Pentecostalism

[Basstrap]

I was skimming through a few threads here and noticed one comment about Pentecostalism being a "false teaching"
Now, I have no wish to defend this denomination entirely. I was raised pentecostal and I'm all too aware of the kinds of neuroses that upbringing can impart on an individual. A quick viewing of Jesus Camp should convince anyone of the dangers of Pentecostalism.

However, I'm interested to know what doctrines exactly are viewed by other denominations as being false teachings. Growing up, I was given the impression that to be Pentecost meant to abide strictly by the words of the Bible. Catholics were viewed as having strayed from this (since many Catholics in our area weren't very religious and still drank and smoked and...gasp...had dances.)

anyway, that's that

(full disclosure: I am now an atheist)

 

[Diemen]

Catholics don't have any specific teachings barring them from drinking, smoking or dancing. We figure if Jesus made water into wine, the least we can do is drink it. I mean, it'd be rude not to.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I take such beliefs as bizzare manifestations of belief based upon a messianic figure or fiction in ancient Judea. The claim that it is a false teaching is itself a flawed argument given the position of the poster, they are equally false.

I am an atheist and the more I think and understand of the world justifies that position. There are very few good reasons to believe in any gods given the nature of the world. The suffering of the world is explicable in a mechanical and material universe but becomes inexcusable in any special creation. Religions are all false teachings making unjustifiable claims about the nature of the universe that nobody has any decent cause to say.

 

[A stor]

Catholics view the Bible as a "book of faith." We don't interpret it as being literal or even completely acurate.

 

[Inner El Guapo]

The Evangelicals I am aware of have an interesting view of most all other denominations. And by "interesting view" I mean 'general disdain'.

 

[yolland]

A lot of the Southern Baptists where I grew up spoke of this all the time, "false teachings," "false religion" etc. Catholics were the most frequent target of their allegations. Transubstantiation, infant baptism, veneration of Mary, 'faith + works,' belief in papal authority...these were all said to be "false teachings," the idea as I understood it being that they directly endanger your soul/salvation by misleading you into thinking that anything other than accepting Christ as your savior could save you and keep you right with God. I went to a Catholic high school in that area and after I got the scholarship to go there, a couple 'friends' disapprovingly related these kinds of things to me about Catholicism. I still remember half-jokingly telling one of them that seeing how I'm Jewish anyway, this should at least be a step up for me, and to my astonishment he said something like, No, at least you know you're rejecting Christ, whereas Catholics call themselves followers but aren't, that's a false religion. I don't think I've ever personally heard anyone explain why Pentecostalism might involve "false teachings," but my guess would be that for starters the emphasis on speaking in tongues might be considered "false teaching" in that it suggests accepting Christ as your savior gives you special magical powers, or something to that effect.

 

[nathan1977]

The Evangelicals I am aware of have an interesting view of most all other denominations. And by "interesting view" I mean 'general disdain'.

The Evangelicals I know have an interesting view of most all other denominations too.

And by "interesting view" I mean "broad open-mindedness and the willingness to partner with like-minded people."

So...

 

[Basstrap]

well, I'm gonna dust off my old evangelical hat here.

I think one of the most important verses, with respect to abstaining from the various vices, demanded that we "avoid the very presence of evil" (paraphrased, I'm sure.) This influenced my parents condemnation of dancing (school dances included.) One was to avoid even quasi-intimate association with the opposite sex because there was a possibility that lust could be introduced into the mind (i.e. presence of evil)

When it comes to drinking:
What does the Bible say about drinking alcohol / wine? Is it a sin for a Christian to drink alcohol / wine?

Even though there may be no explicit pronouncements against drinking in moderation, it was well known that many catholics got drunk, which is fairly explicitly forbidden.

The position against smoking was influenced by the passage imploring people to take care of their bodies since it was a temple of the Lord. (drinking also fell under this verse)

The larger point I will try to make here (as I place the atheist hat back on) is not to defend what I consider to be a very insidious denomination, but to point out that the Pentecostal faith IS very much supported by the Bible.
Even worse, the bible also supports the position taken by Fred Phelps. Sure, he cherry picks, but so does the liberal Christian who tries to sweep all the homophobia, genocide, slavery and patriarchal dominance under a rug. But, they must do exactly that.

Christianity has had to undergo sweeping reforms in order to catch up with modern ethics, morals, and values (human rights, etc) not the other way around. And this will continue to happen. What is recognized as Christianity 200 hundred years from now may no more resemble its current form than today's Christianity resembles that which was followed 2000 years ago.

 

[Basstrap]

I don't think I've ever personally heard anyone explain why Pentecostalism might involve "false teachings," but my guess would be that for starters the emphasis on speaking in tongues might be considered "false teaching" in that it suggests accepting Christ as your savior gives you special magical powers, or something to that effect.

speaking in tongues usually has to do with prophesy, and is one of the gifts of the spirit. Interpreting tongues is also something that comes part and parcel with it.
“And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues” (Mark 16:17)

I frequently observed people, including close friends at the time, speaking in tongues. And for a long time it was the thing that kept me believing in god. How else could it be explained? Nowadays I think there are perfectly acceptable explanations to be found in the material world (look up glossolalia and xenoglossia)

 

[BVS]

Even worse, the bible also supports the position taken by Fred Phelps. Sure, he cherry picks, but so does the liberal Christian who tries to sweep all the homophobia, genocide, slavery and patriarchal dominance under a rug. But, they must do exactly that.

Christianity has had to undergo sweeping reforms in order to catch up with modern ethics, morals, and values (human rights, etc) not the other way around.

Well this is only true if you understand the Bible as much as Phelps does or the poster that made the "false teachings" comment.

Homophobia doesn't exist in the original texts. There is not one mention of gay relationships(as we know them today) in the original texts.

Just like there is not any support for genocide or slavery.

 

[Basstrap]

Well this is only true if you understand the Bible as much as Phelps does or the poster that made the "false teachings" comment.

Homophobia doesn't exist in the original texts. There is not one mention of gay relationships(as we know them today) in the original texts.

Just like there is not any support for genocide or slavery.

well, as much as I'm sure you're a trust-worthy source, I would need to see some proof of that other than just your word.

God commands Saul to kill every man, woman, child, and animal in Amalek. Are you saying that is not in the original text?

 

[Irvine511]

i would imagine that "evangelical" in this thread denotes a fairly political understanding of a certain kind of Christian -- "evangelicals" are certainly understood as a very, very large voting block who are traditionally moved to vote by conservative social issues.

however, i'd imagine that there are a wide variety of people who might self-identify as "evangelical" but wouldn't fall under the commonly understood definition of an "evangelical." i would imagine it's a broad group and we'd have problems with generalizing.

all that said, things like speaking in tongues and other Jesus Camp-type activity looks completely and utterly bonkers to me as does any pretense to a literal understanding of the Bible. it also seems rather uniquely American, the self-absorption and self-importance.

 

[Pearl]

Last year, I read The Case for God by Karen Armstrong where she proved something I always suspected: that the Old Testament was meant to be, and viewed until recently, as allegory. Meaning, the whole book of Genesis and most of the OT was never taken seriously or as the absolute word of God.

Just my two cents, since Basstrap asked for "some proof..other than just your word".

 

[BVS]

well, as much as I'm sure you're a trust-worthy source, I would need to see some proof of that other than just your word.

God commands Saul to kill every man, woman, child, and animal in Amalek. Are you saying that is not in the original text?

But there aren't any texts that show Christ relating back to these type of texts are there?

 

[Basstrap]

Last year, I read The Case for God by Karen Armstrong where she proved something I always suspected: that the Old Testament was meant to be, and viewed until recently, as allegory. Meaning, the whole book of Genesis and most of the OT was never taken seriously or as the absolute word of God.

Just my two cents, since Basstrap asked for "some proof..other than just your word".

Well, lets not treat the word "proof" too lightly. I'm doubtful she proves anything. One could probably find any number of books that argue convincingly for more literal interpretations.

At any rate, it would clearly be a good thing if all Christians believed as Ms. Armstrong. Since it appears that Christianity will not go the way of Greek myth anytime soon, the more Christians who embrace allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament the better!

 

[Basstrap]

But there aren't any texts that show Christ relating back to these type of texts are there?

so? God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. I assume, then, that he has no regrets about the slaughter of innocent children (an allegory, I'm sure...)

 

[Pearl]

Well, lets not treat the word "proof" too lightly. I'm doubtful she proves anything. One could probably find any number of books that argue convincingly for more literal interpretations.

At any rate, it would clearly be a good thing if all Christians believed as Ms. Armstrong. Since it appears that Christianity will not go the way of Greek myth anytime soon, the more Christians who embrace allegorical interpretations of the Old Testament the better!

so? God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. I assume, then, that he has no regrets about the slaughter of innocent children (an allegory, I'm sure...)

Armstrong is a well known theologian who has written extensively about many religions, not just Christianity. If she made up half of what she published, no one would take her seriously.

But I'm sure you wouldn't accept what I have to say, thanks to your snarky comment in the second quote.

 

[Basstrap]

Armstrong is a well known theologian who has written extensively about many religions, not just Christianity. If she made up half of what she published, no one would take her seriously.

But I'm sure you wouldn't accept what I have to say, thanks to your snarky comment in the second quote.

I'm sorry if that came off snarky, but I guess I thought that the very idea of including the murder of children in some sort of positive allegory to be worthy of at least a little "snarkiness."

Listen, I'll admit that I'm in over my head, and I will not profess to have as good a grasp on the bible as respected theologians. Some things, especially in the old testament, just inflame my emotions.
So, now would probably be a good time for me to back away from this argument.

 

[BVS]

so? God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. I assume, then, that he has no regrets about the slaughter of innocent children (an allegory, I'm sure...)

Well you were making a comment on Christianity, therefore the teachings of Christ... I don't know of anyone that sweeps the stories of genocide and slavery under the rug, but to try and infer that Christianity somehow supports these acts and it's only a "reformation" and an attempt to catch up to modern day ethics that allows us not to support them now is ridiculous. You seem to truly misunderstand the context and relationship between the OT and the NT.

 

[Pearl]

I'm sorry if that came off snarky, but I guess I thought that the very idea of including the murder of children in some sort of positive allegory to be worthy of at least a little "snarkiness."

Listen, I'll admit that I'm in over my head, and I will not profess to have as good a grasp on the bible as respected theologians. Some things, especially in the old testament, just inflame my emotions.
So, now would probably be a good time for me to back away from this argument.

Apology accepted - really!

This could be a good thread with good discussions if you stick around.

 

[Basstrap]

Well you were making a comment on Christianity, therefore the teachings of Christ... I don't know of anyone that sweeps the stories of genocide and slavery under the rug, but to try and infer that Christianity somehow supports these acts and it's only a "reformation" and an attempt to catch up to modern day ethics that allows us not to support them now is ridiculous. You seem to truly misunderstand the context and relationship between the OT and the NT.

-You could very well be right about that (my misunderstanding)
I was just making the observation that Christ is God incarnate, God professes to never change, and therefore I take it he doesn't experience regret. If he had it all back to do over again, he wouldn't change anything. This isn't something found in the bible, I'm just extrapolating.

-My understanding of the NT/OT relationship is that the NT is supposed to be a sort of new covenant. Out with the old, in with the new.

-My exposure to the bible was in the context of an ultra-conservative Pentecostal upbringing. So, I have no doubt that my grasp of it is crude.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

all that said, things like speaking in tongues and other Jesus Camp-type activity looks completely and utterly bonkers to me as does any pretense to a literal understanding of the Bible.

Fully agreed on that. I don't understand how anyone can possibly view the Bible in a literal sense. Even if there is truth in it (which I do believe there is), there will still be moments of metaphor, symbolism, etc. How do people not get that, not understand that?

I've not seen 'Jesus Camp', but I've heard about it, and it sounds...frightening, to put it mildly.

Angela

 

[the iron horse]

so? God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. I assume, then, that he has no regrets about the slaughter of innocent children (an allegory, I'm sure...)

We don't seem to be too concerned about the slaughter of innocent children.



back to the topic: Pentecostalism

It is a false teaching.

 

[BVS]

back to the topic: Pentecostalism

It is a false teaching.

Do you want to even attempt to explain why? Or is this all we get from you? Opinion without facts or discussion...

 

[Jive Turkey]

back to the topic: Pentecostalism

It is a false teaching.

I agree. I'd also like to throw in every other religion that was ever taught to anyone, ever

 

[the iron horse]

Do you want to even attempt to explain why? Or is this all we get from you? Opinion without facts or discussion...

Here we go:

Speaking in Tongues EXPOSED!


What's your question?

 

[Jive Turkey]

What denomination are you, Iron Horse?

 

[the iron horse]

What denomination are you, Iron Horse?

I am not a denomination.

 

[Irvine511]

We don't seem to be too concerned about the slaughter of innocent children.

you mean like in war?

 

[the iron horse]

you mean like in war?

I think when we are killing human beings, we can call it a war.