Demons and such

Hey Alex...I'm not trying to persuade you, but I'll offer you a pretty standard Christian response FYI.Firstly, the NT often differentiates between when Jesus cast demons out of people and when he healed them from sickness. Some verses go something like, "and then Jesus went to them, healing the people of their sicknesses and casting out all demons." A quick look at some relevant passages shows that the NT writers treated the two cases differently (in fact, I think there are cases in which Jesus heals people of epilepsy, and it's treated as a sickness).Also, in regards to your question about modern day demons... Some Christians say that God only gave demons authority to inhabit people at the time of Jesus so that by casting them out he could prove he was sent from God and had dominion over demons. Others claim that demon possession happens today as well. There are the generic stories of people having their eyes dilate, possessing super human strength, and speaking in voices not their own. These stories are somewhat common, although I'm certainly skeptical of the vast majority. People who travel and work abroad (primarily missionaries from my understanding) say that it happens in developing countries quite often, probably because of a heightened spirituality in those countries...again, generic stuff like glowing eyes, crawling on walls, and other supernatural type stuff.Just as a quick reply to the second post, I agree that people certainly pick and choose what they obey. Some of the instances you mentioned are due to the Christian's own ignorance (i.e. not realizing they are no longer bound by the Mosaic law in terms of the shrimp and Sabbath), some is disobedience (charging interests to other believers), and some is due to the ignorance of others (i.e. the Bible does not say the earth is flat or physically the center of the universe).I certainly agree that in a lot of cases, people who consider themselves Christians talk the talk more than they walk the walk. Maybe so many stand up for a literal 6 days of creation but don't bother with other aspects (like lending money without interest) because it's much easier to hold an opinion about something than to actually conduct oneself accordingly when it's undesirable.later guys,
Jake

'Some of the instances you mentioned are due to the Christian's own ignorance'Hehe mike, I mean this toward an individual Christian who believes these particulars, not Christians in general . If someone thinks it is unlawful to eat shrimp, then they are wrong. The Law was fulfilled so that they are not bound by this, but they are ignorant in the matter, and thus will go around telling people it is sinful to eat shrimp. (Note, though, that Paul discusses this matter of the "weaker brother" and how we are to conduct ourselves in this case).I don't mean to say that Christians in general are ignorant and should be beaten up on .Jake

quote:

---

So, no problems with a gay bishop, then? Since the law was fulfilled, the OT condemnation of homosexuality - if, in a nod to Rrhain, it even says that at all - doesn't apply anymore?

---

Christians who consider themselves delivered from the law nonetheless hold themselves accountable to the system of morality set forth in the NT (i.e. the NT maintains that adultery is still a sin, but makes no mention of continued mildew or sacrifice aspects of the Law). Homosexuality is mentioned as sinful in the NT, so even those Christians should consider the act a sin, from my understanding.Jake

Hey doctrbll,Firstly, I said I was offering the Christian explanation, as that is what seemed to be requested. I wasn't arguing the position, but to again offer the general Christian response ...

quote:

---

What do you think fulfillment means. Do away with!? What was it Jesus said? - "I have not come to destroy the law ... I have come to do away with it." ???

---

You're exactly right, he didn't say he that. Jesus said, "I have not come to destroy the Law, I have come to fulfill it." Fulfillment means that the Law's binding nature no longer applies to those who accept the sacrifice of Jesus. The Law required perfection. Jesus was that perfection, and thus by not breaking the Law he fulfilled it. He then became the perfect sacrifice because no sin is forgiven without a blood sacrifice. Thus, fulfillment means that he offered a means for an eternal sacrifice whereby we who accept the sacrifice are no longer held accountable to the Law. Romans addresses this point and no, Jesus didn't write Romans. Christianity considers the apostles' writings just as inspired as Jesus' own words, so the fact that Jesus didn't say "Screw Moses" means little in the Christian's mind because, in essence, Paul did (of course with less personal overtones).

quote:

---

Does that mean that mildew does not continue or is no longer a problem? Do you know that inhaling spores of household mildew can be fatal to small children? Do you know what the Bible prescribes for ridding your house of mildew?

---

With all due respect, what does this have to do with anything? My post was referring to the Law. With the New Covenant, people were no longer required to purify themselves after being exposed to mildew. I didn't say anything to the effect of mildew ceasing to exist. You cut my quote short. It should have been, "the NT...makes no mention of continued mildew...aspects of the Law."

quote:

---

Are you saying that just because the New Testament doesn't mention something means it's not important anymore? The ten commandments are not reiterated in the NT. Does that mean they no longer apply. Jesus did, after all, summarize "all the law and the prophets" by saying, "Love God with all your heart, and your neighbor as yourself."

---

I don't think it would be too tough to find the 10 Commandments reiterated throughout the NT. I can't list specific passages offhand, but I think some study would reveal at least all commandments but Sabbath observation in the NT. Also, to me, the fact that Jesus summarized all of the law and the prophets by saying to love God and your neighbor supports the idea that the meticulous nature of the Law was no more. One is to conduct himself with the utmost love to God and others, thereby making the specific "rules" of the OT unnecessary.Okay, well that's all out of me. I'm more than willing to give opinions and viewpoints, but please don't try to belittle me with disrespect. Hehe, I don't take any offense to joking or even poking fun at me, but your post seemed a little less than respectful. Thanks for the reply, though!Take care,
Jake[This message has been edited by Jake22, 08-12-2003]

quote:

---

For someone who doesn't believe, you certainly have the argument down pat.

---

I am a Christian, actually. It's just that I have more interest in expressing my beliefs than trying to convince others of them, so I try to convey my and other Christian views by letting people know that I'm not interested in arguing. Hehe, looks like I'm doing a great job of that now, eh?

quote:

---

"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect." Sound familiar?
The religious scholars of his day would say that Jesus did not obey the law.

---

Yep, I agree that we should strive for perfection in all that we do. I don't believe complete perfection is possible for us, but I see this command as a general code of conduct. For me it's similar to an academic pursuit. I may strive to be the greatest economist of my day, but I know I will not reach that goal. In trying, though, i will come far closer to greatness than if I hadn't tried at all. That's a pretty lame analogy, but hopefully it conveys something.

quote:

---

The mildew statutes were a matter of public health. It is a perfect example of what's wrong with the Christian penchant for selective belief... If you are willing to grant that public health laws have evolved along with the science of public health, then why not concede that attitudes toward homosexuality should also evolve along with the science of sexuality?

---

I read a syllabus for a class regarding the Law and public health that a friend was taking. The class offered the thesis that much of the Law was aimed at keeping the Israelites healthy. For instance, the professor claimed that shellfish, pigs, and dogs were not to be eaten because those animals do not sweat out toxins, so some stays in the meat and is thus less healthy than other meats. I haven't researched that, so I won't make any claims, but I've read limited literature here and there that agrees.So yes, I see the mildew statute as protecting the health of an important chosen people. The entire Law was so very important in the Israelite nation's role as the means through which the savior of the world would be revealed. It kept them focused on God and on their role as a chosen people, it kept them healthy to become a great nation, etc. Once that savior entered the scene, the whole idea of needing the Law for this purpose was gone, and with Jesus' death it was completely fulfilled.I consider the mildew statutes as evolved in this sense. I don't see them as evolving with human understanding or changing social values, as they are not relative but instead absolutes that changed when their purpose had been fulfilled.

quote:

---

Once again - Because it isn't found in the NT, Christians don't think it applies, even though it is one of the ten commandments. Do you think we should believe nothing but what is found in the NT? Do you think we should lose any of the ten commandments if we can't find them in the NT?

---

I would lean toward a "yes" to your questions. The OT continues to be important in some ways (such as what some believe to be accurate history, and it demonstrates how much God hates sin), but I don't see it as being very important in that it provides the code of conduct we should follow. I would also be inclined to say that any of the 10 commandments not in the NT is no longer binding (although I'd have to research that one before I gave you a definitive answer).For the Law and the OT it is important, in my eyes, that we take it in context. It was meant for the Israelites at a specific time in history, before the Messiah. I think we should stick with Jesus' words about loving God and others, and also with the rest of the system of morality set forth in the NT, and we don't need to rely upon the OT.

quote:

---

A lot less than respectful I imagine. Nothing personal. I simply don't respect Christian doctrine, much less Jewish or Islamic. I am one of those former Christians who understands why some people are willing to burn Christians on sight. You wave that flag. You carry that target. You risk that fate.

---

Hehe, well said . I share in your feelings toward Christians who misrepresent the faith (although obviously not quite as passionate). I suppose I have those feelings toward people on both ends of the spectrum, though. It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people assume Christians are ignorant, have no interest in the pursuit of truth, and have a chip on their shoulder against everyone else. Some (maybe most?) are like that, yes, but not all. When I respond to these posts, often times it's just to show that there are Christians who think about the tough issues instead of ignoring them. For example, I replied to the demon question because the idea that all Christians accept an account of demon possession which is obviously an unknown sickness or a time-specific superstition is a label that's a tad offensive to me. I don't take it personally, but it just reflects the attitude that assumes all Christians are gullible simpletons who cannot think for themselves. You may not like my answer any better, but I guess I would just like people to know that there are answers (however unconvincing they may be to unbelievers).Okay, enough blabbing out of me. Thanks for your posts, and I look forward to hearing more of your thoughts if you want to reply. Oh, and when you say that I carry the flag, I assume you refer to the fact that I'm a Christian...or is it something about my attitude or words? If it's the former, then I don't mind, but if there's something else, I'd like to know so i can work on changing whatever comes off wrong.Regards,
Jake

Phew! Okay, let's see if I can address some points here and here. I haven't made up my mind on that one yet. The issue is something in which I've had renewed interest, leading me for the first time to this site. I've looked at sites like The Institute for Creation Research | The Institute for Creation Research and signed up for their newsletters, but I've also read through many articles I've found linked here. I want to get a full picture before making up my mind, which will involve much more extensive research in the future.If I were asked to make a decision based on what I know now, I would lean toward the literal six days. This is very biased, however, because it is mostly based on the more straightforward interpretation of scripture. In short, I'd rather be wrong because I put too much trust in the word of God than to be wrong because I doubted its clear account. To answer you, then, I would say that I'm a literalist but that I'm looking to weigh the arguments after researching publications/theories and looking with more depth into the Bible. I realize that's a pretty convoluted response, but does it answer your question well enough? Right, I remember reading pericopes in which demon possession caused certain sicknesses. The fact that sicknesses and possessions were often treated differently demonstrates to me that they were two distinct issues, but at times they happened to overlap (not all sicknesses were demon possessions, but an occasional demon possession was so overwhelming that it caused a malady.)I went back to look at the epilepsy passages. You're right in saying there is no mention of epilepsy. The word is only used in some translations as a substitute for "seizures." For instance, Matthew 4:24: "News about him spread all over Syria, and people brought to him all who were ill with various diseases, those suffering severe pain, the demonpossessed, those having seizures, and the paralyzed, and he healed them."
Matthew 17:15:"Lord, have mercy on my son," he said. "He has seizures and is suffering greatly. He often falls into the fire or into the water. Point taken, and I don't have an sure answer.I would guess that is has to do with the fact that the resources available to the Israelites were far more primitive than those of today (i.e. they sent their lepers into isolation because they didn't have dapsone). As our own understanding improves, I don't know that literalists would see taking advantage of this as being contrary to their literal view. I know that a few Christians believe the command in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply authorizes innovation and learning. Thus, failing to pursue science and understanding is bordering on sin to these people. They say that God leaves it up to us to improve our physical situation, so as our medical uderstanding evolves we have a responsibility to put it to practical use.I think that's a bit far-fetched, but I feel that God has given us these abilities for our own good, so we should use them. That's just a personal opinion, though. I see verses such as 1 Peter 3:10 to apply here, as it says one "must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech." That's off the top of my head, so it may not apply exactly or be the only case. Also, I think it's important to note that with his command to love God and men, Jesus was demonstrating that we should focus on love, and our actions will follow accordingly. I personally feel it is a bit dangerous to focus on legalism and think the love will follow. In my experience, the Christians who focus on legalism are the ones who most fit doctrbill's description of the Christian that people want to thrown to the flames on sight. Not in that it offers valuable insight into God's character, as well as providing what most Christians believe to be valuable history. Christians will also find worth in that they interpret certain verses to predict Jesus' coming. There are probably several other reasons that even those who don't think the Law is applicable will find Genesis useful.John, thanks for the info about the animals. To answer your question, he was a professor in biology. I don't think he held a PhD, though. I'll be sure to check out that book you mentioned. Hah! American agriculture in general is the definition of innefficiency. Just out of curiosity, are you a veggie? I wouldn't be afraid to say (perhaps wrong, but not afraid ) that we can't do what Jesus asked. Similar to my analogy of being the best economist of my day, it's the process of striving for an unattainable goal that causes growth. Because of human nature, I don't think it is possible for a man to love God with all his heart, mind, and body. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try, and in the process of trying we will come to love God more than if we didn't try at all, and more than if Jesus said "just love him a whole bunch and you'll be fine." Knowing that God demands perfection is humbling, and helps to mold a Christlike character, imho. Hehe, I don't mean to imply these things. Obviously mildew continues to be fatal and we should be careful in many cases. However, because it is not mentioned in the NT, I see no need to consider mildew a moral issue. The NT doesn't directly mention a balanced diet with all the essential nutrients, but this doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about it. It just means that when we go all weekend only consuming pizza and beer, we're not sinning or unclean (well, as far as the nutrients go ). Maybe full of toxins, but still not unclean in a moral sense. Does that make sense? Hehe, no, I don't. If a judge or teacher wants to hang the 10 Commandments up because they mean something to that person, then I don't think they should be prevented from doing so. However, I don't think the 10 Commandments should be displayed as a code of rules in all public buildings (although, as I mentioned, I consider all but the Sabbath command as "in effect"). Maybe something like the fruit of the spirit would be better . The commonly held Christian belief is that Jesus first preached to the Jews amd then later to the Gentiles (via the Great Commission, etc.) because the Jews are the chosen people and the "roots" in which the Gentiles are grafted. Even Paul says stuff like, "And they will be saved, first the Jew, and then the Gentile" to demonstrate that the Jews continue to hold a special (yet equal) status. I assume you believe the Great Commission chapter was added by the early church, so I understand why you would argue that Jesus had no intentions to spread his word to Gentiles.Just to note, though, the gospel to the Gentiles was first Peter's idea with the Cornelius incident. Paul joined afterward (and later he had to set Peter straight when the Judaizers got to him ). I believe you cut my quote short again. I said we don't need to rely on the OT for a system of moral standards, but it is valuable in other ways (including that reasons that you mentioned). Hehe, I agree with your words, but not your implication. Hah, agreed. Posting anything on this site from a Christian perspective is going into battle! I agree.Okay, well thanks for all the posts, guys. I may not be able to respond till tomorrow, so have a good day and all that. Till then, over-and-out from the token Christian.Jakeedited to fix a quote[This message has been edited by Jake22, 08-13-2003][This message has been edited by Jake22, 08-13-2003]

Assuming by "evolution" you connote the lack of design, yes I disagree with it. That is one I can answer for sure .To expound on my answers a bit (and I imagine this may be a pretty standard opinion among Christians), I don't think that I'll ever be completely confident in the eons of creation, even if I eventually lean that way.In short, science has obviously led to enormous improvements in knowledge, technology, and the whole bit, so I'd like to think that I don't underestimate its ability or significance. However, we can all agree that there will be much improvement and many paradigm shifts in the future. In general, we should accept the theories that best explain the observations until better ones come along. The fact that we have to do this, though, makes me hesitant to put complete trust in our current level of understanding of largely unrepeatable theories. Of course I don't doubt science or its nature by any means, just our interpretation of the objectivity in some cases (namely the theories that don't fit the scientific method well).Most of you folks have no trouble accepting the temporary best theory, and I certainly respect you for it. For me, though, it's like I said...I'd rather be wrong because I put too much trust in what I believe to be the word of God than to be wrong because I doubted a seemingly clear account. If formal evolution were older than 150 and/or repeatable, if I felt we were even close to having enough evidence on the table, and if I believed interpretations were made with complete objectivity, then I would be much more inclined to take a firm stance.In the meantime, though, I'll most likely choose a literal interpretation by default. Heh, obviously my conclusions are anything but unbiased, so I don't doubt that I'm already stereotyped by most of you. Aw well, I'll just sterotype you right back...all you self-righteous "scientists," ganging up and belittling others in order to hide your own deficiencies and subjectivity! Hehe.Like I said, I will certainly conduct research. If nothing else, I want to understand as much as possible about where both sides are coming from. I'm sure you guys have excellent arguments and points to offer in response to this post, poking holes here and there. This is kind of a tough post for me because I know that there is room to be smacked around. I could probably even play the devil's advocate and offer the same arguments as you would, so just know that this is where I'm at now, and since I was asked I thought I'd share. Cool? I hear ya. Thanks for the feedback. My pleasure. I hope you find what you're looking for in regards to demon possession.Regards,
Jake