I suppose there is always this balancing act going on. On the one hand to stay on-topic but on the other hand to allow tangential topics to be pursued to “test” the consistency of each other’s approaches.
By the way, why are there currently no atheists around here at all? Where did those people go to? I thought they love this kind of internet places. Or is there some type of selective pressure occurring here 
?
Thanks for your kind words, Eddie.
Regarding your finding yourself so often “in the middle” as it were, being attacked from both sides, you make a great lightening rod, I guess!
But we Anabaptists are highly skilled conflict-avoiders. As soon as all the rocks are done being thrown, we emerge from our hiding places and quietly join whichever side won. Are there any congressional medals-of-honor for cowardice?
It’s been many years since I read Lewis’ “Screwtape Letters”, and I know that as an Oxford Don whose expertise is in middle ages literature he may not carry a lot of weight here compared with theologians who others cite. But still, I’m interested in what Lewis’ take on demons would be. Has anybody read this more freshly? I seem to recall that he had demons finding their current “modern man” fare to be rather bland and disappointing compared to the vigorous heretics of centuries ago – or something like that. I remember the ‘elder’ demons instructing their apprentices in how easy it is just to merely keep man’s focus away from God with whatever all little fancies can accomplish that, and that this job was becoming easier and easier in modern times. Does that jive with what others remember from that work?
If this is somewhat on target, I suppose Lewis would in part then subscribe to the view somebody expressed above that affluent societies don’t seem to experience overtly demonic affliction precisely because they are already “possessed” as it were by things apart from God. But I’m far from sure Lewis would have been comfortable with an educational division on this (i.e. that ‘enlightened’ people are spared these afflictions because they now know better, and that ignorant people are afflicted because, just like little children, they haven’t yet learned that there are no monsters under the bed.) Can anybody add clarification to how Lewis thought about these things?
Merv
Maybe the introduction to “Screwtape” says it all:
There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight.
If I wanted to probe his thought (always dangerous since he castigated those who had tried and got it wrong) I would factor in two things:
(1) His faith always sought to be orthodox: and that’s why, for example, his tentative support for evolution was based on the Bible’s sphere of reference and its figurative literary character, not on its “poor science” or “human authorship”. So I think he would argue along the lines that Jesus undoubtedly believed in demons, and was incapable of error on such matters - or ought to be seen as such my anyone claiming to be his disciple.
(2) His background in alternative worldviews, especially the mediaeval, gave him a skepticism about modernist prejudices. Like Caspar and Eddie and, indeed, yourself, he was aware that the bland anti-supernaturalism of modern culture was the very reason one ought to be suspicious of it.That strand of thinking is evident throughout his work.
Do you have any case studies you could point me to?
Why not just show me what you have? I’d like to see how they do their work.
I agree. This is exactly what I said; there was grounds for believing that at least some Communist spying was taking place in the US, but no evidence to warrant the anti-Communist witch hunts which saw scores of people falsely accused.
But this isn’t a parallel which supports your case; on the contrary, it supports mine. It’s a great example of groupthink and imaginary crimes created by people who invent imaginary enemies.
Yes it drops to zero. Count all the people who don’t believe in demons, who report demonic oppression or affliction. You’ll likewise find that when belief in Zeus drops to zero, the number of acts attributed to Zeus also drops to zero.
This is a valid strategy if there is any actual evidence that demons exist.
No, on the contrary the burden of evidence is on you to demonstrate that they do exist. In the absence of any evidence that they exist, it is not remotely dangerous to teach that they don’t exist. It is, however, irresponsible to teach that they do exist.
You need to follow this line of thinking to its logical conclusion. Once again I find other Christians are able to pile up cases of false exorcism, wrongly diagnosed demonic possession, and fake claims of demonic activity, but unable to cite any cases of genuine exorcism, correctly diagnosed demonic possession, and accurate claims of demonic activity. This speaks volumes.
Sure you have. You want to point to the New Testament texts as evidence for demonic possession, but you don’t hold the views that you claim are found there.
I agree. But since this view was already present in Second Temple Period Judaism, it clearly has nothing to do with “Enlightenment rationalism or 19th-century materialism or 20th-century moral relativism”. This is just the same canard as is aimed at Christians who accept evolution.
The “available evidence” it agrees with is the fact that people who don’t believe in demons aren’t afflicted by demons. There are simpler explanations.
But what is all this “available evidence of such occurrences”? Where is it? No one here has been able to tell me.
I quoted that because I agreed with it; “To say that no physical impairment is attributed in the Gospels to a demon flies in the face of the evidence”. I definitely agree with that. What’s the problem?
And I agree with that.
Then you clearly haven’t read all the quotations I provided.
What evidence? Again, where is all the evidence for demon possession? Where are all the valid exorcisms? Where are all the illnesses correctly diagnosed as the product of demons?
The same way I make sense of the solid firmament in Genesis 1, and the language indicating the sun moves around the earth. Remember, Ferngren also said “The evidence, however, does not suggest that Jesus shared the demonology of his Palestinian contemporaries”. How do you make sense of that?
It is well recognized in scholarship (even among demon-believers), that the earliest Christian texts do not speak of demonic possession or exorcism at all, and do not even show any knowledge of Jesus casting out demons; it is recognized that demonic possession and exorcism are absent from Paul’s letters and the other epistles, and that none of these texts encourage belief in demons. It is also recognized that the Synoptics and Acts (written later), are unique among New Testament texts, in their treatment of the topic. It is also recognized that references to demons and demonic possession virtually vanishes from Christian literature by the end of the first century and is absent from almost all the writings of the Apostolic Fathers.
This is not what we would expect from a community which believed strongly in demons, demonic possession, and exorcism. This is evidence which must be accounted for.
No, not at all. There are plenty of historico-critical non-confessional scholars who believe that Jesus and the New Testament writers believed in demons. The comment of mine you quoted was a comment only about a few specific individuals cited by Eddie; he named them and identified their view as the opposite of mine. I was only mentioning that it was hardly surprising that confessional evangelical scholars would hold such a view. This does not invalidate their view.
When someone agrees with you, that is support.
I agree. I’m not a victim of mine; I’ve drawn conclusions as a result of my study which are very different to what I was taught in my community.
I’m sure that’s quite possible, just like it’s quite possible that Mormons have decent support for subscribing to their particular confession.
But I don’t believe I am the only one upholding the original intention of the Scriptures. I know I’m not. This is a view which can be found in Second Temple Period Judaism, early Christianity, and as a minority report in historical Judaism and Christianity. It persists today among a variety of Christian groups.
There’s a whole lot of question begging going on there. The Trinity is one of the most clear examples of a doctrine which isn’t the product of “progressive revelation”. Any doctrine which emerged as a product of theological evolution and accretion over three centuries of shouting matches and fist fights, which was clearly not held by any Christian prior to the third century, has no claim to be apostolic.
Like the apostle Paul who never even mentioned it? How can you claim continuity with Paul, about a doctrine he never even mentioned, and which you can’t even demonstrate he believed in? And how about early Christian texts of the Apostolic Fathers, such as the Didache, Letter to Digonetus, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Polycarp to the Philippians, Martyrdom of Polycarp, and Quadratus?
The same “millions of Christians throughout history” who gave us the Crusades, the Inquisition, geocentrism, the European witch hunts, and Roman Catholicism? If you think we need to go along with the views of the majority of Christians throughout history, then we should all become Catholics, since they have been far and away the majority Christian sect throughout the history of Christianity, and all other sects remained tiny minorities until probably the seventeenth century.
I can’t tell you what my reaction will be until I see the material you dig up. I’m surprised you haven’t looked already. Doesn’t your library give you online access to professional journals? I am interested mostly in the methodology employed in each case.
btw, I don’t think too much of Michael Shermer, although I read his columns. I heard that he’s a womanizer.
A little skepticism is good for us. The apostles accepted little on blind faith. And today there are Mormon and JW missionaries going door-to-door preaching b.s. Not to mention all the apocalypses and blood moons scheduled one right after another. If it really is the end times, why do these people want to sell us books? What use would all the money be?
I agree. Please read my argument.
He wrote a book on the subject; you could read it (I gave the name and publication date).
And those are the sources Ferngren uses.
And behold, he did.
Please read what I wrote. Here it is again.
Count all the people who don’t believe in demons, who report demonic oppression or affliction. You’ll likewise find that when belief in Zeus drops to zero, the number of acts attributed to Zeus also drops to zero.
I’m sure you’re just as open to visions of Buddha and the Mormon angel Moroni.
Let’s be clear about what you’re saying here. You’re suggesting that when the Synoptic gospels teach X, it doesn’t mean that X is true; you think that the teaching in the Synoptic gospels could actually be false. Do you think “the Gospel stories do vouch for demons, but that the writers are deluded or in error”?
As you know, I have already said very clearly that I don’t believe Jesus or the gospels were wrong. I believe you’re wrong to attribute to them beliefs they didn’t hold.
And when you finally do some reading of the relevant scholarly literature (I’ve cited plenty to get you started), you’ll see it.
Clearly an accurate assessment of the polemical ground and where the line has been drawn. In light of this, the question arises—can there really be any concord between science and faith when both sides of the divide are adamant in their opposing positions? Honestly, there doesn’t seem to be much hope here, simply because one side is ready and willing to accept the evidence while the other side only pretends to. In this case, there is a conflict of interest which cannot be reconciled.
Um… No! The congressional medals-of-honor are reserved for the heroes who stand up for truth 
.
But you’re not avoiding uncritical acceptance of supernatural claims—you’re completely accepting the uncritical supernatural claims since you’re avoiding key claims of materialism/reductionism.
You do no such thing, Eddie—at least you don’t show it, anyway 
. Your dogmatic stance in opposition to open-mindedness on issues such as these is plainly evident. You and the others have fought tooth and nail in defending traditional Roman Catholic doctrine which is contrary to truth. Whatever you are—Roman Catholic, mainline protestant, evangelical, fundamentalist, Anabaptist, Seventh Day Adventist, Jehovah’s Witness, etc., you are still defending pagan teachings that have been incorporated into the Christian faith by the Roman Catholic Church. And yet, members of each one of these Christian denominations believe they are the one and only true Church.
For example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim they are the only true Christians who represent the Church. They say—we are the only ones who have completely come out of Babylon the Great;
And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues [Revelation 18:4 KJV].
I answer them by asking, how can you have completely come out of Babylon the Great if you are still under her spell?
"…for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived [Revelation 18:23 KJV].
Then they ask… what do mean? So I respond by presenting the beliefs they hold as true which are still Roman Catholic and pagan in nature but are contrary to scripture and to the scientific evidence.
These beliefs include: (1) the existence of God and angels that are spirit beings who dwell outside the vicinity of earth; (2) the existence of Satan and demons that are spirit beings and dwell outside the vicinity of earth (or have been thrown down to the earth and live among us as spirit beings); (3) demonic possession—the taking over of one’s physical body by malevolent preternatural beings.
In the end the Jehovah’s Witnesses can’t accept and admit that they are still a part of Babylon the Great (this is simply because they teach their adherents the same sorceries (deceptions) which the Roman Catholic Church propagates. Surely their founder had good intentions but as occurs with most religious organizations things go terribly wrong.
You see, in the 1870’s Charles Taze Russell founded the organization when he became “enlightened” of certain inconsistencies between church doctrine and Biblical scripture. These include; Trinitarianism, inherent immortality of the soul, and hellfire, which the Jehovah’s Witnesses consider to be unscriptural doctrines. So, over the years through the development of the organization they discovered certain Biblical facts which weren’t part of church doctrine—this was a good thing—however, in the process they abandoned other Biblical facts which were part of church doctrine. Biblical facts they discovered include learning the definition of the term hell [the grave, the pit, from the Hebrew word Sheol] and [the hole, the place of the dead, from the Greek word Hades]. An example of Biblical fact they abandoned is of course Trinitarianism.
You mean alternate views and alternative theories such as—demonic possession is actually psychopathic in nature; a different but original understanding of the Trinity; or a particularly distinct interpretation of the resurrection? I guess the witch hunt is alive and well here in the comments boards, right 
?
Arguing whether Jesus and the apostles believed in demonic possession is not the same thing as arguing whether demonic possession is real or not. @Jonathan_Burke is arguing that the Gospels don’t teach that Jesus and the apostles believed in demonic possession and backs up his claim with scholarly literature. Now, knowledge that he is a Christian of the Christadelphian persuasion, therefore having a strict regard for Biblical authority, tells us that JB personally does not believe in demonic possession, otherwise why would he be arguing against demonic possession. But the fact that he must adhere to Biblical authority prevents him from arguing that position by claiming that Jesus and the apostles were wrong in their belief, or that the authors of the scriptures themselves made false claims.
“Someone like me on the other hand, since I do not adhere to Biblical authority because I believe the Bible has been corrupted, I have the option of arguing the position from a philosophical and scientific perspective. I believe this is where the evidence lies to disprove the claim of demonic possession occurrence. The evidence does not lie in scripture simply because scripture has too many conflicting views on the subject.”
Therefore, I must agree with you that, “Highly intelligent, highly-trained people, many of whom can read the Biblical, Hellenistic, and Jewish texts in the original languages, do not agree with JB’s interpretation of the Gospel accounts of demons and possession.”
It’s obvious that those who don’t confront and attack each other on their differences don’t because their differences are nonthreatening to each other. This compares and is similar to the differences of those who don’t confront and attack each other on the other side of the divide because they also consider their differences nonthreatening—birds of a feather will flock together. And as you said above, Eddie, “So either scores of passages in the Bible have been consistently misinterpreted by theologians, clergy, and lay people for nearly two millennia, or the Bible vouches for demons and demonic possession and “Biblical” Christians ought to accept these entities and phenomena as real.” On the one side we have those with an open-minded perspective who are ready and willing to change their views if the evidence points them in that direction, on the other side we have those with a closed-minded perspective who will adhere to their traditional dogmatic doctrines no matter what new evidence flies in their face.
Eddie does make a great arbiter. I guess that is why he gets all the flak 
.
Agreed. “The world is about to end!!! —and buy my book all about it, so I can add to my retirement savings…”
That would be quite bizarre, wouldn’t it – if people who didn’t believe in demons then proceeded to attribute something to demons. Of all the claims you make, some quite interesting and noteworthy toward your thesis, I think this is the weakest … a mere tautology.
But on to another of your points, a stronger one— I hadn’t thought much before about a complete lack of reference to demons in all of Paul’s writings; true enough, and food for thought. Thanks for that. I’ve heard the same reasoning used to make the case for the ‘virgin birth’ not being what moderns have taken it to be (but again … only by discounting an explicit claim or two allegedly made by the gospel narratives themselves). And of course in Acts, we do see Paul casting out the fortune-teller spirit from the girl, but as an extension of Luke’s work (a physician, no less!) I suppose you have no problem dismissing that too along with the gospel accounts in the form we have them today. Much of that I find problematic, though I continue to listen to you too. You seem to have researched all this quite a lot, and far be it from me to insist that the church has never been wrong before.
@Mervin_Bitikofer @Jon_Garvey
Thank you very much for bringing up those writings of C.S. Lewis! I knew my thoughts about demons were not only reflected in my own ponderings. The Screwtape Letters are actually on my reading list, so if this topic is still open by that time, I’ll see if I can share some insightful quotes.
I also remember reading about this approach to demons in a small booklet called “Letters from a skeptic” by George and Edward Boyd. It’s the documentation of the letter exchange between a theologian (anabaptist roots) and his agnostic father in which they have an all-out discussion on Christianity. From demons, to suffering, to biblical authority, to Christ, to the Trinity, to the relationship between Christianity and other religions, everything. The beautiful thing is that his father actually came to Christ during the last part of the exchange. After that, they decided to publish it together as a book. Good read .
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.