Doesnt adress that Jesus spoke of Demon possession Himself. Do you believe His words were made up?
Matthew 12:43-45
“When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it passes through waterless places seeking rest, but finds none. Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when it comes, it finds the house empty, swept, and put in order. Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they enter and dwell there, and the last state of that person is worse than the first. So also will it be with this evil generation.”
Matthew 17:14-20
And when they came to the crowd, a man came up to him and, kneeling before him, said, “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic and he suffers terribly. For often he falls into the fire, and often into the water. And I brought him to your disciples, and they could not heal him.” And Jesus answered, “O faithless and twisted generation, how long am I to be with you? How long am I to bear with you? Bring him here to me.” And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him, and the boy was healed instantly. ...
Matthew 10:1
And He called to him His twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every affliction.
I could post more, but please do tell us what you believe is being said in these, are they made up?
People can be mentally ill and not possessed of the Devil.
People can be mentally ill and not possessed of the Devil.
What I'm getting at is the idea of people who've been thought to be possessed who were actually mentally ill.
Assumed or accused - or both - of something spiritual when it was actually something biological?
People can be mentally ill and not possessed of the Devil.
What I'm getting at is the idea of people who've been thought to be possessed who were actually mentally ill.
Assumed or accused - or both - of something spiritual when it was actually something biological?
Hi Anna.Not all Christians believe in original sin. Catholics do, but not all Christians. What do those who don't believe in original sin say about sin and death?
A Catholic one? A god of creeds and doctrines of men?Catholics baptize babies for that specific reason, to wash away original sin. Catholic doctrine holds out hope for heaven for unbaptized babies, but doesn't guarantee their salvation.
What kind of God would deny heaven to an innocent baby?
And very good questions they are! Physical death was brought into the world on account of the fall. Thus, man is made in mortality. It is not a punishment for sin, but a consequence of the fall, that man's body became mortal and fallen. Thus, we were offered an escape through the tree of life or Christ.What kind of doctrine would inflict illness and death on someone for sins they weren't guilty of? I know these aren't original questions at all, but they're my questions right now.
No, I don't think I can agree with that at all. None of those are absolutes.
Not all children obey out of fear, and plenty of adults do. Think about it. Not all adolescents understand, and very many adults don't obey out of love.
You can take all those and shake them up and you might have some generalities emerge from almost unlimited possible combinations - but not those three absolutes.
Thank you. I don't believe the story of Jonah in the whale. I know I'm not alone in that; I don't know how you'd debate the issue with a theologian who doesn't view it as a literal narration, and I'm aware that I don't have the ability to do that.
Two problems with that approach as I see it. The first is that it doesn't solve the dilemma Angel notes. The second is that there's no reason to separate the resurrection from that miracle in terms of how it's approached/addressed within the narrative. I do believe in literary devices and that the Bible contains a good many, along with certain rhetorical traditions, but I don't think we can simply assign those without cause and the cause would be found within the context of the parable or other less than literal illustration of a principle.I don't think for a believer that those are the only two choices you have. You could believe in the resurrection and believe the swine running over the cliff are an ancient people's allegorical use of a natural event.
I remember. And however a discipline changes in approach (or for however long) it seems to me that we're still left with a potent testimony, not by an ancient person struggling for a context but someone with among the best educations within our modern understanding confronting a thing he (for a number of reasons, some striking, given in that book) can't comfortably lay at the feet of mental illness, a man driven by that and other experiences out of a comfortable academic mindset and into a belief not only in evil, but in a particular and willful manifestation of it. One that the book of those ancient peoples confirms.I remember reading The People of the Lie and talking about it here. I'd been uncomfortable with the book as it headed in the direction of exorcism, and now that three semesters of psychology separate me from the first reading of it, I suspect I'd find it even more troubling on a second reading - but here's what I wrote a year and a half ago:
Two problems with that approach as I see it. The first is that it doesn't solve the dilemma Angle notes. The second is that there's no reason to separate the resurrection from that miracle in terms of how it's approached/addressed within the narrative. I do believe in literary devices and that the Bible contains a good many, along with certain rhetorical traditions, but I don't think we can simply assign those without cause and the cause would be found within the context of the parable or other less than literal illustration of a principle.
I remember. And however a discipline changes in approach (or for however long) it seems to me that we're still left with a potent testimony, not by an ancient person struggling for a context but someone with among the best educations within our modern understanding confronting a thing he (for a number of reasons, some striking, given in that book) can't comfortably lay at the feet of mental illness, a man driven by that and other experiences out of a comfortable academic mindset and into a belief not only in evil, but in a particular and willful manifestation of it. One that the book of those ancient people's confirms.
Good to have you back on he boards for a bit.
This is a very difficult subject because of its ramifications in either direction.
However, I have looked into the eyes of evil that took my breath away. I don't really know what it is but it is terrifying when encountered.
You plant a garden in your backyard. Do the plants have a judicial right to pass judgement on your decisions of when to weed it, water it, prune it, or how to harvest? Does the creation know more than the Creator? If, as the Bible asserts, for those who love God, physical death is the beginning of an eternity of perfection with Him, our concern should be to show everyone the love and mercy of God so as not to block their way to Him, not to deny His existence. Atheists attempt to involve as many others as possible in their foolishness in order to make them as unprofitable to God as they are; perpetuating the original blunder. You are deliberately walking the wrong side of the street and you imagine you can blame God for that.
Your suggestion that we have nothing to do with Adam is like saying; "I bought a package of carrot seeds for my garden, but, of course, I don't expect them to be carrots at all. In fact, they may turn out to be cabbages for all I know." Seeds carry the characteristics of their parents, in case you hadn't noticed.
Deserve? As an atheist, you do not get to borrow Biblical values of justice and right and wrong to argue your worldview. These values belong to believers and the Bible. If you wish to argue justice, please formulate your own values from your own beliefs and present them if you can. To be consistent, you cannot argue right and wrong because, for you, there is, objectively, no such thing except permanent values you covertly steal from God.
And, whatever you do, do not use the magical word "self-evident". In the atheistic religion, there is no such thing nor is there agreement concerning it.
You are misled simply because you don't want to know what the Bible really says. This childish image is your own fabrication. You want the God of the Bible to be unfair so you can justify your position. Your question is the same as; "If God is good, why do bad things happen?". This question has been answered a million times over and you will have no part of it because you prefer your ignorance.
God will never judge unfairly. If He could, He would not be the God of the Bible. You have fashioned a weak, impotent, facsimile, overlayed it with brass, and when it does not meet your expectations, you reject it. The problem is that your choice, from the beginning, was to manufacture a god that you would not like.
What I'm getting at is the idea of people who've been thought to be possessed who were actually mentally ill.
Assumed or accused - or both - of something spiritual when it was actually something biological?
As explained earlier here,....one must do both 'psychological(biological/physiological) and 'spiritual' research into the matter, and in each individual case....then it can be ascertained by the data the best method of treatment to facilitate the healing and deliverance of the person. Again, logical and rational. Some therapists trained in 'Spirit-release' therapy assist persons who have spirit-attachments in freeing the individuals and assisting in the healing and freedom of the disincarnate spirits as well,...its a rather 'holistic' approach.
A church member can use both healing prayers from their ministers/congregation and from trained therapists in psychology and 'spirit-release' techniques as well. The latter spectrum of therapy does sometimes include accepting the concept of 'past-lives', sub-selves, created personalities, earth-bound entities, etc....so it works from this larger context using as much data that can be gathered to apply the most effective healing treatment. If enough research is done to include such in any individual case, why not use that info. to effect the proper healing? Without some info. healing will not occur, so its best to learn as much as possible of BOTH 'psychological' and 'spiritual' elements that are involved.
Furthermore, your own church has 'exorcists' and 'rites for exorcism' (a special order),...so they definitely believe they are exorcising evil spirits, FULLY accepting that in some cases there is demonic possession or obsession (at varying levels), and that in these cases sometimes EXORCISM is necessary. So,...you would need to stay open-minded and consider all of this (stay open to research), which a mere 'dismissal' would be premature or foolish in the long run.
pj
You know, I'm wondering if a totally placid, none obtrusive, none violent exorcism might have some sort of placebo effect. But then I remind myself we are dealing with someone with mental health issues.... so no. Don't do it. Hand it over to genuine psychiatric professionals. You wouldn't trust magic to heal someone with, say cancer, so don't do it with some one with mental health issues.
There is no such thing proven by science as "spiritual issues". You might as well hand the problem over to a witch doctor
Hand it over to genuine psychiatric professionals.
It's mostly for witches, but I think it ought to work for demons too... A good solution to finding out if a person is possessed or if they just have a so-called "psychological" ailment, is to tie them up and throw them into a lake. If they float, they're possessed (water will reject the evil, so they won't sink). If they sink, they're okay and they've probably just got some sort of discipline-related problem that could be fixed up quickly enough if you don't spare the rod. That is, it could be fixed up if they weren't dead, on the bottom of the lake. But that just means they're in Heaven, so all's well that ends well.