Some behavioral scientists might automatically conclude the non-existence of spirits, demons, and other ‘supernatural’ phenomena, but a degree doesn’t automatically conclude anything.
A degree is a thing, and it doesn’t reason, come to conclussions, carry on interactive conversations, recognize individuals, or fear a coming judgement.
Neither do psychosis or neurosis.
They’re things.
And it’s clear from any unforced reading of the New Testament that the devil, demons and angels are more than “things.”
Jesus carried on interactive conversations with both the devil, and demons (who are recorded recognizing Him as more than human, expressing fear of a coming judgement, and asking Him if He had come to torment them before the appointed time.)
Gabriel carried on an interactive conversation with Daniel, and (jumping ahead about six centuries) with Mary and Zacharias.
If the testimony of The New Testament means anything, these are clearly personal, non-human, external beings.
Okay, so you are saying that having a degree in Behavior Sciences means completely and absolutely nothing to this nor lends credibility to this discussion and now just backtracking this claim; or, is it that you realized that your answer to this question “Which Behavior Science did you get your degree in? Social or Neural?” would be too much to ask?
I’ve taken developmental and abnormal psychology, and several counselling courses, and I recall only one text book that touched on what we’ve been discussing here.
It had a small section on “the spiritual hypothesis,” and mentioned some severe forms of dissociative disorder.
The possibility that multiple personality involved possesion by real external entities was discussed (and not ruled out), as well as a phenomena it discribed as ocuring very rarely in Christian cultures, but found in primative cultures where “gods” are invited to “posses” their worshipers.
It concluded only that the possibility that such things were “real” wasn’t open to scientific investigation at this time.
BTW: Do you really think it would be easier to find behavioral scientists (in either branch you choose) who support the reality of such things as telekinesis, telepathy, and "“mind over matter,” than it would to find believing Christians (in the field) who accept the existence of angels and demons?
While I can’t say I agree with (or fully understand) Craig’s position on “demons,” I do agree with him that demons are not personal spirit-creatures as you do. So I just wanted to respond to the following which you wrote in response to him:
So the only explanation for the man’s ability to break the fetters is that the ghosts of dead men (which is what demons were thought to be by Jews in the first century) had given him “super-human strength?” Why couldn’t his ability be due to the fact that he was just really strong? The fact is that there is simply no need for a supernatural explanation for the man’s strength unless it is assumed that it would have been humanly impossible for the man to do what he did without the aid of disembodied beings whose actual existence neither the OT nor the NT sanctions.
So the only explanation for the demoniac’s recognition of who Jesus was is that it was supernaturally given him by the evil ghosts of dead men? Why couldn’t his ability to recognize Jesus be due to the fact that Jesus’ identity was already a topic of discussion amongst the Jews of Capernaum, and that some were hopeful or already convinced that he was, in fact, the promised Messiah that all Israel had been expecting? And even if he was the only one who recognized Jesus for who he was, that doesn’t prove his insight was supernaturally given. It simply means that, even in his derangement, he perceived and was not afraid to make known to all, what was obvious to him.
Well Jesus certainly carried on conversations with others who were obviously mistaken in some or many of their beliefs (especially the Pharisees) without correcting everything on which they were in error. So in that sense, it could be said that Jesus “humored” most of the people with whom he talked during his earthly ministry - including his disciples! So the fact that he would humor the mentally ill instead of saying, “Actually, you’re in error concerning what’s really wrong with you. Now, pull up a chair and let me explain to you how the opinions concerning the existence of demons that are held by you and everyone you know are mistaken.” Even if they were mistaken (and I believe they were) it was not Christ’s mission to go about correcting every superstition that was held by the Jewish and Gentile people. Moreover, I think it could be argued that, in every instance in which Christ neglected to correct all the mistaken beliefs held by first century Jews, one could see this as him “perpetuating the false beliefs of his audience.” For he certainly could have taken the time to correct them if he thought it important enough to do so. But this he did not do.
It’s my understanding that it was Christ’s human desires that were personified by the Gospel writers as “the devil” (or “slanderer”) in the accounts of Christ’s temptation in the wilderness. There is nothing in the accounts that is incompatible with the concept of an internal tempter, and calling the desires of the flesh “the devil” or “satan” (as I believe they are elsewhere identified in the NT) is illustrative of the New Testament’s focus within man, not without (e.g., Matt 15:10-11, 16-20). The Gospel writers simply took man’s greatest adversary (the desires of our flesh) and gave it the generic title that to any first century Jew would have denoted any person who stands in opposition to another (primarily as a false accuser). This doesn’t mean that whenever the expression “the devil” (or “satan”) appears in the Bible it always refers to the desires of the flesh personified; but I submit that the words never signify a rebel angelic being - and I demand proof to the contrary. It won’t do to simply take it for granted that Christ’s conflict was between he and a “rebel angel.” There is just as much reason to take for granted that “the devil” refers to a pink unicorn as there is to assume it refers to an evil angel. And just as you would likely demand evidence from someone who insisted that “the devil” here referred to a pink unicorn, so I demand evidence from you that “the devil” should here be identified with a fallen, rebel angel.
So far from being a conflict between Christ and another literal person external to himself, I submit that the conflict was in his own mind. Evidence that this is the case may be found in the third temptation recorded by Matthew, where we are that “the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him ALL the kingdoms of the world and their glory” (Matt 4:8). But is there any literal mountain in the world (no matter how high) that could provide a person with such a view? Of course not. Moreover, in Luke’s account of the same temptation (which, interestingly, is second in his order instead of third, as in Matthew) we are told told that “the devil took him up and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time” (Luke 4:5). Again, there is no mountain in the world that could provide someone with a glimpse of all the kingdoms of the world “in a moment of time.” This temptation is obviously taking place in Jesus’ mind - and it is there that “the devil” was present.
These conflicts within Jesus are presented in the narratives as a dialogue between Jesus and a personification of the pull of his own human desires (the yielding to which would have been sin). Moreover, an important point that should be kept in mind is that the power of temptation rests in its subtlety, not in its obviousness. Had Jesus been confronted by an evil, “rebel angel” in the wilderness, the obviousness of the temptation would have nullified its power in such a way that it would not have been a temptation at all. But since Christ was tempted - and that, in all points like all of us - we can be confident that the temptations were very real.
The first temptation (as given in Matthew’s Gospel) arose from the craving of his bodily appetite for food. It was his appetite that became a tempter to him, and attempted to seduce him to perform a miracle in order to satisfy his hunger. However, it would have been a sin for Jesus to have performed a miracle to gratify his desire for food, for his divine power had not been given to him for this purpose, but to establish his mission as the Savior of the world. Had Christ yielded to the tempter, it would have shown a lack of trust in God and been an improper use of the power God gave him.
The second temptation was the desire to accommodate himself to the prevailing opinions and expectations of the Jews to secure his success and thereby avoid the cross. Or, to put it another way, the prevailing Jewish opinions and expectations in regards to the Messiah presented themselves to his mind and suggested a path which, if pursued, would have saved him from all opposition and caused the Jews to receive him as their Messiah. But to have yielded to this temptation with a showy display of his Messianic authority and power would have made Christ guilty of presumption, and of wrongfully using Scripture to justify it.
The final temptation was a desire for the glory and grandeur of the world, which was presented to Jesus’ mind to kindle his ambition to use his God-given power to rule over the world as the greatest of secular kings, and by political power and military might make a heaven of earth. But in order to attain what this seductive desire promised, Jesus would have had to first bow down to the idol of human ambition. This, of course, he did not do. Like the first two, he refused to yield to what, at the time, was a very real temptation to him.
Here is a truism. If there is a natural explanation for any event; then it is natural in origin. If there is no natural explanation for any event, then it may be supernatural in origin.
Indeed, your explanation is far more probable than some personal disembodied spirits of dead men possessing others to do what they will.
By the way, loved this:
It is almost like I wrote it.
Also liked your explanation of the Temptation. Those ‘evil desires’ and ‘thoughts’ which tempted Christ, are called ‘spirits’. They are things that are given ‘life’ and have the power to alter our actions should we entertain them.
I just like to see people fumble all over themselves as they try to think spirits are ‘disembodied souls who wander’.
I’ve had a few days to reflect on this and Bob Wilson helped me get some thoughts in line. With all of my reservations concerning demons and their non-existence, it seems there is a huge difference in our approach to the text.
Aaron states:
When we read and gather information from the scriptures it seems to me that no matter the position, it will not suffice to say we “demand proof”. We all demand proof, nor will it simply will not do to say the words are not signifying a rebel angelic being. Here, I can’t help but to see Aaron approaching the issue the way the Atheist does with the theist. If Santa is claimed to exist, must I search the universe to prove he does not? Therefor since I don’t have to claim I searched the universe then so it is the devil needs not be searched for either.
However there is a difference. Here we are discussing between believers in the scriptures what the bible does and does not teach. And so it seems to me that if the bible states that Jesus casted out a demon then it should be treated as such and thus the burden of proof is to state why he didn’t.
With that I would say there’s still every reason to believe that Jesus actually did cast out demons until it can be proven from the text that he did not. Of course we can speculate that only catered to their superstitions, but that is what needs to be proved. Appealing to pink unicorns is actually more parallel to Jesus catering to their superstitions since the text says nothing of the sort. However, if I read you right Aaron, you’re making a more paricular argument here that the Devil is not a fallen angel (which might very well be right). However, I’m coupling this argument with your other argument that demons do not exist.
If Jesus never spoke this and it is true demons are just part of their mental handicap, then Jesus should have spoke it. At the very least he could have healed the man and then explained that Demons do not exist. He could have taken the time to tell them what truly happened rather than FURTHERING THEM IN THEIR SUPERSTITION BY CAUSING A HERD OF PIGS TO OFF THEMSELVES.
And Lastly, I think Jesus’ mission is to dissolve our false beliefs (superstitions). For these false beliefs are what keep us from hearing, understanding and appreciating God. And if God is the one who deceives us by participating in the false belief then I wonder what mischief is God up to with his creation?
Unlike Aaron, I actually know spirits exist and that they come from the mind and are able to influence the actions of others. Spirit = life, and there is life in everything you speak. The issue I am explaining, is not whether or not demons exist. It is in relation to the original premise of this thread, which is what they are not.
Demons are not fallen angels, nor are fallen angels evil spirits. Demons are not disembodied spirits of mythical halfbreeds, nor are these mythical halfbreeds evil spirits.
Fallen Angels are men entrusted with the oracles of God the Message of Life, but failed in their persuit or sidetracked by the Law. They are fallen messengers, prophets and people of God who have lost their first love, and have been denied entry into the promised land while they were alive.
Demons are spirits created by the mind of humanity. When I say they are in the mind, I am not saying they are imaginary. By no means, are demons non-existent; the question is what they are. They are spirits. This is why I said, if you knew what a spirit was, you will know why they went into a heard of pigs.
Spirits manifest themselves in many forms, the more one give up control to this influencing spirit (which has it’s origin in the mind), the more that influencing spirit is able to possess the individual. We don’t see these spirits come into the multiple personality or even the paranoid schizophrenia very often, but they are very much real and can be passed from one person to another. Demons are the evil spirits, the ones that steal, kill and destroy the heart, mind and even the body of a person.
Have you ever felt tension so thick you could metaphorically cut it with a knife and have a chunk of it for dinner? Well, that is a spirit. Have you ever had a great day and then someone said something negative and just appeared to have a bad attitude in life, only to find your great day disappear and you begin to emulate this negative person and their attitude? Well, that is a spirit. Have you ever come into a room where many people were having a good time and you were feeling down only to find yourself laughing along with them and your cares disappear? Well, that is a spirit.
There are neutral spirits (just called spirits), good spirits and evil spirits and they are called spirits because they have ‘life’ to influence and control.
There are three primary sources of these spirits. 1) God, who is Spirit and creator of all things; 2) Earth, who God commanded to provide spirits to give life for all creation (except humanity); 3) Humanity, who was created in the image of God, whom God gave His Spirit as their life.
Which by the way, we have been fighting a spirit of legalism passed on from these fallen angels from men to men, for quite awhile.
Perhaps you could clear up which being created what? Did God make good, evil, and/or neutral spirits? What about humans? I’m unclear how the Earth can create spirits (is there a mother Nature or Gaia)?
I said clearly, there are three sources of these, meaning all mentioned, spirits and they are God, earth and humanity.
Did God make good, evil, and/or neutral spirits?
Yes. He created the earth and created humanity. He is the father of [all] spirits (Hebrews 12:9); He delegated all spirits whom He created to certain responsibilities and from these spirits come more spirits for good, evil and non-aligned purpose such as pro-creation. When God, the Father of spirits, created all these things He declared them ontologically good, and humanity (despite their propensity to sin and do evil) very good.
But before we go on to all this, unless you understand that God is the one who created both good and evil and is responsible for His creation, it will be very difficult or you to understand what demons, spirits, and their origins and answer the question of the ‘good’ purpose of creating evil spirits.
The Hebrew word RA means: evil (natural and/or moral) adversity, affliction, bad, calamity, displeasure, distress, grief, harm, hurt, ill, trouble, sore, vex, wicked, wrong.
Who is created RA?
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I make peace and I create evil [RA]; I am the Lord, Who does all these things.
Amos3:6 - When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble? When evil [RA] comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it?
2 Samuel 24:1 Now again the anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.”
1 Chronicles 21:1 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.
Genesis 1:24,25 Then God said, “Let the Earth (and from it) bring forth (produce) chay nephesh (living souls) according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that crawl, and the wildlife of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. So God fashioned the (produced) chay erets (living of the Earth) according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and creatures that crawl on the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
Notice that God commands the Earth to produce the life (the spirits or souls) in which all living things on earth were created, and God then fashions this created life, he is not the one who created this life.
Now, look at what you noticed about Genesis 1:27 and 2:7, and find out where the spirit of man came from. In Genesis 1:27, the spirit came from earth, but in Genesis 2:7, a new kind of man was created whose spirit came from God Himself…
This is known to the Hebrews and is repeated over and over in the Scriptures.
Ecclesiastes 3:20-22;12:7
All return to the same place. All came from the dust and all return to the dust. But who understands that the spirit of man ascends upward and the spirits of the beast descends downward to the earth? The dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it.
In Job when God asked where the spirit which called itself “Satan” came from, what was it’s answer?
This is just the tip of the iceberg, and I cannot teach you to understand and do your homework, I can only tell you that from currently what many are professing what you think demons, spirits and fallen angels are did not come from Christianity (even though today [apostate] Christianity teaches it) but [size=130]Manichaeism[/size] and [size=130]Zoroastrianism[/size].
The Church Fathers unequivocally taught that fallen angels exist, Craig. So it’s not a phenomenon limited to modern Christianity. Moreover, Christian eschatology and angeology/demonology owes much to its Zoroastrian roots.
Actually there was no formalized doctrine of demons and angels held by the first few century Church fathers and as for the latter, ‘apostate’ Christianity owes much to its Zoroastrian roots because most of Christianity isn’t Christian at all. Much of what Christians were taught came about in the 4th and 7th Century and the medieval Catholic Church.
Much of what I am taught? What do you know of my education?
I suggest you look further into the Zoroastrian-Christian connection. You can begin by researching the eschatological fire of Zoroastrianism.
Can you refresh my memory on what you view of angels is?
Craig, I’ve read your posts at other forums for a number of years. Your haughtiness seems to grow with time.
That was a brave and admirable thing your brother did. The door of the Jeep must have been majorly damaged, seeing that your brother was able to pull it off.
Let’s see:
You’re a visionary who has actually seen and talked to Jesus.
You’re an expert in Quantum Physics
And now we find that you’re proficient in Ji-Jitsu.
Craig, when did you start having hallucinations, and when did you develop these delusions of grandiosity?
While we’re on the subject, I’ll have you know that I am an expert in astrophysics, and Jun Fan Gung Fu. I can also fly…and teleport when I really feel like it.
Anyway, the story of the possessed man who broke his chains every time some one tried to restrain him…that’s just an allegory.
I don’t care what you believe about angels. What you believe and what you were taught really are two different things brush up on those basic comprehension skills. I never said I knew your view, and at this point, I really don’t care to know.
Actually, it is your arrogance that is showing by your ad hominem reasoning.
Whether or not you think I am hallucinated the vision of Jesus, is up to you to conclude. However, you weren’t there and there are far more others who have seen him and have been ridiculed and persecuted by others for this testimony. All you are doing is showing your true heart by the words you choose.
Never claimed to be an expert in Quantum Physics, however, just because it is difficult for some people to comprehend doesn’t others do not comprehend it. You don’t need to go to university or college to understand physics.
I was proficient in Ji-Jitsu, because I was doing it for many years as my roommate was a red sash kung-fu instructor, black belt Karate and mixed martial arts instructor.
So this is your attempt at sarcasm? Are you jealous of my experience and demonstrating your insecurity? Believe it or not, some people actually have hobbies other than video games, and some people actually do things other than keep their nose in a science book all day.
A typo, I meant Arm-in Guillotine; however, anyone who was in martial arts, or practiced in jujitsu, would have known what I was talking about instead of making some petty correction; and, those who did not know martial arts, or practiced jujitsu would not care some petty correction as they would think it was some sort of martial arts move and my point would be made either way.
So now speaking of spirits, let us look up the dictionary definition for a word petty, Gabe.
PETTY
1.of little or no importance or consequence: petty grievances.
2.of lesser or secondary importance, merit, etc.; minor: petty considerations.
3.having or showing narrow ideas, interests, etc.: petty minds.
4.mean or ungenerous in small or trifling things: a petty person.
5.showing or caused by meanness of spirit: a petty revenge.
6.of secondary rank, esp. in relation to others of the same class or kind: petty states; a petty tyrant.
Synonyms: paltry, trifling, trivial
Good luck with your attempts on insulting me and hijacking the thread.
