|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Demons and such | |||||||||||||||||||||||
helena  Suspended Member (Idle past 5844 days) Posts: 80 Joined: |
Hi all,
didn't quite expect as many answers.. Thanks all, I'll try to follow up with some comments.. Jake22 wrote:
quote:Alright, but at the time the gospels or indeed the books of the OT were written, some sicknesses were known as such: e.g. leprosy - people knew it was a sickness, they just didn't know how to treat it, so casting people out from society helped to prevent spreading the disease... Some medical conditions seem to have been linked to demonic possession (I for one did not find a verse in any gospel, where it says something about epilepsy)... quote:I partially agree, partially don't... let's keep on topic (demonic possession) - No offense, but I've been lurking around these forums long enough to see that discussions tend to sway quickly towards certain directions.. quote:good point quote:Doesn't strike me as convincing: He (personally at least) isn't here anymore, thus what would they have to fear... 2000 years (more or less) have gone by, I'd be interested what is taking them so long... quote:Drugs?! My question though stands, why can bible literists accept medical treatment according to modern standards (compare Leviticus: Many of the conditions described as leprosy might today be diagnosed as lichen, which is no reason for casting somebody out of society), as mankind's understanding of these conditions has outgrown what people held to be true thousands of years ago? And why on the other hand, are they unable to see the validity of other observations (such as astronomy etc.)? Could this be, because e.g. a severed visual nerve is something close at hand and therefore understandable, while Alpha Centaury is quite some way off? regards,Alex
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
helena  Suspended Member (Idle past 5844 days) Posts: 80 Joined: |
quote:Not much of a literist, are you? Correct me if I'm wrong: But "Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain." is not reiterated. Does that mean one is allowed to swear? Also in the light of what you said above: Wouldn't by the same arguments the whole Genesis thing be discardable?regards, Alex
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: This was not a professor of biology was it? Shellfish do accumulate heavy metals, though I am not sure would have been a problem pre-industrial revolution. Pigs and dogs may not sweat, but they do have kidneys. ( Well, technically, dogs do have sweat glands on their feet. ) The prohibition against eating pig doesn't have anything to do with toxins. It concerns economics. Pig farming is not very efficient unless certain specific conditions are met. Try to find Marvin Harris' "Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Withches." Harris is an anthropologist who focuses on the biology surrounding, influenced by, and influenceing human culture. ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
John writes:
quote: I vaguely recall the trichinosis factor being in there, too, but that may be apocryphal or a later justification.... ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
Yeah, but it doesn't hold. Too many other cultures of the time ate pig. They didn't have a problem with trichinosis for the same reason we don't have that problem now-- fire. Marvin takes up this issue in the book I named.
Basically, pigs eat the same things we eat. Raising a pig is essentially giving it food your kids could eat. The same with dogs, but worse still, since dogs are mostly carnivorous. Pigs will, at least, eat veggie scraps and such. If you get the organization right, you can raise pigs and still end up with a net caloric gain. But such high organization doesn't work for a nomadic people. Pig ranching has never hit the frequency of cattle ranching for pretty much the same reasons. Squeezing a caloric gain out of the deal is much more difficult that squeezing such gain out of a cow. ( Modern cattle ranching is hellishly inefficient. Don't get me started. )------------------ No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 08-13-2003] [This message has been edited by John, 08-13-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2764 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Jake22 writes:
In other words, Jesus didn't mean what he said ..." or "We can't do what he asked us to do"?
I agree that we should strive for perfection in all that we do. I don't believe complete perfection is possible for us, I see the mildew statute as protecting the health of an important chosen people. The entire Law was so very important ... It kept them focused on God ... 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.
Incredible! No more need to be healthy? Because it is not discussed in the NT, there is no need to be concerned about mildew? Do you doubt that exposure to mildew can be fatal? Do you doubt that we should follow certain rituals to protect ourselves from mildew? Or does Jesus death mean that we don't have to concern ourselves with midew anymore? How was the mildew law "fulfilled" by Jesus death?
I would also be inclined to say that any of the 10 commandments not in the NT is no longer binding
So, I guess you are not one of those who thinks they should be posted in every school and public building in America. ?
It was meant for the Israelites at a specific time in history, before the Messiah.
According to Jesus, Salvation itself was meant for the Jews. He sent his disciples only to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel." the Gospel to the Gentiles thing was Paul's idea.
... we don't need to rely upon the OT.
You can't get away from it. The OT is how you attempt to prove that Jesus was The messiah. The OT is what you use to claim that the Jesus "fulfilled" the Law.
... absolutes that changed when their purpose had been fulfilled.
Absolutes that changed? What dictionary do you use?
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.
As I see it, there are two kinds of Christians, those who don't ask and can't tell; and those who, as you say, seek truth. The former will always be Christians. The latter will, eventually, come to a knowledge of the truth.
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?
It is that you go forth into battle. Such Christians are the only ones at risk. The others do not write here, and most of them would not understand our conflict anyway. Hey! Without guys like you, I'd have no one with whom to spar. Cheers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
helena  Suspended Member (Idle past 5844 days) Posts: 80 Joined: |
Mostly along the same lines as doctrbill...
How can then anyone stand in for capital punishment, when Jesus explicitly says: Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven or Luke 6:29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. So if he, as you say "fulfilled" or "did away with" the OT law then, how can anyone claim that justification for capital punishment can be found in the bible ... I'd still like to hear about demons though Alex
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jake22 Inactive Member |
Phew! Okay, let's see if I can address some points here and here.
greyline writes: Do you believe in the literal account of Creation?
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?
Alex writes: Some medical conditions seem to have been linked to demonic possession (I for one did not find a verse in any gospel, where it says something about epilepsy)... 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. Alex writes: My question though stands, why can bible literists accept medical treatment according to modern standards...as mankind's understanding of these conditions has outgrown what people held to be true thousands of years ago? 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.
Alex writes: Correct me if I'm wrong: But "Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain." is not reiterated. Does that mean one is allowed to swear? 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.
Alex writes: Also in the light of what you said above: Wouldn't by the same arguments the whole Genesis thing be discardable? 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.
John writes: Modern cattle ranching is hellishly inefficient. Don't get me started. Hah! American agriculture in general is the definition of innefficiency. Just out of curiosity, are you a veggie?
drbill writes: In other words, Jesus didn't mean what he said ..." or "We can't do what he asked us to do"? 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.
doctrbill writes: Because it is not discussed in the NT, there is no need to be concerned about mildew? Do you doubt that exposure to mildew can be fatal? Do you doubt that we should follow certain rituals to protect ourselves from mildew? 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?
doctrbill writes: So, I guess you are not one of those who thinks they should be posted in every school and public building in America. ? 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 .
doctrbill writes: According to Jesus, Salvation itself was meant for the Jews. He sent his disciples only to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel." the Gospel to the Gentiles thing was Paul's idea. 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 ).
doctrbill writes: Jake said: ... we don't need to rely upon the OT. You can't get away from it. The OT is how you attempt to prove that Jesus was The messiah. The OT is what you use to claim that the Jesus "fulfilled" the Law. 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).
doctrbill writes: As I see it, there are two kinds of Christians, those who don't ask and can't tell; and those who, as you say, seek truth. The former will always be Christians. The latter will, eventually, come to a knowledge of the truth. Hehe, I agree with your words, but not your implication.
doctrbill writes: It is that you go forth into battle. Such Christians are the only ones at risk. The others do not write here, and most of them would not understand our conflict anyway. Hey! Without guys like you, I'd have no one with whom to spar. Hah, agreed. Posting anything on this site from a Christian perspective is going into battle!
Alex writes: How can then anyone stand in for capital punishment, when Jesus explicitly says:Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven 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. Jake edited to fix a quote [This message has been edited by Jake22, 08-13-2003] [This message has been edited by Jake22, 08-13-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4752 From: u.k Joined: |
'the Gospel to the Gentiles thing was Paul's idea.'
What? Are you telling me you missed a whole book called 'Isiah'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greyline Inactive Member |
quote: Good to hear you are researching both sides of the argument. This is exactly what I did back in those dim dark days when I was a Christian. I found that I tended to believe whichever was the most recent thing I read. "The Fossils Say No"... "The Fossils Say Yes"... it can get confusing (and I was doing a science course at Uni!).
quote: Thank you, it does. But it prompts another question: regardless of whether Creation took 6 literal days or 6 eons, do I take it that you have rejected evolution? ------------------o--greyline--o
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
doctrbill Member (Idle past 2764 days) Posts: 1174 From: Eugene, Oregon, USA Joined: |
Jake22 writes:
"Be ye therefore perfect, as your father in heaven is perfect." That isn't worded as a request. It wasn't encouragement to "strive" for an "unattainable goal." It is a command; given in the imperitive. You will recall that Jesus said, "If you love me, keep my commandments." This is clearly one of his commandments. You might argue in favor of deleting one of the ten oldies because it's not in the NT, but I'm sure that the commandments of Jesus are not so easily dismissed. "Love one another." He said. Not, "Strive to love one another even though you'll never be able to do it."
we can't do what Jesus asked. ... 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. Knowing that God demands perfection ...
I don't know about what God demanded, but Jesus (working within the myth you understand) clearly demanded it.
I see no need to consider mildew a moral issue.
It's not, unless by negligence, by disregarding the public health law, you become responsible for someone's death. Then it becomes moral indeed.
... when we go all weekend only consuming pizza and beer, we're not sinning or unclean ... in a moral sense.
I agree, but that is, of course, debatable. The mildew statutes were not about ceremonial or moral cleanliness. They were about cleanliness period. Only after they were outdated (they sound pretty weird now) did their dogged observance constitute a moralistic addiction to tradition. I cannot cite specifics, but I believe Roman public health science was more advanced than that of Judea. More advanced than most civilizations of the time. That in itself would be incentive to discard antiquated provincial ordinances and go with the new and improved statutes of Roman public health law. I am sure that Jesus and the Apostles were, for their time, progressive thinkers. They were, at least, revolutionary thinkers who were willing to die for their politico-religious ideals. ... Geez, I think I must be beginning to sound like a Christian apologist! At any rate, these men must have seen how the once beneficial advancements in science and faith had become meaningless religious rituals. How many Christians today are willing to be so bold? To examine their own "science" and "faith" to determine whether it holds True to Life? For me, it did not, does not, and shall not in my lifetime. It could take a million years to catch up to my personal evolution, if ever it could, or would. But then if I hadn't been steeped in the stuff for twenty five years, I wouldn't be the well tanned heretic I am today, would I.
Hehe, I agree with your words, but not your implication.
Humor in the midst of thrust and parry. Damn!! I'm beginning to like you.
... over-and-out from the token Christian.
Few champions of your ilk conduct battle in such a gentlemanly manner.
Kudos to you sir. The subject, and the day is tiring me. Perhaps I'll join in the fray later on. db ------------------Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
helena  Suspended Member (Idle past 5844 days) Posts: 80 Joined: |
quote:And does that apply to all "sciences"? or does it stop at Geology/Biology? about Genesis:
quote:Some of what you say pertains to faith and believing in God and Jesus as the savior, which is totally fine by me. However, in stating it is "valuable history" you go that one step further, which I personally do not think is logical. Well thanks anyways, for taking the stance ... regards,Alex
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jake22 Inactive Member |
greyline writes: Thank you, it does. But it prompts another question: regardless of whether Creation took 6 literal days or 6 eons, do I take it that you have rejected evolution? 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?
doctrbill writes: The subject, and the day is tiring me. Perhaps I'll join in the fray later on. I hear ya. Thanks for the feedback.
Alex writes: Well thanks anyways, for taking the stance ... My pleasure. I hope you find what you're looking for in regards to demon possession. Regards,Jake
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
chinger Inactive Member |
Many books are sold about casting out demons,there must be a lot of people that are convinced that demons are real.
I know a person that his only real interest in life is casting out demons.He used to be a friend,and i guess he still is,however any discussion we have is about casting out demons,thats all he will talk about. Why is there so little interest in this subject?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Why is there so little interest in this subject? Maybe because there's no such thing as demons?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024