that we can choose not to speak. This has happened with my Mother and Father both. I agree with Bioux that one�s pastor can�t just say some magic word and pewf you can speak in Tongues. However, I believe that it�s possible that the Holy Spirit works within someone simultaneous to a pastor�s blessing.

As far as I�m concerned, I don�t put faith in a man. I put faith in God and Jesus. I�m not keen on saying that a pastor has the power to do anything. I also believe that if someone thinks their pastor has given them the ability to speak in Tongues, they�re sorely missing the point of going to church in the first place. -- But that�s another entry altogether.

I don�t agree that Tongues is a gift to overcome a language barrier with other people as Bioux implied (outright stated, actually). I believe that Tongues is there to overcome a language barrier, but not with other people. I believe that Tongues is there to overcome the language barrier in one�s own vocabulary.

Again, since I personally don�t speak in Tongues and never have, I don�t have first-hand experience. However, both my Mother and Father speak in Tongues. As well as my sister and another friend of the family. In every case I�ve been present for, individuals spoke in tongues when their English vocabulary couldn�t express what they needed to say.

From watching and listening, I am of the opinion that Tongues is (at least in my family) used to express what the Holy Spirit needs spoken. -- Again, this gets into a whole different area and I would rather not jump into it at this present moment in time. I need time and intensive study before I go spouting my mouth about actual Biblical precepts. I need the scripture back up and this is not something I can pull off with just a few minutes and a hasty glance at the Bible.

Bioux went on to say that I had done what most who speak in Tongues do. He stated that I left out the qualifying verses.

I disagree with that. In my comment on his message board, I stated that in the verses following what I�d quoted, it went on to say many different things. I personally chose not to quote all the verses as I didn�t want to put a diary-entry-length entry in his guestbook. Heh.

He went on to quote verses 6 through 9 of I Corinthians 14. He stated that those verses refute the concept of babbling in church. He also stated that the verses say those who babble will be thought mad by unbelievers and that one�s words need to be easily understood. He says that this means one should speak in a known language/tongue.

I agree that those verses should dissuade one from �babbling� in church. I agree that the verses state that those who �babble� will be thought mad and that one�s words need to be easily understood. But, the reason they need to be easily understood is so that those who are listening can be edified. (read the chapter, it really says that. At least in the NIV which is the version I use)

I disagree with Bioux�s belief that the above mentioned verses mean that one needs to speak in a known tongue/language. I believe that the qualifier (I don�t have the verse in front of me) Paul used was that Tongues were not as helpful unless there was also interpretation. Paul did not, to my understanding, say that Tongues shouldn�t be spoken. (I don�t think Bioux believes Tongues shouldn�t be spoken, don�t get me wrong here.) To my understanding, Paul was saying that if one was going to speak in Tongues, they should also interpret what they said so that everyone could understand.

I believe that Bioux and I really do have similar perspectives here, but they�re not the same.

Yes, Paul stated that he would rather speak in a known language than an unknown language. I agree with that. The thing I�m getting at is that Tongues isn�t a bad thing to have. It is not unimportant. It is not necessarily a bad gift or undesirable. But It must be tempered with interpretation in order to have any meaning/impact for those who aren�t the speaker.

You know, the more I go through this, reading through what Bioux has said and the way he has interpreted these verses, I realize that it�s not so much his belief that I have difficulty grasping/dealing with. The problem I have is with his delivery.

This may well be my own problem. When I read his words, they seem very... aggressive. The tone I perceive seems to be argumentative and coming from an �I�m right, you�re wrong� point of view. Hmmm. Is this true, Bioux? Have I been reading you wrong?

I know that I have a tendency to place my own perception of tone and intent upon other people�s words. Thus is the way of life when you�re dealing with a textual medium. I�m curious as to whether or not you believe as strongly as I read your words.

That didn�t make sense. What I mean is that when I read your words, you seem to be very aggressive... almost as if you were willing to duke it out with someone if they didn�t agree with you. As I read again and again and again, I get to feeling as if you were trying to control everyone around you. I think that I might be placing more aggression on your words than you are.