The Power/Reality Of Demons And Supernatural Evil.

What!?!? From an entirely different topic?!? What were you thinking?

{taking the French approach of using "one" (Fr. "on") for the impersonal "you"}
Whenever one quotes from a message that is not the one to which you are directly replying (as per the "Reply to:" caption in the top right corner), then one must explicitly identify the message which is the actual source. That is especially true when the message in question is in an entirely different topic.

{switching back to the personal "you"}
You did quote from a message to which you were not directly replying (as per top right corner) and without explicitly identifying that message. If that message had been in the same topic, then we would have been able to compensate for that deficiency by searching the current page for that quote, which we could expand to previous pages. But since that quote was from an entirely different topic, that complicated our search even more.

Citations of sources must be made as clearly as possible.

dwise1 writes: What!?!? From an entirely different topic?!? What were you thinking?

The other topic was in the science forums and I thought that our dialogue was more fit for a faith based platform.

If that message had been in the same topic, then we would have been able to compensate for that deficiency by searching the current page for that quote, which we could expand to previous pages.

I know. I sometimes don't think these things through. I was browsing the old topic, started by our beloved member, the late Buzsaw, and realized that the other topic was infringing on Stiles science/evidence based arguments. So I had the idea to switch it. Alas....i cant win for losing, though.

jar writes: Phat, what does any of the stuff you brought over here have to do with the TOPIC?

I was a bit hasty in bringing the science topic here. I can make it fit with your convoluted logic, however, as you seem to diminish the concept of belief and always insert evidence as the default.

Gathering Info from this old topic:

jar writes: I have said that no one has ever provided a model, mechanism, process, procedure or method to test the supernatural. And as long as there is no evidence of either Demons or Supernatural Evil no one has ever shown any reason anyone should worry about such fantasies. And yes, evidence should trump belief.

Unevidenced belief does not necessarily equal fantasy. Did it ever occur to anyone that if a supernatural realm and subsequent "war" does exist, evidence would by necessity be rare?
A a model, mechanism, process, procedure or method would not ordinarily manifest in such a hypothetical situation. Illogical? Certainly. Unlikely? Of course.

Phat writes: Did it ever occur to anyone that if a supernatural realm and subsequent "war" does exist, evidence would by necessity be rare?

Something so rare as to be undetectable is really not worth wasting anyone's time or concern.

This is an interesting old thread started by Buzsaw. I just read his OP, about a couple of people who had supposedly lived well over a hundred years and never ate or drank. One of them was a Hindu and the other a tribal witch. A missionary suspected the witch was demon possessed and fasted and prayed to cast out the demon, and when he did that the possessed person fell down dead. This suggests the idea that demons can possess dead people and give them some semblance of being alive.

I've certainly heard of living people being possessed by demons, and had one experience of such a thing, but this was new to me. Makes me think of "zombies." They are considered to be real in voodoo religion I think. Maybe something to look up. (Later: Did look it up but there are too many conflicting ideas about it for me to spend the time sorting it out.)

The thread immediately got lost in the usual concern about whether there is any evidence for the stories Buz told, and it seems to be continuing along the same lines. The thing about demons, however, is that the only evidence is people suspecting certain people are possessed by them, noticing certain phenomena assocated with their presence, then of course noting the results of attempts to cast them out. Jesus cast out many and the result was freeing the person of their often violent influence.

The only evidence would be witnesses. Phat on this same thread tells of his own witnessing of a person apparently suffering from demon possession, with red eyes and many voices seeming to speak from him. Immediately of course Phat is suspected of having a mental problem that caused him to hallucinate this event. That's the first thing skeptics think of. There was no evidence in the story of that being the case, or suggested by Phat himself in retrospect. Seems like it wouldn't be hard to verify such a suspicion but there was nothing to verify it. Phat's description remains consistent, and he's told it more than once.

The irrational thing is that people attribute such stories to an irrational frame of mind although there isn't any reason whatever to think that. The person saw what he saw and the story doesn't change and he doesn't appear to have any kind of mental disorder. Nevertheless this irrational idea persists. The obvious rational explanation that the person did indeed witness the phenomena of demon possession is not considered. THAT is what is irrational.

Again the only evidence of such phenomena would be the witnessing of it, or possibly the personal experience of it. Maybe we could bring a person we think is demon possessed to the skeptic and let him try to figure it out?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Even if Phat actually did see what is claimed, it is NOT evidence of demonic possession. It might be very weak evidence of red eyes and many voices seeming to speak but that is all.

Basics Faith, basics.

Learn what evidence really is.

Phat writes: Did it ever occur to anyone that if a supernatural realm and subsequent "war" does exist, evidence would by necessity be rare?

No.

What "necessity"?

It sounds more like an excuse for no evidence.

Remember the 60's? Suppose they gave a War and nobody came?

It seems that is exactly what happened with the supposed Spiritual War.

jar writes: When I pray I can use a placeholder, a symbol that I create and choose, but that is all that it is. There is absolutely no way for me to know who if anyone or anything is on the other end of the line. I can pray to God or Allah or Ganesha or Coyote or Raven or Shiva or Vishnu and it is all the same. If there is any answer it is the content that is relevant and important, not the source.

Maybe so, but a believer by definition believes either in a source (God, Jesus, Coyote, Raven, etc...) or in themselves (Content). You claim to be a "believer" and of course, you have your own definition---which would help if you explained,.The way that I define believers in this context is the belief in a God Who listens or is aware of your prayer in some regard.

Seems that to you, all that is important in prayer is how YOU process it and respond to it. But of course, that corresponds to your prior belief that Christianity is all about what YOU do, could have done, and fail to do. Every religious tradition has its beliefs and handbooks. For some reason, you dislike the usual Christian handbook adapted by and for many churches.

Either you did not become a believer like the majority of Christians have defined it as because it simply made no sense to your logic, or, what I think, you simply chose to stick to an honor system that only YOU could control. Hence you call other Christian beliefs as silly, easy, cheap, copouts, and even go so far as to say dishonest. I have read and heard it said by some that it really humbles an ego to accept Christ (as alive and/or current rather than a simple character such as Santa Claus or a heroic late prophet). You likely will answer by asking what the evidence shows. Always with the evidence. To you, my belief is counterintuitive. To me, this is a case where evidence won't--cant--be used.

ringo writes: What "necessity"? It sounds more like an excuse for no evidence.

It is no excuse. It is a proposed fact.
1) Spirit cannot be detected except through one's response and reactions to it.
Even then, it is personal. Could I, for example, ever convey to anyone else the feeling that I get watching a sunset or hearing a good song? Perhaps this is the reason that we all have the same book yet only you claim to present it word for word and yet believe that the characters are limited to the book itself.

The character of Jesus (and the message) that you present to us is only as real as the character that you show us.

Just because the majority of Christians would describe a belief in living, active, though objectively unevidenced characters is no reason to challenge them on it.

And yet you do.

And the reason why we reject what you say is that you attempt to hold our feet to the fire through the words of the book spoken by characters IN the book and yet see no reason why you should listen to what you expect us to listen to.

Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

No, not counter-intuitive, simply pointless and of no value beyond the fact it seems to make you feel good. And that's fine if it makes you happy. And yes, it seems that you simply won't use evidence or reason or logic or reality.

Phat writes: Maybe so, but a believer by definition believes either in a source (God, Jesus, Coyote, Raven, etc...) or in themselves (Content).

Basics Phat, basics. That is a totally nonsense statement. Both of your examples are "source" and neither has anything to do with "content".

Learn what words actually mean and you may avoid making such silly assertions.

Learn the difference between "source" and "content".

Phat writes: The way that I define believers in this context is the belief in a God Who listens or is aware of your prayer in some regard.

No one doubts that that is what you believe.

Phat writes: Seems that to you, all that is important in prayer is how YOU process it and respond to it.

Exactly. The only thing that can ever be observed is behavior. The only thing that can ever accomplish anything is behavior. The only thing that can be tested is behavior.

jar writes: Remember the 60's? Suppose they gave a War and nobody came? It seems that is exactly what happened with the supposed Spiritual War.

Several reasons.

1) Too few believe that its real, necessary to fight(by choosing this day whom you will serve) or that it applies to THEM.
2) The dark side is easier, more attractive, and less restrictive than is the narrow path. I myself can attest to this. ringo claims i never follow the message, but I do as much as any of you. Perhaps none of us ever do enough. Hence the need for Grace.

Phat writes: Too few believe that its real, necessary to fight(by choosing this day whom you will serve) or that it applies to THEM.

What does that even mean Phat?

Phat writes: The dark side is easier, more attractive, and less restrictive than is the narrow path.

What is the narrow path Phat and what could possibly make it restrictive?

Again Phat, you are just falling back on word salad, utterly meaningless platitudes of no worth or value.

Phat writes: It is a proposed fact.

"Proposed fact"? Who are you? Donald Trump?

Phat writes: Spirit cannot be detected except through one's response and reactions to it.

But why is it "necessary" that those responses and reactions are not objective?

Phat writes: The dark side is easier, more attractive, and less restrictive than is the narrow path. I myself can attest to this. ringo claims i never follow the message, but I do as much as any of you.

I have not said that you don't do "enough". I do object to you denying Jesus and what He told you to do.

But what has that got to do with any supposed "spiritual warfare"?

Phat writes: The dark side is easier, more attractive, and less restrictive than is the narrow path

You spout this stuff without any thought. It's stuff you've heard other religious nutters preach regularly but it's bollox.

Can you explain why you say that it's easier to live an antisocial, life than a prosocial decent life? Why do you say that is a good life harder to lead than a bad one?

I certainly find the opposite, I could no more rob a bank, rape a vulnerable victim, kick a blindman or commit any other serious crime than fly to the moon.