Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
169 online now:
AZPaul3, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Tanypteryx (3 members, 166 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,098 Year: 4,210/6,534 Month: 424/900 Week: 130/150 Day: 23/38 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Demons and such
helena 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5075 days)
Posts: 80
Joined: 03-27-2008


Message 1 of 39 (50193)
08-12-2003 3:59 PM


Hi all,
being new to these forums, and not a native English speaker, I must ask all of you to have some patience with me. Also, I'm sorry if this topic has already been discussed at greater length (in that case a link would be nice)..

In the gospels we read, that men are more or less regularly beset by demons (e.g. Mark 5-1..14) and that Jesus drives them out of the victims' bodies. What is the current explanation by bible literists that this doesn't happen nowadays.
What I mean is, that nowadays we know that diseases are caused by bacteria, viri etc.; We have accepted that a medical condition is not caused by demons or spirits inhabiting one's body.

Especially, I would like to point out Luke(38ff.):
"38 And, behold, a man of the company cried out, saying, Master, I beseech thee, look upon my son: for he is mine only child.
39 And, lo, a spirit taketh him, and he suddenly crieth out; and it teareth him that he foameth again, and bruising him hardly departeth from him.
40 And I besought thy disciples to cast him out; and they could not.
41 And Jesus answering said, O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you, and suffer you? Bring thy son hither.
42 And as he was yet a coming, the devil threw him down, and tare him. And Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the child, and delivered him again to his father."

where the condition the child is suffering from is (to my opinion) epilepsy, which has nothing to do with "unclean spirits" possessing anyone's body.

So the question is, why can people accept antibiotics from their doctor and cannot at the same time accept evolution by Darwin et al.?

regards,
Alex


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Coragyps, posted 08-12-2003 5:48 PM helena has taken no action
 Message 4 by Jake22, posted 08-12-2003 9:05 PM helena has replied

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 2 of 39 (50225)
08-12-2003 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by helena
08-12-2003 3:59 PM


Hi, Alex! Your English is much, much better than my German....

Your final question is one of the reasons I spend too much time on these boards. These same people will eat shrimp, or mow the yard on Saturday and travel to a football game on Sunday, or borrow money at interest from another Christian, or readily admit that the Earth orbits the Sun. But ask them if humans are related to any other life on Earth, and they get angry and deny it. It's interesting - and very odd to me.
And I wonder if Jesus really just gave the poor boy some phenobarbital....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by helena, posted 08-12-2003 3:59 PM helena has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by John, posted 08-12-2003 8:10 PM Coragyps has taken no action

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 39 (50259)
08-12-2003 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Coragyps
08-12-2003 5:48 PM


What always struck me as odd were the people who consider it a sin to work on Sunday, and tell you about it as they sit in a restaurant putting people to work with their patronage.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Coragyps, posted 08-12-2003 5:48 PM Coragyps has taken no action

  
Jake22
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 39 (50264)
08-12-2003 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by helena
08-12-2003 3:59 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by helena, posted 08-12-2003 3:59 PM helena has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by mike the wiz, posted 08-12-2003 9:15 PM Jake22 has replied
 Message 16 by helena, posted 08-13-2003 3:45 AM Jake22 has taken no action

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 5 of 39 (50266)
08-12-2003 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Jake22
08-12-2003 9:05 PM


'Some of the instances you mentioned are due to the Christian's own ignorance'

Boy am I happy I am 'none of the above', it seems christians are those guys you put under, 'punch bag' and beat ten steemers out of.

'people who consider themselves Christians talk the talk more than they walk the walk.'

However this view I agree with you on. Jesus said is 'it lawful to heal on the sabbath day?' (not qouted) and if you smell a hypocrite on sunday's, you can tell him that. A true christian will tell you that we have all sinned, including himself, and try and DO what Jesus says rather than accusing others. However it's hard to find a 'follower of Christ', and unfortunately people end up hating the wrong guy - Jesus.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Jake22, posted 08-12-2003 9:05 PM Jake22 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Jake22, posted 08-12-2003 9:23 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Jake22
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 39 (50267)
08-12-2003 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by mike the wiz
08-12-2003 9:15 PM


'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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by mike the wiz, posted 08-12-2003 9:15 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 08-12-2003 9:45 PM Jake22 has taken no action
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2003 9:59 PM Jake22 has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member (Idle past 249 days)
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 7 of 39 (50269)
08-12-2003 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jake22
08-12-2003 9:23 PM


Hi Jake,
Thanks for cleaning that up. It's just that the 'christian' label nowadays means instant judgement, it also annoys me , was it Ghandi who said he would have been christian but for the christians, well whoever said it, I agree. I prefer, 'follower of Christ'- at least I hope I qualify for that anyway.lol

(hopefully this message finds you, my pc is so slow it is now becoming unusable )


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jake22, posted 08-12-2003 9:23 PM Jake22 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by DC85, posted 08-13-2003 12:17 AM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 697 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 39 (50272)
08-12-2003 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Jake22
08-12-2003 9:23 PM


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

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?

Just want to be sure on this. I know there's people who think the OT laws still apply, and some who think they don't, in the field of Christianity - but I can't keep it clear which group (if not both) still thinks being gay is wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Jake22, posted 08-12-2003 9:23 PM Jake22 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Jake22, posted 08-12-2003 10:09 PM crashfrog has taken no action

  
Jake22
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 39 (50273)
08-12-2003 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by crashfrog
08-12-2003 9:59 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 08-12-2003 9:59 PM crashfrog has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by doctrbill, posted 08-12-2003 11:17 PM Jake22 has replied

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1994 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 10 of 39 (50280)
08-12-2003 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Jake22
08-12-2003 10:09 PM


The Law was fulfilled

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." ???

the NT ... makes no mention of continued mildew

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? There's more to the law than mildew you know.

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."

Where exactly did Jesus say, "Okay boys. Screw Moses. The Law is Done Away. Everybody's under grace now. You can eat pork, shellfish and mice. You can make slaves of your brothers and wear blended fabrics. You can ..." oops, Excuuuuse meeee. Did the apostle's ever agree on those things? It was,after all, the apostles, you know, NOT JESUS, who started Christianity.

db

------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Jake22, posted 08-12-2003 10:09 PM Jake22 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Jake22, posted 08-12-2003 11:46 PM doctrbill has replied

  
Jake22
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 39 (50285)
08-12-2003 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by doctrbill
08-12-2003 11:17 PM


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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by doctrbill, posted 08-12-2003 11:17 PM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by doctrbill, posted 08-13-2003 1:00 AM Jake22 has replied

  
DC85
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 876
From: Richmond, Virginia USA
Joined: 05-06-2003


Message 12 of 39 (50286)
08-13-2003 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by mike the wiz
08-12-2003 9:45 PM


I don't Know in the real world I see it as the Other way. I try too Avoid getting into things where I need to say I am agnostic(or atheist still debating myself on which I am) Because For some reason I tell someone I am and I am regarded as Evil(or so it seems). I guess you are A better person if you believe in god in there minds...........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mike the wiz, posted 08-12-2003 9:45 PM mike the wiz has taken no action

  
doctrbill
Member (Idle past 1994 days)
Posts: 1174
From: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Joined: 01-08-2001


Message 13 of 39 (50292)
08-13-2003 1:00 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Jake22
08-12-2003 11:46 PM


Jake22 writes:

Fulfillment means that the Law's binding nature no longer applies to those who accept the sacrifice of Jesus.


For someone who doesn't believe, you certainly have the argument down pat. But it is fallacious and dishonest to God.

The Law required perfection. Jesus was that perfection, and thus by not breaking the Law he fulfilled it.

"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.

... we who accept the sacrifice are no longer held accountable to the Law.

So you are a believer?

Christianity considers the apostles' writings just as inspired as Jesus' own words,

Everybody's entitled to one mistake.

With all due respect, what does this have to do with anything?... With the New Covenant, people were no longer required to purify themselves after being exposed to mildew.

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. Perhaps you will argue that those public health laws are antiquated, and that may be so. 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? Or that Christianity itself should evolve (and indeed has evolved) along with a current knowledge of the truth. Blood sacrifice is still required for the remission of sin. The blood of the Iraqi people for the sins of Sadam. The blood of our people for the sins of George. The blood of traffic victims for the sin of bad driving. You get the picture. Blood sacrifice to cover whatever may come in the future is a Pagan concept. Christianity is just a new style of Paganism.

I think some study would reveal at least all commandments but Sabbath observation in the NT.

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?

your post seemed a little less than respectful.

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.

What is, was, and is to come.
World without end. Amen.

db

------------------
Doesn't anyone graduate Sunday School?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Jake22, posted 08-12-2003 11:46 PM Jake22 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Jake22, posted 08-13-2003 2:30 AM doctrbill has replied

  
Jake22
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 39 (50301)
08-13-2003 2:30 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by doctrbill
08-13-2003 1:00 AM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by doctrbill, posted 08-13-2003 1:00 AM doctrbill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by greyline, posted 08-13-2003 2:49 AM Jake22 has taken no action
 Message 17 by helena, posted 08-13-2003 4:03 AM Jake22 has taken no action
 Message 18 by John, posted 08-13-2003 10:20 AM Jake22 has taken no action
 Message 21 by doctrbill, posted 08-13-2003 1:45 PM Jake22 has taken no action

  
greyline
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 39 (50304)
08-13-2003 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Jake22
08-13-2003 2:30 AM


Hi Jake. You do seem very reasonable.

Do you believe in the literal account of Creation?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Jake22, posted 08-13-2003 2:30 AM Jake22 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022