Fallen and Flawed

Having spent ten years of my childhood with a schizophrenic, bipolar, alcoholic mother. I honestly do believe that demons are real and they are still around. It wasn’t the alcohol that changed her behavior, her behavior led her to alcohol. Whenever she had this other attitude come over her, her walk changed, the way she carried herself. Her gestures even. You couldn’t look her in the eye and honestly believe you were talking to the same person. The loving, sweet, affectionate mother would just disapper behind a terrifying angry cloud of hatred. The loving side was terrified of what she would become. To see things like my mom grab the blade of a knife from my Dad’s hand and then just give him this evil smile until it burst blood vessels and know that she wasn’t always like that. I know they are alive and around.

You know my thoughts on the subject

Wow, Luke, that’s intense. Difficult, no doubt, and my prayers are with you, sir.

Demian, regarding your points:

Purely natural explanations of evil in this world are not adequate

Many of the atrocities in the world are committed within the animal kingdom. Do you think animals are demon possessed, or just hungry?

We need to respect that native soft knowledge. They may be on to something our science can’t reach.

I believe it’s part of their culture because they don’t have our education levels, and so these primitive interpretations of what’s happening is all they have. For that reason, I don’t feel compelled to pay much attention to them.

James, good to hear from you, friend.

I think they’re just hungry. But that’s missing my point. You never see a single porpoise gas forty million tuna because they think they’re the superior race. Moreover, take a naturalistic stand, and a killer like the LRA’s Kony is just competing for space. No atrocity there.

On the other hand, I see your point, but does that mean if they did interpret it “right” you’d pay attention to them? Or do you mean since you are not personally involved you aren’t paying attention? Curious.

I’ve wondered this myself before, especially in my chosen field (Psychology). Where is the line between purely physical mental illness and spiritual affliction? To what extent can we actually be affected by realms beyond the material?
Like you say, in Jesus’ day and in less developed cultures today such occurrences are common. Is that because they are too “primitive” to recognise the true causes or that we are too “advanced” and dismiss everything through psychological diagnoses, even when the problem may run deeper?
I do not believe all mental illness is solely “demonic”. It probably would be impossible for me to continue down this career path if I did. There are definite, and observable, physical causes. There are treatments that show significant improvements – even “cures”.
But I don’t think that rules out spiritual involvement, that severe personality and behavioural dysfunctions are always merely “mental” or that we should dismiss possible causes for problems that we still barely understand.
The danger I see in too much emphasis either way, is that on one hand the possible spiritual elements are ignored to the determent of any complete healing. On the other – an overemphasis can lead to people with mental illness being “labelled” and blamed rather than helped – as if it was there sin that ‘caused depression’ etc./they “opened themselves” to demonic powers – or worse, given superstitious, unfounded, misguided “treatment” (i.e intense ritualistic exorcisms) that does more damage than good.

Derek Prince wrote a book or two about demons and deliverance, and has a lot of teaching CDs available on the topic as well, should you ever wish to pursue it deeper.

Read your Bible, and you won’t find a single instance of mental illness being just mental illness. It’s all called demon-possession. But you’can’t have it both ways – either you agree with specialists in the field that there is mental illness, and that it has natural explanation, or you believe that all mentally incapacitated people are possessed. Even epilepsy in the NT was believed to be caused by demons. Should we then cure it, and all mental illness, by exorcism? As far as I know, there is no evidence whatsoever that it works. On the other hand, we have counselling, psychoterapy and medication, and they have been shown to work. Sometimes mental illness may simply be caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain.

Humans always tended to ascribe what they did not understand in nature to higher powers, whether good or bad. Before we understood how the atmosphere worked, we used to believe that lightning was caused by angry gods throwing down their spears. Now we know better. Shouldn’t it be the same with mental illness?

Read your Bible, and you won’t find a single instance of mental illness being just mental illness. It’s all called demon-possession.

I disagree.

Isaac had late stage dementia to the point that he couldn’t tell the difference between his own two sons. Christ had such acute stress reaction in the garden that he sweat blood. Job and David were depressed. Adam was passive aggressive. Moses stuttered. Cain had anger management issues. The list of people with sexual dysfunction and sibling rivalry disorder is too long to mention. Zechariah had PTSD so severely he couldn’t speak. Pharaoh had a god complex…..

None to my knowledge were attributed to demons per se.

Rob,

You have proposed a risky interpretation. And it seems to me that you are trying to use biblical texts to prove your own pre-conceived ideas. In Gen 27:1-4 Isaac certainly does not appear demented. And it’s the same whenever he speaks in the remainder of the story, right until his death. The fact is that the plan Rebecca devised was meant to fool Isaac’s senses of smell, taste and touch, and thet they could not fool his sense of hearing (v. 22). This leads to the conclusion that Isaac was simply blind. In fact, that is how the story was always presented to me. I now re-examined this interpretation and must uphold it.

Besides, even if it were dementia, dementia is not like usual mental illness anyway. Mental hospitals don’t treat dementia – it is a degenerative disease of old age.

Sweating blood is certainly hardly a symptom of mental illness (stress – probably). I am astonished that you imagine Jesus to have been mentally sick! Ditto stuttering and anger management. They may border on mental disorders, but they are hardly mental disease. On the other hand, you have not offered a single biblical case of epilepsy that would NOT be associated with demons.

I have no problem with the fact that people used to believe in demons. But we now have much better understanding and explanations, so there is no need to cling to primitive, discredited theories. If Christianity required belief in demons, then I would not be surprised that the numbers of “orthodox” believes dwindle. This is a spiritual equivalent of belief in a flart earth.

Thank you for thorough evaluation of my argument. If this is all that can be offered to counter it, then I must conclude that I feel even more confident than when I was writing my last post.

This was all off the top of my head before bed last night. If “defeating” my arguments is how you affirm yours, you have set the bar on the lowest rung possible and have a life of feeling really good about yourself ahead of you.

You painted with a broad brush saying mental illness is always due to demons. I gave you several areas where you could put an ICD-9 diagnosis code on the condition (stuttering = 307.0, narcissism is 301.81) but no demons are mentioned.

Maybe you used broad terms and would like to better refine your definition of mental illness.

Also, just like we wouldn’t confuse God’s specific command to Jonah to go to Nineveh to mean we should all go to Nineveh we wouldn’t want to misread instances where demons are given as the cause of a particular person’s health to say that demons are always the cause of all health issues (unless you’re Benny Hinn).

Rob: “unless you are Benny Hinn.” I’m wiping the coffee off with my sleeve I spit on my screen. That was funny.

Jag – “And it seems to me that you are trying to use biblical texts to prove your own pre-conceived ideas.”

Just because somebody uses biblical texts as their theological evidence, doesn’t mean they picked the evidence to support their pre-conseived ideas. Many may come to recall certain Scripture pertaining to subjects, and go back to read to clarify and make sure their ideas are in line with Scripture. Not the other way around.

But then again.. it depends on how one reveres (or doesn’t) Scripture.

Demian:
“You never see a single porpoise gas forty million tuna because they think they’re the superior race.”
You don’t see them watching TV either, but that doesn’t mean a lot.
If you think that animals don’t hurt other animals unless it’s for food then you’re sadly mistaken. They may not do so on the scale of humanity, but then what do animals do on the scale of humanity?

“Moreover, take a naturalistic stand, and a killer like the LRA’s Kony is just competing for space. No atrocity there.”
Eh? What makes you think that?

Everyone else:
Demon’s seem very much like God-of-the-Gaps thinking. They used to be responsible for a huge variety of problems (and still are if you believe many people who don’t have the same access to education that many of us are afforded), but now they are relegated to causing mental illness.
Increasingly they aren’t even responsible for that – as our knowledge grows and we understand more about schizophrenia and other illnesses, demons become less and less influential.

fropome: I see your point. Fair enough. In fact, I watched a bull walrus the other day on television defend his harem against another bull walrus. That’s small scale.

I still wouldn’t call that an atrocity. Or even cruel. Why should I? So wouldn’t attribute it to demons. [If that doesn't make sense, see James W's original question.]

“Read your Bible, and you won’t find a single instance of mental illness being just mental illness.”

Firstly, like Rob, I’d disagree. Matthew 4:24 (for one) lists those possessed by demons seperately to the paralysed and “selhniazomenou” – translated both as “epileptics” and “lunatics”, literally it means to be “moon struck”.

“But you can’t have it both ways”

Really? Why not? Could someone with epilepsy never be spiritually afflicted also? Could spiritual affliction never have a physical effect? Is it always either/or?
I’m not saying it is always the case, I’m simply open to the possibility.

“either you agree with specialists in the field that there is mental illness, and that it has natural explanation, or you believe that all mentally incapacitated people are possessed.”

Again, no, I believe in mental illness and it’s natural causes (though these are far from completely understood or agreed upon), I also believe possesion is possible. We are both spiritual and physical beings – our bodies, mind and spirits are interlinked. Despite knowing you believe otherwise, I believe spiritual realms (including God) can and do influence the physical but that’s not to say everything is necessarily spiritually caused (there are plenty of material causes around too). Hence, mental illness could quite easily be physical, spiritual, or a combination of the two. I’m not proposing where to draw that line, but rather admitting I don’t know where it is.

“Should we then cure it, and all mental illness, by exorcism?”

Definitely not. I’m not ruling out physical causes for a second, but rather saying that they can be linked. When Jesus healed people of physical problems, he often related it to spiritual ones (faith and sin – Matthew 9 for example). In healing “possessed” people, that does not rule out physical elements of their problem, rather it shows he was focusing on the spiritual causes.

And I’d also like to add, when we think of modern day “exorcism” it is a completely different concept to what Jesus performed. It was done by his simple command, “by a word” (Mat 8:16) not through elaborate, drawn out and ritualised performances that do more harm than good.

“On the other hand, we have counselling, psychoterapy and medication, and they have been shown to work. Sometimes mental illness may simply be caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain.”

All true, but this is only a generalisation. Many people have problems that are ongoing, unresponsive to treatment, and poorly understood. Most treatments can help, but not cure. The causes of most major mental illness are still barely understood. Chemical balances are one cause of many, and I am unwilling to completely disregard another possible one.

“Besides, even if it were dementia, dementia is not like usual mental illness anyway. Mental hospitals don’t treat dementia – it is a degenerative disease of old age”

Hospitilisation does not equal mental illness. There are many mentally ill people that do not require it, or even that go undiagnosed.
There is also no such thing as “usual” mental illness by the way… It has to be ‘abnormal’ to qualify

Demons are indeed still responsible for many problems. But not all problems, of course. People often attribute things to Satan or demons and I’m not so sure it isn’t just our sin nature, living in a fallen world, or God Himself at times (for example, God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble. If you are proud and having issues, it might be very well God Himself behind it.)

Being in a highly educated nation doesn’t negate Satan’s power or mean we’re somehow free of demonic power and influence. It just means Satan will work in different ways here than in, say, Haiti. Is Satan going to act in some way to convince the American public that He is real, exists, and is actively seeking to destroy them? What would that do… send people screaming for Jesus out of fear?

He doesn’t want people aware and afraid. He wants people in the world to be in ignorance of the spiritual reality around us. He wants Christians to be in ignorance as well because if we don’t believe in Satan or think he has any influence today, then we aren’t praying, fasting, and standing on the Word in opposition to him. Who is going to fight a spiritual war against an enemy you don’t think exists or is relevant?

Between now and the time Satan is thrown into prison forever, he will prevent as many people as he can from accepting Jesus as Savior, and cause as much suffering as possible. He absolutely hates us. Why? Because we are made in God’s image, and God loves us.

Is some mental illness caused by demonic activity? Certainly. Is all of it? I’d find that doubtful. Can you still treat someone under spiritual attack in a worldly way and have some success? Yes. But you are only treating the symptom.

This isn’t a topic I normally get too involved with discussing, many Christians don’t seem to even care that we are involved in a spiritual war or get uncomfortable about how real our enemy actually is, but to suggest that enough human knowledge negates the influence of demons is both dangerous and wrong in my opinion. This fallen world has no power over Satan, demons, or even sin. Only Jesus and His Word does.

Demian:
“I still wouldn’t call that an atrocity. Or even cruel. Why should I?”
I’d say that animals are often cruel to one another. I’m not sure how you could define the word so that they are not.
Whether it’s an ‘atrocity’ is, I think, slightly more complicated. Most atrocities committed by humans are actually committed by _groups_ of people. If we extend the same courtesy to the animal world then Plasmodium falciparum is certainly a contender.

Jonathan:
1) Out of honest interest, where do us atheists stand in your spiritual war? Are we casualties? The opposition? Are we aware of demons (or even possessed by them) and lying about it?
2) So Satan is cleverly creating evil everywhere, but hiding all the evidence by being sneaky. He’s more subtle in more advanced cultures in case we catch him on camera. Is there anything grossly wrong with my description?

3) Less of a serious point this – I’d rather you replied to 1 and 2, but:
Honestly, it strikes me that if Satan does exist he can’t be that clever. I mean, this is a being who picked a fight with an omnipotent, omniscient God. It’s not even like he didn’t know how powerful God is, given that they used to be best mates.
And his tactics aren’t much better these days. He’s trying to win souls by turning us away from God, right? So how does he do it? By being as cruel to us as he can manage, but without being seen. This seems about as smart as trying to tempt a child from its mother by throwing stones at it over a wall.
No, if I was Satan then I’d turn up on Earth and be really kind to everyone. I’d be really nice, using my vast power to stop war, hunger and disease. Note (this is important), I wouldn’t _pretend_ to do those things, I really would do them. How much harder to worship God if the alternative is feeding you sweets and making useful suggestions for presents when Valentine’s turns up, than if he’s plotting to knock my house down and give me some horrid disease?
The point is that Satan can be as nice as he wants to us on Earth, safe in the knowledge that when we die we’d turn up in his hell. A couple of decades smiling at our jokes and feeding us ice cream isn’t really much of an issue in return for eternally torturing us.

It’s so disheartening reading the same diatribes again & again from the skeptics– I wonder how sad God must be over it all. Each one thinks he is so brilliant. He can tell us how he would do things so much wiser and better if he were God (or Satan). And the concepts set forth as representing what Christians believe– where do they get this stuff? Pure blather. It is egotism at its apex. Each one thinks his thoughts are so original, when they are merely personalized versions of what has been being stated for millennia, with a modern twist here and there.

There is a God. You are not Him. You may not judge Him because He is greater and wiser than you. He made you, not vice versa.

You have made a god. He behaves like you. He is impotent like you. He is ignorant like you. Hev is puffed up like you. You are a good match for each other– you deserve each other. Your god is not God– he is you.

We have a God. He is the God. He designed and made everything that is– even you. He sustains everything at all times– even you. He will judge all things– even you. We and our God are not a good match. He is holy; we are not. He is righteous; we are not. He is infinite; we are finite. We do not deserve Him; are not worthy to even look at Him.

He has chosen who He will from among humanity, for reasons we do not comprehend, and those He has chosen He has cleansed from our sins and from our sinful nature. He will perfect us for His own sake, so that He may have a holy, righteous people for Himself. Everyone else will be condemned for this reason: He came into the world as the Light of Life, and people preferred darkness rather than light because of their evil deeds.

Those things you call science and enlightened thought are false science and darkened thought. You may not be possessed or even troubled by a demon, but you think like one, for your desire is to turn away people’s faith from trusting in the only one through whom any of us may find eternal life, our Lord Jesus Christ. We will and do bow before Him in joy and humility, but you will bow before Him in shame on the day of your judgment because you will not bow in humility when He is near you today.

May God in His great mercy allow you to repent of your evil attitudes and works before it is forever too late for you.

I’d say that animals are often cruel to one another. I’m not sure how you could define the word so that they are not.

Fropome great comment. To me cruelty implies actions done with evil intent. I’d be interested in what you thought animals did that was evil and not just natural. With no God I think we have a hard time getting evil defined.

No, if I was Satan then I’d turn up on Earth and be really kind to everyone. I’d be really nice, using my vast power to stop war, hunger and disease. Note (this is important), I wouldn’t _pretend_ to do those things, I really would do them. How much harder to worship God if the alternative is feeding you sweets and making useful suggestions for presents when Valentine’s turns up, than if he’s plotting to knock my house down and give me some horrid disease?

I don’t know it seems like he’s got a pretty good thing going with people thinking he doesn’t exist. If he shows up and proves he’s real, whether he’s nice or not, then all the unredeemd people in the world are going to have to take notice. Would you pay more attention to Jesus’ claims if a supernatural being showed up tomorrow and started doing miracles? I also think he just enjoys our suffering now too much to let it go. Lastly he’s clever, deceitful, and has some power on this earth but is still subject to God’s sovereignty. So he may not be able to do what you’re suggesting.

fropome, I’m not scholar or expert on these topics, but I’ll do my best to answer your questions as I believe things to be (and I may very well be wrong).

1- Atheists aren’t the enemy. Far from it.

Luke 19:10, “For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

Luke 5:32, “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

Atheists are people who God loves so much, He sent Jesus to Earth to die for them, that they might be saved.

Paul reminds us who the enemy is,

Eph 6:12, “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.”

Satan is the enemy. Jesus is our Lord, Savior, and King. Of your choices, I’d have to say “casualties”, since to die without Christ is eternal loss.

2- I’m not sure about that, I’m just pointing out he works in different ways in different cultures.

If you had a recording of someone manifesting demonic possession and being delivered, would that cause you to believe the Bible and ask Jesus to be your savoir? It doesn’t seem likely. Plus whatever people do try to document, others just attack, try to discredit, or disbelieve anyway.

If I tell you God raised a stillborn child from the dead during a mission trip from our church a couple years ago, about 26-28 hours after birth, but the mother still had the body wrapped up so they prayed over it, would you believe me? I can’t imagine that you would. Testimonies like this abound. But in my experiance they rarely do anything to lead to someone’s salvation when told after the fact. I assume you’d have to experiance God’s power yourself, first hand. In this case, the 80 something members of the village all accepted Jesus because of what happened. Which is why the Biblical model is for signs and wonders go along with the preaching of the gospel.

3- Satan is very intelligent, but his fall wasn’t the result of stupidity, it was the result of pride. He wanted to be seen as equal to God and worshipped as such. Pride is one of the most subtle and dangerous of sins. I have plenty of it in my own life, I’m only barely starting to grasp how widespread it really is in my heart and thoughts.

Satan isn’t trying to “win” souls. He’s wants to keep people from being saved, and resist God’s will whenever he has a chance to do so. He doesn’t need your loyalty, your worship, or even your belief in him. Without Jesus we’re all guilty and under God’s wrath as it is. Satan doesn’t have to do anything.

If someone doesn’t believe in Jesus, that’s enough. If someone hears a watered down gospel and don’t feel they need salvation because they aren’t that bad, that’s enough. If someone thinks they are a “good person” and never surrender to Jesus, that’s enough.

The irony is that what you jokingly described is actually something that, I believe, is starting to happen. For example, you’ve got churches starting to preach a feel good message of grace (or even worse, tolerance) without repentance. This is not what Jesus preached. Repentance and obediance are critical parts of truly loving God. But it makes people feel good, it can increase church membership, and everyone is happy. Except without repentance, there’s no salvation. Matthew 7:21-23.

People go, they repeat some words, they attend church regularly, they think they are saved, but they find there’s no power in it. So they think Christianity is empty and powerless. Except they never actually tried it. That sort of deception is right up Satan’s alley.

Apologies to Demian if I’m getting too long-winded?

Great reply Jonathan – and if anyone should worry about being too long-winded it’s me!

In terms of that ironic example – what you describe fropome is hilariously similar to common depictions of the “Antichrist”:

2 Thessalonians 2:3-10
“…[The day of the Lord will not come] until the man of lawlessness is revealed, the man doomed to destruction. He will oppose and will exalt himself over everything that is called God or is worshiped, so that he sets himself up in God’s temple, proclaiming himself to be God.
…The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.”

So yeap, I’d agree – that sounds like a much more logical plan!

Mike Bickle spoke about that at onething’09 for anyone interested, http://mikebickle.org/resources/resource/2911 has the video and notes. He believes that tolerance is the foundation of the one-world religion discussed in Revelation, and that the way is already being prepared for the world to embrace it.

Rob,

Trust me, defeating your arguments is not what brings me pleasure. What I’m after is an honest evaluation of different arguments. When I discuss things with people I sometimes confirm my arguments, sometimes have to modify them, and sometimes have to abandon them too. So no need to worry!

Demons were a late development in Judaism. I don’t think you will find a single instance of demon possession (or existence!) in the Hexateuch. Even the serpent in Genesis is just an animal that was only much later re-interpreted as Satan. Those books are simply too old – at the time Hebrews believed that all god and evil came from God. Which is why the conservative Saducees (unlike the syncretic Pharisees) did not believe in angels, demons, life after death or resurrection. They believed in the Torah.

On the other hand, after the Babylonian exile the belief in demons appeared, so in the NT you find the opposite of the Hexateuch – physical disease is caused by sin, and mental disease by demons. If I recall correctly – without exception.

Alyssa,

When translating Matt 4:24, it all depends how you divide the sentence. Indeed, you can read it as epileptics and possessed being either the same category or 2 different categories. Thank you for being vigilant.

What I humbly proposed was that “demon possession” was a pre-scientific explanation of what we call mental illness. To believe in demons would require some kind of evidence – reason to believe. Sadly, I find no more evidence to believe in demons than to believe in fairies or Santa Claus. I may be snubbed by some here who will think that “the Holy Spirit does not speak to me”, but I can’t help it, I refuse to believe in the absurd.

Al,

Your argument is from the classic “my God is bigger than your God” category. If the “sceptics” only use old arguments, then so do you too. Do you really believe in the God of the Bible as described in 1 Kings 18:21-40? If so, then let your God show us in the same way that “he” is bigger than the others. If you can’t do that, then we have to conclude that your God in not any less impotent than any others. And if you negate science, then you are negating 1. the power of reasoning (presumably given to us by your God), and 2. the available evidence (presumably left by your God too). It appears to me that the alternative you are proposing is called blind faith. Unfortunately it has little appeal to me.

Rob,

Please remember that according to the book of Job both YHWH and Satan are friends, they enjoy gambling together, and Satan is unable to do anything (including any evil) without obtaining God’s approval first. “Lord, may I cause a little shake in Haiti please? Please, please, please?! “OK, OK, Satan, just stop pestering me…”

Jonathan,

How do you tell whose gospel is being “watered down”? I find that those who live in the past do in fact miss a lot of “gospel”. Are you saying that my gospel is watered down simply because I cannot believe in the flat earth as described in Matt 4:8 (was that Mt Everest by the way?) then I reject the gospel? I claim that I search for what’s universal and not what is historically conditioned – the timeless gospel.

Your argument is from the classic “my God is bigger than your God” category. If the “sceptics” only use old arguments, then so do you too. Do you really believe in the God of the Bible as described in 1 Kings 18:21-40? If so, then let your God show us in the same way that “he” is bigger than the others. If you can’t do that, then we have to conclude that your God in not any less impotent than any others. And if you negate science, then you are negating 1. the power of reasoning (presumably given to us by your God), and 2. the available evidence (presumably left by your God too). It appears to me that the alternative you are proposing is called blind faith. Unfortunately it has little appeal to me.

Christian readers, please observe. There is no point in attempting meaningful discussion about spiritual matters with Jag who, not having been born again from above and thus lacking the Holy Spirit is unable to comprehend the things of God (Rom.8:9,1Cor.2:14). This is no discredit to Jag, simply a fact of life. As is often the case, however, the ego attempts to fill in for the spirit, resulting in outlandish claims and assessments.

Note how Jag
[1] authoritatively claims to categorize my “argument.”
[2] insists that I should make my God perform as a dog and pony show to satisfy Jag.
[3] claims that if I don’t get my God to sing and dance, then we “have to” draw a conclusion from that. Jesus, in fact, addresses this very attitude in Matt.11:16-18, which you will recognize and understand, but Jag will not (cannot).
[4] implies that I “negate science” when, in fact, I love true science and deny only false science which insists on treating subjective observations as if they were conclusive objective determinations. [Did anyone happen to look at Jag's wikipedia links? Wiki makes no bones about the inconclusiveness of science's "findings," but the ravening ego stops at nothing to win its point.]
[5] and, finally, suggests that the alternative to science is a faith that is blind. Faith in Jesus Christ is firmly rooted in the Holy Scriptures as taught by God’s Holy Spirit– nothing blind about it. There is a blind kind of faith, however– it is the faith of the skeptic, the professed atheist, who bases belief upon nothingness, claiming that “laws” of nature can be observed and proven, even though the span of observance is but a tiny fraction of the time alloted for the theories propounded (refer again to the wikipedia site for the explanation of how much is presumed).

The most intelligent statement Jag has made is, “It appears to me…” That pretty much sums up Jag’s conclusions– they are based on personal interpretations of appearances.

The bottom line, then is expressed thusly: Unfortunately it (the theology of God’s redeeming the world through Jesus Christ) has little appeal to me, as if the Creator, Sustainer, and Absolute Ruler of the universe and all in it should be troubled that He has failed to persuade one outspoken, self-preoccupied skeptic. Sounds like the making for a halfway decent graphic novel…

This is turning into a really interesting thread because so many interesting points are being made. Unfortunately that makes dealing with them all rather long winded…

al:
Not sure if you were talking to me – you didn’t seem to address my points. Let me know if you were!

Rob:
“To me cruelty implies actions done with evil intent.”
Hmm. Well ok, but in that case you’re just defining animals as being incapable of cruelty because they are incapable of intent. This makes Demian’s earlier comment (“You never see a single porpoise gas forty million tuna because they think they’re the superior race.”) as pointless as ‘you never see rocks killing people’.
Either animals don’t do evil because they don’t have intent, or they do have intent and what they do is cruel.

“With no God I think we have a hard time getting evil defined.”
Well… no. Perhaps you could reply to me here: http://www.fallenandflawed.com/letter-to-skeptics – otherwise this is another large discussion to add to this thread!

Jonathon:
Thanks for the clarification on my war-status!
“If you had a recording of someone manifesting demonic possession and being delivered, would that cause you to believe the Bible and ask Jesus to be your savoir?”
If it was a single event, and only a recording, then no – I wouldn’t suddenly start believing. However! if manifestations of demonic possession were real, then they would be easily testable. If some demon-possessed people were treated by believers while others were treated in an identical way by atheists (not possessed by the spirit to cast out demons, but acting as a control) and the demons were ejected from one group but not the other… this could be very convincing evidence that demonic possession was real and I would have to very seriously consider my beliefs.
It’s not that simple because it would be impossible to double-blind, but you get the idea. Similar logic applies to stories about still-born babies etc.

“Satan is very intelligent, but his fall wasn’t the result of stupidity, it was the result of pride. He wanted to be seen as equal to God and worshipped as such.”
Well that seems pretty stupid to me! I mean, if you were stood next to an omnipotent God, who’s most important rule was that no other being should be worshipped, how stupid would you have to be to defy him? Thinking that you are as powerful and knowledgeable as an omnipotent omniscient being is _both_ prideful and very stupid.

“The irony is that what you jokingly described is actually something that, I believe, is starting to happen.”
I find this section (and Alyssa’s reply) very interesting! Thank you.

al,

Clearly you are making yourself a prosecutor, judge and executioner of divine sentences.

I find it very telling that you look for a speck in your brother’s eye instead of the log that’s in yours.

No doubt you are also convinced that your God has no choice but to obey your orders.

Christian readers and unchristian alike, observe. This is how Christian funamentalism betrays the teaching of Jesus.

1. My argument was a direct reply to al’s argument. I did not realise that al believes he has superpowers others (I in particular) cannot claim.

2. While I take biblical stories as metaphors, al who claims to believe in the Bible treats biblical stories to be “dog and pony shows”. All of them, al? Stories about Jesus too?

3. Al clearly cannot prove that the God he believes in is not just a figment of his imagination. A divine prophet in 1 Kings supposedly could. Does al believe in the same God? Or is his faith just too little?

4. There is no such thing as “false science”, and al cannot even provide a single example of it. There is simply science. Scientific findings are NOT inconclusive. They are tentative. Same as our spiritual discoveries – otherwise we become dogmatic.

5. Blind faith indeed seems to be the only alternative to observable facts.

Al, do you really think you are so much better than sceptics and atheists?

Yes, al, whatever I say here is based on my personal convictions. It would greatly help you too if you could admit that you say what appears to you to be true, or what you believe.

Note that (until now) I treated your arguments seriously and was discussing them without the ad hominem attitude that you just presented. This is not how you debate things, al. Ask Demian – I have no doubt he will agree with me here.

Let me dedicate you a little reading from Matt 7:21-27. Please do me a favour, and instead thinking that you own God take those words of the Bible seriously for what they mean.

Jag, does the gospel they preach match the Bible and what Jesus taught, or not? That’s how you tell. A couple of books that cover this (which I haven’t read myself yet, as my personal time is better spent on other topics currently) are “The Supremacy of Christ in
a Postmodern World”, and “Why We’re Not Emergent”.

fropome, and that’s why pointing out testimonies and so on in a forum like this is pointless. People sometimes try to document healings and publish a book full of them but it also does no good. People need first hand, personal, encounter with God.

There’s also a distinction between demon possession, and people with demonic activity in their life (Derek Prince would refer to this as being “demonized”). I personally don’t believe a Christian can be “demon possessed” in the traditional sense, but Christians certainly can have demons at work in their lives which they need deliverance from.

Jag I wish life wasn’t so busy right now because your theology fascinates me. Most recently that “YHWH and Satan are friends in the book of Job”

Fropome you will not suck me back in to the skeptic thread! I think we hashed out well enough objective vs. subjective morality and the consequences for each.

But yes I would say animals are not capable or culpable for evil. Would you blame a whale if it ate a fish? My cat likes to tease and play with the mice it catches but it’s not relishing the mouse’s fear.

Where do you see animals being cruel and not merely instinctual?

Rob:
Well as I say, if you want to say that animals don’t have evil ‘intent’ then that’s a defensible… but means that Demian’s comment (which I was replying to) is fairly meaningless. An earthquake only follows the laws of physics and doesn’t intend anything, but that doesn’t stop it from causing massive devastation.

Let’s back-track a bit. Demian said:
“Purely natural explanations of evil in this world are not adequate”
This is a very strong claim for which he offers no evidence. As such I consider it unfounded.

I suspect this is going to come down to whether you believe humans have a soul (via an argument as to why human evil is different to the cruelty of a cat), shall we skip to here?

Let’s start if you like with what you believe an animal does that is cruel and what you mean by cruel, because I’m having a hard time thinking of anything that would qualify.

Wow. I was about to enter this discussion a couple of days ago, got sidetracked, and now having seen where this has netted out, had to really think hard about entering the fray. But here goes.

First, Jag, I’m afraid you condemn yourself by the very Scriptures in Matthew you have referenced. Al did nothing more than point out something I and others have already said to you. If you’re here to simply reaffirm your prove-it-to-me position, then we will continue to go round and round the same circle logic. Many of us will gladly engage someone who is at least open to the premise of this blog. So far you are not. We’ve already told you how and to Whom you should seek if you truly want to know the truth. But by the evidence of your posts, I don’t think you do. Until you take the initial step in humility and faith we’ve already discussed, you simply won’t know the truth. So again I ask, what about you?

Now, the topic of this post. Jonathan mentioned Derek Prince, a wonderfully gifted Bible teacher who is now with the Lord. In the mid-seventies I had the privilege of being in a meeting he held in Boston where he was teaching about demons and their influence. At one point he began praying and within the audience of several hundred, many people began to manifest various symptoms of demon influence and possession, screaming, thrashing on the floor and whatnot, and most experienced deliverance as he and others continued to minister to them as Jesus did, commanding the demons to leave in His name.

This made a very big impression on me and my friends, each of us in our teens and all of us new believers. And, like most teenagers are prone to do, we took this teaching to an extreme and began seeing and casting out demons everywhere. As I look back on this time, I’m certain that on many occasions we were dealing more with emotions than demons. But there were a couple of instances where I experienced the real deal.

I’ll share one of them. I met one young man at a Christian coffee house who, as we began talking about this topic, said he wanted to be released from what he felt were demons to which he had opened himself through a heavy involvement with the occult and black arts. I agreed to pray for this young man’s deliverance and I asked another friend to join with me. While we were doing so, at one point this guy’s face and voice actually changed and he turned to me, looked me straight in the eye and said some things about me that he could not have known, as this guy was up to this point a stranger. While I was taken back for a moment, this demon had tipped his hand and I knew we were onto something and making progress. We continued to pray and rebuke it and in time succeeded in casting this demon out.

Demian and a couple of others have mentioned seeking a balance, which is where I’ve netted out over the years. Some things are clearly demonic and others are not. But as Christians, one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit available to us is the actual discernment of spirits, and if we trust Jesus and His leading, we will know the difference when faced with such a choice.

Like all of the other gifts and ministries of the Holy Spirit, casting out demons is simply one more tool God gives us to be used for His purposes and glory.

Rob:
I’d say, to start with, that a cat playing with a mouse was cruel. I’m guessing that you’d say that it was ‘only’ behaving according to instinct, so let me attack this from another direction: Do you think that young children can be cruel? Presumably a foetus can’t be cruel, so when does a person gain the ability to be cruel?

Richard, great post. Thank you for sharing. One of the Derek Prince teachings on demons I listed to a long time ago, sometime in the late 80s I guess, must have been a similar meeting to the one you attended. At the close of the service they left the tape running for a bit, which was rather disturbing.

fropome, I was not addressing any remarks to you in particular, as there would be no point. You display neither the inclination to seek the God of the Bible, nor the spiritual capacity to discuss the things of God [which capacity can be gained only through being born from above by the work of the Holy Spirit]. So you needn’t trouble yourself to reply to me. My remarks are to benefit those who desire to be benefitted by them; no others need apply.

To whom it may concern: please observe the desparation of Jag’s latest attempts to taunt & bait me into debate. There is no debate. Why would there be? We aren’t comparing apples with oranges. Jag is comparable to a fish attempting to teach aerospace tecnology. You who have been born a second time by the grace of God our Savior understand exactly what I’m saying– those who have not been born again from above not only don’t undertand spiritual reality, but don’t understand that they don’t understand because they’re incapable of such comprehension. They are also slaves of their own egos. Narcissism is the opiate of the godless.

I have said all that I mean to say on this thread. The egotists are welcome to attempt to discredit the living God and His Christ, Jesus, and those who believe and seek to serve Him, by their pseudo-intellectual smear tactics. The stage, and the last word are yours…

I’ll post my reply to you Jag in a few hours (I’m at work and don’t have time to type something that long!) but in the meantime I just want to say (mainly to al):

I don’t find what Jag says toxic. Not to say I agree with the majority of it (as is obvious from our ongoing debates, I disagree with much of his thinking, premises and conclusions) BUT, I feel he is being genuine and is not operating out of a desire to lead anyone astray (because, he does not feel his way of thinking is “astray”).

Now I may have missed past arguments (I’m relatively new here) but my own experience is that he presents generally reasonable questions and disputes other peoples ideas from what he feels are rational grounds. This is not forbidden! I realise that such arguments may lead astray those who are weak in faith or who do not have much knowledge of the more “intellectual” grounds for their beliefs, but I don’t think criticising someone else’s objections to faith are the way to remedy this. We are going to face such objections throughout our lives, and these times can be a great opportunity to learn more about what we believe and why we believe it, and to learn how to give “an answer”.

1 Peter 3:15-16
“But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.”

Insulting someone as “braindead” I do not believe is a gentle or respectful approach.
Without Christ, we all are wicked and full of evil thoughts. Our forgiveness and the grace upon which we stand is not of ourselves – it is a gift of God so that “no one should boast” (Eph 2:8-9).

I understand anger at those who are leading others astray, and there is a place for such anger – but there is also a constructive way to express it. In your anger do not sin.

I do not debate with Jag out of a belief that my mere argument will change his heart, mind, or “convert” him. Such things require more than argument. I do it because:
1. I believe there is a reason for the hope that I have, and that I should be able to give an answer for it (whilst acknowledging personal limitations and having faith enough not to be discouraged by the gaps)
2. I actually quite enjoy a good debate, they tend to strengthen my faith.
And 3. There is always the possibility that God is at work within someone, and that they will come to the truth even when it seems otherwise. I am hesitant to just “give up” on anyone because of their present state – it was “while we were still sinners, Christ died for us”.

As long as an argument is reasonable and not simply a personal attack, I see no reason to disallow it.

Well put Alyssa. I like what you had to say there. =)

Jonathan,

Good point. The books I would recommend to you are bishop John Spong’s “Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism” and “Jesus for the Non-religious”. I would be interested in your thoughts.

Rob,

I did not present any of my own theology when it came to the Book of Job. Read it for yourself – Satan is one of God’s angels there, one of the courtiers, he walks and talks to God and they even make bets. He also must obtain God’s permission before killing off Job’s family. But that’s OK, after all at the end God gave Job another family. I am sure Job must have been chuffed to receive a new-for-old replacement! Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible, and Satan certainly has not evolved into God’s adversary in it. Go back even further, and you will find that YHWH and his consort Asherah were Canaanite deities in a religion that was far from dualist. Both good and evil always came from the same God. Even the Bible says so in many places – Isaiah 45:7 is a good place to start.

Richard,

I am amazed how you will always back someone just because their views are closer to yours than mine. Read al’s post again, and tell me if this is how Jesus treated people. Al must have realised he had no arguments at all to counter me, so he decided to attack my person. This is a very dirty technique. I don’t care what al thinks about me, I would like al to honestly deal with my arguments (or admit al couldn’t). That was all I asked for. A version of Christianity that cannot honestly deal with questions and has to resort to personal attacks condemns itself, and is condemened by the Bible too. I am glad that gentle and open-minded people like Alyssa can understand that.

Jag,

While I’m not condoning name calling, read the Gospels and take a good look at the names Jesus called the Pharisees and Sadducees. So to your point, yes, this is how Jesus himself treated some people.

As far as dealing with your arguments, I will say once again what I’ve stated before, you continually take a prove-it-to-me position. No one here can prove anything to you. Only Christ through the Holy Spirit can reveal the truth to you. Now, you either want that or you don’t.

I’d say, to start with, that a cat playing with a mouse was cruel. I’m guessing that you’d say that it was ‘only’ behaving according to instinct, so let me attack this from another direction: Do you think that young children can be cruel? Presumably a foetus can’t be cruel, so when does a person gain the ability to be cruel?

Can you define cruel for me please. I would start with it being delighting in the suffering of others. I don’t think the cat is taunting the mouse because it enjoys the fear in it’s eyes (or that the mouse has any fear in it’s eyes). I think the cat plays with the mouse because it likes it when small furry things move suddenly and quickly. Sharks bite things that look like seals, and lions kill lion kittens so they can impregnate lionesses and pass on their DNA. It seems their actions would be the same whether the prey suffered or not.

If that’s cruel would you punish these animals for it? Is it immoral for them to behave naturally? Do they know better? I’m asking not telling.

As for can children be cruel, it is obvious you never attended middle school .

I would say that, off the top of my head, a child can be cruel once it can put the thought processes together to delight in the suffering of another creature, but that’s just kind of saying telling the truth is when you say something that’s true.

Jag, as a matter of fact I did just finish the book of Job and I have to say your theology is weird. I think you imply too much from too little.

Richard,

My asking for evidence is not without a good reason. I’d like to know why “Christ through the Holy Spirit” (if I may use your phrase) is not revealing the same trutsh to you and me, but quite different truths on occasions. I do read he Bible, and it is full of prophets giving signs. Am I to believe that those stories literally happened? That would require a belief that God is changeable and no longer sends prophets and gives signs. I can’t believe God has changed, therefore the only alternative I am aware of is to take the biblical stories metaphorically.

Rob,

Please answer a couple of simple questions:

1. Does the Book of Job depict an accurate record of what really happened at some point in history, or is it just a story/parable/metaphor/etc? What makes you think that? What theological and philosophical implications? Looking forward to your reply.

Al:
“fropome, I was not addressing any remarks to you in particular, as there would be no point. You display neither the inclination to seek the God of the Bible, nor the spiritual capacity to discuss the things of God [which capacity can be gained only through being born from above by the work of the Holy Spirit]. So you needn’t trouble yourself to reply to me. My remarks are to benefit those who desire to be benefitted by them; no others need apply.”
My. How Christian of you. I’ll happily ignore you from now on as you suggest.

Rob:
I’m happy to use your definition of cruel as taking delight specifically in another’s pain, though I would say that disease, for example, can be cruel.

However on this basis it is very rare for any but the most psychotic of humans to display significant cruelty. Children’s bullying (I experienced enough of this) can be seen in the same way as similar actions many animal groups… an attempt to get to the top of the social hierarchy. Few bullies act in the same way if no-one can see the bullying and fewer still if even the victim does not know who the bully is; they do it to impress. Many of are who have been bullied are used to the idea that bullies act very differently when no-one else is around.

Now I’m not saying that people cannot be cruel, but the amount of actions people take _in order to enjoy the pain caused_ is extremely small. They are also, almost by definition, undertaken by deeply disturbed individuals. As such, I’m not sure that it makes sense to make statements about humanity in general on the basis of such actions. There are probably as many cruel animals are there are psychopathic people, for similar, dysfunctional reasons.

However, as soon as you expand your definition of cruelty to include standard childhood bullying, you immediately include the very similar status-defining actions present in much of the animal kingdom.

Thanks for the thoughtful responses btw, I appreciate you taking the time.

Jag, who God is never changes. God’s nature never changes. God’s methods and ways of interacting with us do change.

Jag,

God himself says, “I change not.” So you are right.

But Christ fulfilled the law and the prophets. While He walked among us, He provided many signs and wonders, as the prophets also did. The God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament. Literally.

Today, His followers, now empowered by the Holy Spirit, whom He sent after His ascension, are the ones who fulfill His mission here on earth. Signs and miracles included, when they are needed to fulfill His purposes.

The evidence you seek is found in the Word that you thus far have rejected. You won’t get any more proof until you take the initial step in faith I’ve discussed with you a few times now.

Jonathan,

If God changes its approach to humans, then clearly God changes, right? Are you able to explain why we don’t see the literal God of the Bible in our lives – no resurrections, miraculous healings, etc? The Bible in fact (on literal reading) promises that these signs would never stop. Nor does it say anything about God changing its approach to us.

Richard,

Since your view totally refutes Jonathan’s, I am assuming you represent totally different theological approaches. I just wish you were not so presumptuous when it comes to me. Who is to say that it is not you who rejects “the word”? And are you able to explain what Jonathan can’t? All you seem to be offering to me is just blind faith. Yes, the feature of American Christianity seems to be prophets – the Mormons have theirs, the Adventists theirs, and even the Christian Scientists have one. But why don’t those prophets agree with each other?

Jag, it’s like saying since God is a cook, and He made spagetti once, that is all He ever makes. If He changes the menu, then His nature changed. No, He’s still a cook. I have to leave shortly but I’ll write what thoughts I can. But God is a God of seemingly infinite variety. Just look around at creation. The Bible says He forms us in our mother’s wombs and that we are His workmanship, yet every person is unique in appearance, skills, personality, etc.

Signs and wonders still happen. I’ve heard numerous testimonies about people being raised from the dead, one of which came out of a mission trip from my church with people I know myself (I shared about that earlier in the thread). God certainly still heals. I personally know (that is, not stuff I see on TV or whatever) people healed of cancer, and a lady healed of AIDS (she still does followup tests with her doctor but has been HIV negative for ~6 years now). This is something we’d have to just agree to disagree on.

I wish signs and wonders would happen a lot more in America and bring a fresh wave of nationwide revival, but there is so much unbelief and complacency in the church today and many Christians are taught against having the faith to believe in anything like this.

God changed His approach to us when Adam sinned and was kicked out of the garden of Eden. When He sent the flood to wipe out humanity except for Noah and his family. When He promised to not destroy the Earth by flood again (He isn’t “The God Who Only Punishes The Earth By Sending Floods” and so He has not “changed” because He won’t do another flood.) He set up a covenant with Abraham that was new. He gave Moses the ten commandants and the law, again something new. With the promises He made to David. And then fulfilled the law with a new covenant of grace through Jesus Christ, which all of the OT was pointing towards anyway.

But God is still who He was, is, and will forever be.

Jag,

Jonathan and I couldn’t agree more. Read the entire string of these posts and you’ll see. But that’s not even remotely the issue here.

What you call presumptuousness, I call evidence from your own mouth. You have claimed here and in other posts to be a Christian, to believe that Jesus is the Christ, yet say things that completely and utterly counter these statements.

And yes, faith by its nature starts out blindly. But it’s the only way we can begin to see. It’s not presumptuousness, it’s the Gospel.

Jonathan,
I am fine with infinite variety. But it’s not possible for God to use miracles and not use miracles at the same time. I am not aware of any documented resurrection, and cannot just take your word for it.

As for the flood myth, are yousuggesting a God of love would be available of such genocide, including also millions of innocent animals? simply because that God CHANGED its mind and REGRETTED creating humans? The flood story clearly contradicts the texts saying that God doesn’t change. But then again, such texts come from a later tradition.

Richard,
Are you saying that to be Christian and to accept Jesus as Christ one must believe exactly the way you do? I do not recall saying anything countering my statements.

Jag, that’s okay, I don’t expect you to believe claims of God’s power. If people don’t believe the inspired Word of God itself, why would they believe anything else someone writes? But when you argue, for instance, that God no longer does miracles, it’s useful for you to know my worldview is that, in my experience, He obviously does. We aren’t staring at the same point of “God doesn’t do this any more” to discuss why He doesn’t, is all I’m saying.

God is certainly capable of genocide. Israel wiped out many tribes, women and children included. That doesn’t fit in with our typical perception of “God is love”, but when our perceptions don’t match up with the Word, we are the ones who wrong, not God. In truth, God is also holy and just. If He decided to kill Adam and Eve on the spot and start again, He’d have been justified to do so.

So I don’t see it as looking at all of the people who have been lost, I see it as looking at all of the people who have been spared. Hundreds of millions, if not billions, of people will spend eternity with God because of His patience and mercy towards us in spite of our sin.

Moving to the new covenant of grace, we who are not descendants of Abraham are grafted into His people now. He could have left the gentiles out forever.

Keep in mind that those who don’t believe in Jesus are under God’s wrath (John 3:36) but the reason God hasn’t already come for His bride is that that He wants to give people time to repent and be saved (2 Peter 3:9). However, He won’t wait forever.

My observation is, Jonathan, the the miracles we can see, in fact the only miracles that have ever happened – now or in the past – don’t require breaking laws of nature. The biggest miracle is the miracle of love – and it’s the most natural thing there is at the same time. This is the real power!

As a result, I think that whenever we read about miraculous stories in the Bible they are meant to be taken metaphorically rather than historically. Does it make God any weaker? I don’t think so. I think God is even more powerful if God can work a miracle in a natural way rather than by breaking laws of nature.

God is Love – this is what Jesus taught. That is the bottom line without which Christianity doesn’t make sense. To say that love is capable of genocide is, to me, blasphemous. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying you have evil intentions, but I think you have misunderstood God somewhere. And Israel – luckily – did not “wipe out” any tribes. The story of Egypt, exodus and conquest of Canaan has no historical proof. Not a thing.

I suspect you are just scared of God and follow your religion for fear of punishment. That is why you are afraid to say that evil is evil and you say that if God does it it is not! If it is OK for God to do genocide, then you are defending Hitler as well.

I am not afraid of love, because where there is love there is no place for fear! To me it’s not fear for punishment or hope for a reward that draws me to God. It is just love itself, which by the way was personified in Jesus.

I am under the impression that you are also advocating a literal “second coming”. The history is full of people and whole churches similarly mistaken in their literalism. Countless dates for “the end of the world” were set. All passed and nothing happened. I wonder how much more time we have to waste before we accept the simple truth. Yes, it looks like Paul believed in it amost 2,000 years ago – it was supposed to happen during his lifetime! But he was wrong. I don’t blame him – nobody’s perfect. But I do blame the “orthodoxy” which could not fact the truth for centuries.

Actually, I seek Jesus because I love Him and am thankful for all He has done for me. It is the revelation of God’s love for us that empowers us to love Him back.

There’s no condemnation for those who are in Christ. Jesus already paid for the full price for my sins (past, present, and future). There is no unpaid balance left over for me to be fearful of.

You don’t believe in the recorded miracles of the Bible, you don’t believe in the historical record of the Old Testament. As such we’d seem to have very little common ground. I do believe in the literal truth of the Bible.

As for the second coming, I will point out your argument is already addressed by 2 Peter 3:3-4. People will deny that Jesus will return up to the point He does so. I’ve heard many people make predictions and I always roll my eyes. Haven’t they read Matthew 24:36?

First, let me begin by saying to everyone, and to Demian in particular, that I’m sorry for contributing to allowing this thread to get off topic. And let me assert once more that demons are indeed real.

Jag,

I would never claim that I’m the standard for Christian belief, nor have I done so. But I will address your countering statements.

About a month or so ago you posted a link to John Spong’s piece about what he calls the “new reformation.” You prefaced this link by stating, “I could write a lot about how I see God at the moment, but if you look up this link… it will summarize it a lot better.”

So let’s look at how you and Spong see God.

First, Spong claims that “Theism as a way of defining God is dead.” He also claims it to be “meaningless.” While this is the very definition of atheism, I could stop here having made my point.

But he goes on to say that it becomes “nonsensical to seek and understand Jesus as the incarnation of the theistic deity.” And then states that “Christology of the ages in bankrupt.”

He then states that the “perfect and finished creation from which human being fell into sin is pre-Darwinian mythology and post-Darwinian nonsense.”

He then goes on to state that the “virgin birth is impossible,” the same with Jesus’ miracles.

He says the “cross as the sacrifice for the sins of the world is a barbarian idea based on primitive concepts of God and must be dismissed.”

Same with the resurrection and ascension.

And finally he states in so many words that prayer is a waste of time.

So, to sum up his and your beliefs: God is not creator and Lord of the universe, Christ is not His son, he wasn’t born to a virgin, didn’t die on the cross, nor was He raised from the dead or ascended into heaven.

So tell me Jag, how can you point to Spong and say this is not counter to what you have stated; how can you possibly claim to be a Christian and yet reject the very definition and essence of the word?

Jonathan

On what basis do you believe in the literal truth of the Bible? I know many people who claim that, but on closer examination they always admit that they do not take the whole Bible literally. And does the Bible claim inerrancy anywhere, or is it just a man-made doctrine?

As for the second coming – it is good to study the books of the Bible in context. And you are right that some early Christians believed it, as your quotations prove. Paul seems to have believed it, and the author of Hebrews too, as well as the author of John’s gospel. And even the author of Luke. But wait, what did Luke have to say in Luke 21:29-32? Oh yes, a conveniently forgotten doctrine – the second coming was to happen during the lifetime of Jesus’ immediate followers! Yet it didn’t… at least not on a literal level. As for your texts from 2 Peter, we do not know who wrote the epistle, yet we know a few things (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_Peter): “Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author, and instead consider the epistle pseudepigraphical. Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to second-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support… The questions of authorship and date are closely related. Self-evidently if Peter the Apostle wrote this epistle then it must have been written prior to his death in c 65–67AD. The letter refers to the Pauline epistles and so must post-date them, regardless of authorship, thus a date before 60 is not probable… Many scholars generally consider the epistle to be written between c 100–150AD.”

So there you go – the literal second comiing wasn’t coming, so the delay had to be explained away. By pretending the author to be someone else! But we don’t live a century after Jesus, like tha author of the letter. Are you really suggesting that his explanation is still valid 2,000 years later?

Many people try to “explain away” the words of Luke 21:29-32. It’s not a generation, they say, it’s something else. Yet, if they can be allowed to take the words of scriptures non-literally, when convenient then they are using the same technique that I do, and so my belief is no less faithful to the Bible than theirs.

Richard,

You clearly read bishop’s Spong’s thesis. But have you tried to understand them, and what he has to say? Seems to me like you just glanced over them. Spong goes beyond bankrupt biblical literalism and in the proces tries his best to save God, Jesus and the Bible from fundamentalists. Don’t take his testimony for it, take mine: if it wasn’t for Spong and those like him, I would have abandoned Christianity long ago. Spong is a big reason why I returned to Christianity and like him can proclaim that Jesus is the Messiah, and he is still a great inspiration.

And just in case it really is difficult for you to understand, I will add something else. I don’t really think it is necessary, as you come across as a very intelligent person, but it may benefit some other readers: John Shelby Spong is a retired bishop of the Episcopalian (Anglican) church in the USA. He comes from the evangelical tradition, which tradition is still very strong at one wing of the church. Yet Spong was never excommunicated or even threatened with expulsion. Doesn’t it tell you that he must be quite a Christian thinker/mystic after all? Spong has indeed received death threats – not a single one from an atheist or a Buddist – all of them from conservative Christians. Doesn’t it tell you something about conservative Christianity? After all trinitarians poisoned Arius, Calvin burned Servet and so on – don’t we have a long tradition of trying to play God?

Jag,

You may not think you’ve abandoned Christianity, but you have.

Your words and Spong’s speak for themselves.

It’s not a “new reformation” that Spong is calling for, it’s an old heresy.

And since you have not problem quoting Scripture when it suits you, let me leave you with these verses from 2 Timothy that speak directly to you and Spong: “…always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth. Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these men oppose the truth—men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.”

Spong’s and your folly are indeed clear to everyone, certainly everyone reading this blog.

Jag, I’m no expert in apologetics, but there are plenty of resources online you can look up if you wish. But off the top of my head, 2 Tim. 3:16 says all scripture is God inspired by God.

I’m not saying the Bible doesn’t contain symbolism, of course it does. Look at most of the major and minor prophets. And much of the OT is itself a symbol of Christ. I’m saying that where the Bible discusses historical information, it is correct. Whereas it sounds like you believe much of the history in the OT never took place (such as Exodus). In this we’d totally disagree.

As for Luke 21:29-32 I looked it up in e-sword, and of the commentators I have loaded in, 6 have comments specifically on the verse that includes “generation”. They all agree Jesus was talking about the destruction of the temple, which happened 39-40 years later. There is disagreement on the translation of the specific word generation though, one felt it specifically mean the generation of people alive at the time and that some were still alive when the temple was destroyed. The others say it means more that Jews as a whole will still exist as a race until the secong coming. Strong’s lists the meaning as

“a generation; by implication an age (the period or the persons): – age, generation, nation, time.”

Often the case it seems, is that much of the end times prophecy and sometimes Messianic prophect from the OT had both a short term fulfillment and a long-term fulfillment.

Maybe you can get Damien to blog on the second coming sometime. Of course, eschatology might not fit his theme of a quick and dity guide to living a meaningful Christian life.

Jonathan, look at that: On the Second Coming, a post Jag knows quite well.

Haha, I think maybe that was right before I first found your blog.

Richard,

You may be tempted to be a judge, but I do not have to accept your judgement. In fact, I would advise you not to judge at all. It would be much more Christian of you. How convenient for you to have the text from 2 Timothy. I guess you are in the habit of using them against those you do not agree with? But it’s a double-edged sword. It can be just as well applied to yourself. So please, next time be more careful. I think we have come to conservative Christianity’s original sin again – judgmentalism.

Jonathan,

Thanks for trying. I am not sure if you are aware that there are two possible ways of translating your text from 2 Tim: “all scripture is inspired and useful…” or “all scripture that is inspired is useful”. I think the second simply makes more sense. The reason is that at the time the NT didn’t exist at all and the OT canon wasn’t finalised. Therefore referring to scriptures as if it was a closed set of books appears anachronistic. One way of the other, what the author of 2 Tim claims is that inspiration means being useful for spiritual purposes. That is exactly how I interpret inspiration too, and I always advocated the view here that the Bible is spiritually powerful. I do object, however, to the notion of inspiration being hijacked by biblical findamentalists, who give the term a meaning it did not originally have. Certainly the Bible never claims it is inerrant, infallible or verbally inspired.

Your commentators are certainly doing their best “explaining away” Luke 21:29-32. I am not surprised, it is an embarrassing text. In fact, this is what C S Lewis honestly called “the most embarrassing text of the Bible!(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Coming). We can only wish that other apologists were could be equally honest. Please, go back to the text: this is a reply to a question about Jesus’ return and “the end of the world”! Your commentators appear to suggest that Jesus was misleading his audience answering a question different to the one he was asked. Yet he was not asked about the destruction of the temple at all.

Jag,

You can call me judgmental if you wish, but when you and Spong state that, “The very heart and soul of Christianity will be the content of this reformation,” then I think it’s imperative to show the Christians reading this blog the content of this so called reformation and let them see for themselves where you are really coming from:

http://www.dioceseofnewark.org/vox20598.html

If there’s a poisonous snake in my house, just because I then state there’s a poisonous snake in my house doesn’t make me a judge, it makes me an observer of reality.

Richard,

Absolutely agree with you that the contents of the new reformation thesis should be available to all interested. Then we will be able to focus on discussing the thesis rather than shoot the messengers! Your metaphor about a poisonous snake in your house is inaccurate. You should say that you suspect that there may be a poisonous snake in a house you are staying in. There may be no snake after all.

Don’t worry, Jag, I don’t shoot messengers. But I do trample snakes.