God's Morality and Justice

[heymike3]

Depends… one must at least be willing to recognize that no cause will appear the same as a supernatural cause

[Terry_Sampson]

• That’s pretty much why I dislike the adjective “supernatural”. IMO, there are only natural causes which are either well-explained or remarkable causes which haven’t been explained yet.
• Someday, take a break from reading your customary genre, a visit a library and check out two books:
  • Hostage to the Devil: The Possession and Exorcism of Five Contemporary Americans by Malachi Martin, a former Jesuit priest, if I remember correctly.
  • Glimpses of the Devil: A Psychiatrist’s Personal Accounts of Possession by M. Scott Peck, an American psychiatrist.

[heymike3]

@Terry_Sampson

That’s pretty much why I dislike the adjective “supernatural”. IMO, there are only natural causes which are either well-explained or remarkable causes which haven’t been explained yet.

While I suppose there are various categories of supernatural causes, it seems an appropriate term for any cause that is unobservable by nature

[beaglelady]

@Terry_Sampson

Any more questions?

Yes. If we are supposed to believe in demonic possession, are we supposed to also believe in witches? Why or why not? Witches and sorcerers are mentioned in the Bible. (Not the nice Hogwarts kind)

If " comprehensive physical, medical, and psychiatric assessments are useful, and appropriate to rule out non-demonic causes" who evaluates all the data and makes the final decision to do an exorcism? Would it be the exorcist himself or a panel of experts at his church?

@jpm Have you ever had an exorcist ask you to forward a patient’s medical records to him? Even if the patient gave permission, wouldn’t that be an ethics violation?

[Terry_Sampson]

@beaglelady

Yes. If we are supposed to believe in demonic possession, are we supposed to also believe in witches?

• “We” who?
• You can and will believe whatever you want. I just push back when you claim stuff that you can’t prove and only have anecdotal stories to support your claims.
• What? you’re not content to deny demons and demonic influences, but now you want to know whether or not belief in witches is necessary? Believe what you want and can, matters not to me. But evidence of “no witches” is, I suspect, as paltry as your evidence for “no demons”.
• FYI, I don’t knowingly consort with demons or witches, so I’m not able to introduce you to any. Maybe you can find some of each online.

@beaglelady

If " comprehensive physical, medical, and psychiatric assessments are useful, and appropriate to rule out non-demonic causes" who evaluates all the data and makes the final decision to do an exorcism?

• I’m not an exorcist, and so won’t speak for them all. Check with your Bishop to see if your Diocese can answer your query.

@beaglelady

Would it be the exorcist himself or a panel of experts at his church?

• LOL! When I’ve become your Bishop, I’ll let you know.

@beaglelady

Even if the patient gave permission, wouldn’t that be an ethics violation?

• There’s a law against a patient or a patient’s guardian obtaining their records and sharing with their potential exorcist or the exorcist’s authority? Where do you live?

[St.Roymond]

@beaglelady

The city named might have been in Israel.

As I recall there are three possibilities for the name, and all of them were pagan.

@beaglelady

Israel was under occupation by Rome, so it is plausible they would have raised piggies.

Pagans would have raised pigs.

[St.Roymond]

@Terry_Sampson

He who sins before his Maker, may he fall into the care of a physician.

I read that once in a context where it was treated as a curse.

@Terry_Sampson

Glimpses of the Devil: A Psychiatrist’s Personal Accounts of Possession

Peck is a pretty good writer.

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

If it were the patients request, you legally cannot refuse. Only exceptions I know is if there were something psychiatric in nature in the records that would harm the patient

[Vinnie]

@beaglelady

You badly misunderstand everything I am attempting to explain. Science doesn’t have the tools to examine the supernatural. That doesn’t mean the supernatural doesn’t exist. Many scientists are people of faith, but that doesn’t mean that science has the tools to examine the supernatural. If you think otherwise, explain how science can examine supernatural claims such as Intelligent Design. It is God of the Gaps, a placeholder for scientific ignorance. And that is bad theology.

I am not misunderstanding you. You push aside methodological naturalism only when convenient for you (Jesus is God incarnate, Jesus rose from the dead, born of an virgin, worked actual supernatural miracles–if you believe in these?) but the minute someone pushes it aside to agree with what Jesus plainly does many times in the gospels (exorcises demons who he talks to and distinguishes between types privately to his disciples) and what the Bible clearly thinks is real (possession) you cry YEC/GAPS. You are sawing off the branch you are sitting in.

@St.Roymond

I’m not seeing a judgment on the Temple in Mark. The fig tree story isn’t about the Temple; in the Old Testament a fig tree is repeatedly a figure for Israel, not for the Temple. It indicates that the time of Israel’s “bearing fruit” is coming to an end. Th cleansing of the Temple is not a condemnation of the Temple; to the contrary, it is an affirmation of the Temple against those who were misusing it by cutting off access by Gentiles via using the area that was set apart for them as a marketplace.

I’d say you are bifurcating between the temple and Israel in a sense as if destroying the temple, the spiritual heart and center of Jewish worship–God’s home on earth–is not the same thing as a judgment against Israel? They are probably synonymous here but Mark may have in mind a specific subset of Jews but it seems to turn more global by the end of the Gospel. For me the Markan intercalation makes this clear. The temple cleansing and fig tree is sandwiched together (not one stone, withered from roots: both = totally destroyed and both are linked by the phrase “rabbi/teacher look”). The fig tree and the temple are connected here on both levels and are sandwiched.

In the Gospels Jesus also says a house of prayer is turned into a den of thieves/robbers. For sure Jesus agrees with the central purpose of the Temple. But it clearly was not fulfilling that and its destruction was at hand. The “cleansing” is a complicated issue. Joel Marcus (Mark, Anchor Bible) writes:

“To throw (or cast) out” (ekballein) is the term used elsewhere in Mark for exorcism (1:34, 39; 3:15, 22–23; etc.), and its employ- ment here may be a hint that the buyers and sellers who profane the Temple are Satan’s tools (cf. Broadhead, Teaching, 171; Chávez, Significance, 137–38). The “sellers” may include not only those providing doves for sacrifice but also money changers, who sell the Tyrian coinage acceptable at the Temple in exchange for the other currencies brought by pilgrims.

Sanders (Jesus, 61–76) argues that such trading was not an abuse but a necessary part of the functioning of the sacrificial system. The profits of the animal sellers and money changers were not inordinate, and these merchants performed neces- sary services, since pilgrims had to be able to convert their money into Tyrian coinage and to buy unblemished animals in the vicinity of the Temple, it being impractical to bring their own animals from homes far away, only perhaps to have them judged unfit for sacrifice. For Sanders, then, Jesus was bent not on ridding the Temple of abuses but on prophesying its destruction, which he accomplished through the sort of parabolic action typical of prophets, stopping sacrificial activ- ity temporarily to point toward its permanent cessation, and overturning the tables of the money changers to symbolize the imminent demise of the sanctuary.

Whatever the pros or cons of this interpretation of the historical Jesus’ purpose (see the criticism of Evans, “Jesus’ Action”), it remains a question whether Mark thinks Jesus’ Temple action symbolized the destruction of the Temple or simply pointed to abuses that cried out for rectification. The strongest argument in favor of the destruction interpretation is the link with the words of Jesus’ curse in 11:14, “Let no one ever eat fruit from you again,” which seems to imply the cessation of the Temple system. Elsewhere, moreover, the Markan Jesus prophesies the Temple’s destruction openly (13:1–2; cf. 14:58 and Telford, Barren Temple, 261). But other Markan wording suggests that the evangelist thinks the Temple was being abused: (1) The otherwise superfluous repetition of “into/in the Temple” in 11:15 (cf. also “through the Temple” in 11:16) may hint that the activity described is inappropriate in a holy place. Even granting Sanders’ point that money chang- ing and the selling of animals were necessary, these activities did not have to take place within the Temple precincts. (2) Although spēlaion lḝstōn in 11:17 should probably be translated “den of brigands” rather than “den of thieves” (see the NOTE on “den of brigands” in 11:17), a brigand is still someone who earns his living by stealing other people’s money and goods, and those hostile to the money changers and merchants might view them in this light (cf. modern disparage- ment of financiers as “robber barons” or “corporate raiders”). (3) If the interdict on the conveyance of containers through the Temple in 11:16 is meant to recall Zech 14:21 (see the NOTE on “and he did not allow anyone to carry a container through the Temple” in 11:16), Mark would seem to be implying that trade in the Temple was a sacrilege (cf. John 2:16).

At least as far as Mark’s view goes, then, the either/or of reformation or destruc- tion is a false dichotomy. For Mark, perhaps, trading in the Temple was an abuse that Jesus tried to correct while already knowing that this attempt would fail. His Temple demonstration, therefore, symbolized both the reform attempt and the judgment of destruction that would follow its failure.

Also as far as den of thieves or brigands::

This part of Jesus’ denunciation echoes Jer 7:11: “Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of brigands in your sight?” (NRSV alt.). It may have been combined with Isa 56:7 partly on the basis of gĕzērāh šāwāh (analogy; see the GLOSSARY), since both passages speak of the Temple as God’s house and use the verb “to call.” The context of the expres- sion in Jeremiah is significant, since it is part of a judgment on those who trust overmuch in the Temple (Jer 7:4); instead of preserving “the house of the Lord” that has become a den of brigands, God will pour out his anger on it, burn it with fire, and cast its adherents out of his sight (7:14–20). Not only is this scenario of judgment and exile from Israel similar to that in Mark 12:9, but the prophecy of the Temple’s destruction may reverberate in the Markan context of the Jewish War, in which some revolutionaries seem to have trusted in the inviolability of the Temple (see Hengel, Zealots, 221–24).

@St.Roymond

He wasn’t judging the Temple, He was judging its misuse and those who had established that misuse.

He is judging the Jewish people–specifically the leaders and temple authorities-- and destroying the temple is that judgment. Marcus: “Jesus’ curse on the fig tree (“Let no one ever eat fruit from you again”) seems to imply that the Temple will soon cease functioning.” Also Marcus

Seen against this biblical background, we might be tempted to interpret the fig tree in our story as a symbol for the nation as a whole, but the conclusion of the next scene reveals that at this point in the Gospel a large portion of the people (“the whole crowd”) is still responsive to Jesus; only the chief priests and the scribes oppose his action and message (11:18; cf. 12:12; 14:1–2; cf. also, how- ever, 15:11–15). Especially in view of the Temple setting of our narrative, the most immediate culprits seem to be the Temple and its functionaries (cf. the paral- lel between “seeing . . . a fig tree” in 11:13 and “looked around at everything” in the Temple in 11:11). Jesus’ inability to find fruit on the tree, and his consequent curse against it, stands for the conclusion that the Temple leadership is hopelessly corrupt; in the larger Markan story, the barrenness of the fig tree anticipates the “abomination of desolation” that is prophesied of the Temple in 13:14. For Mark, indeed, the Temple seems to be firmly entrenched in the sphere of the sterile old age that is headed for destruction (cf. “for it was not the time for figs” in 11:13c and see Broadhead, Teaching, 177).
,

@St.Roymond

The destruction of the Temple in Mark’s presentation is a consequence of judgment on those in charge of it, not on the Temple itself. This matches the parable that follows, of the vineyard (Israel; cf. Isaiah 5) and the wicked tenants; the vineyard isn’t judged, just the tenants.

Yes the vineyard is in Isaiah 5 but I think it represents the covenant or promise of Abraham. God is going to cast this judgment by destroying the temple. If God blew up America and I said “God cast judgment on the USA” of course I mean the people. God is not mad at rocks and trees.The temple was the center of Jewish life at the time. Marcus again:

A man planted a vineyard. Gk ampelōna anthrōpos ephyteusen. This imagery and many other details in 12:1 come from Isaiah 5, where the vineyard stands for Israel and the man for God (see the COMMENT on 12:1–5). Such use of agricul- tural images for salvation-historical realities is common in the OT and postbibli- cal Judaism (cf. the COMMENTS on 4:3–8; 4:30–32; 11:12–14). Several rabbinic parables, for example, compare God to the owner of a planted field, and in Sipre Deut. 312 the owner takes the field away from tenant farmers who have plundered it (= the Gentiles) and gives it to his son (= Israel; cf. Stern, “Jesus’ Parables,” 60–61). It is possible that this is a rabbinic riposte to our text, in which the wicked tenants are Israel and the “others” to whom the vineyard is given are the church.

The vineyard is the covenant or inheritance of Abraham and its being given to others.

@St.Roymond

In Mark that reads as a forecast; there’s no indication it was about judgment.

Again, the parable of the tenants. 9 “What then will the owner of the vineyard do? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyard to others.

How can the text more plainly say this is God’s judgment? The owner of the vineyard = God) will come and slaughter the wicked tenants (Jews) and give away the land (covenant) to others. So, yes, this is a forecast of God’s violent judgment on the temple and its authorities and increasingly in Christian thought, the Jews more globally. Marcus: again:

The immediate context of our text encourages readers to see the tenants as a symbol for the Jewish leaders; as recently as 11:18 the chief priests and the scribes have taken counsel to destroy Jesus (cf. 12:7), and since 11:27 these two groups, along with the elders, have been engaged in a hostile dialogue with him. When Jesus has finished the parable, moreover, the leaders perceive that it is directed against them, and they consequently want to arrest him. They are prevented from doing so only by their fear of the crowd, which at this stage in the narrative sup- ports Jesus (12:12). If we follow the allegory strictly, then, the removal of the vine- yard from the tenants and its transfer to “others” should refer to the deposition of the Jewish leadership from jurisdiction over Israel and the transfer of that author- ity to others, perhaps the leaders of the church, as in Acts 4:5–6, 11 (cf. Dahl, “Purpose,” 91).
For Mark, however, both the tenant farmers and the “others” probably have a broader significance. By the end of the Gospel it is not just the leaders but also the Jerusalem crowd who reject Jesus (15:6–15). Mark 12:3–5, moreover, speaks allegorically of the murder of the prophets (see the COMMENT on 12:1–5), and in the OT, Jewish traditions, and the NT, these murders are laid at the door not only of Israel’s leaders but also of the people as a whole (see Marcus, “Intertextual Polemic,” 224 n. 14; cf. 1 En. 89:52–53, cited in the COMMENT on 12:1–5). Readers, moreover, who knew (or could foresee) the climactic events of the Jew- ish War of 66–73 c.e.—the demolition of Jerusalem, the slaughter or deportation into slavery of its inhabitants and of masses of other Jews, and the confiscation and/or selling of at least some of the Jewish land in Judaea (see Josephus, War, 7.1–4, 216)—would have been reminded by the parable’s conclusion of such wider consequences (cf. Smallwood, Jews, 339–51, and Isaac, “Judaea”). There- fore they would probably be inclined to link the banished tenants with a larger group than the Jewish leadership, and the favored “others” with a larger group as well—perhaps the increasingly Gentile church that was beginning to see it- self as the true Israel (cf. Justin, Dialogue 52). Later Christians (see, e.g., Matt 23:37–39; Luke 21:20–24; Gos. Pet. 7:25; Justin, Dialogue 16; Tertullian, Answer to the Jews 13) and at least one pagan (see Letter of Mara bar Sarapion) saw the for their murder of the prophets, Jesus, and the Christians. The possibility of a wider referent for the Markan tenants is enhanced by the wording of Tg. Isa. 5:6: “And I will make them [to be] banished; they will not be helped and they will not be supported, and they will be cast out and forsaken” (Chilton trans.). Here the OT passage that undergirds our parable (see the COMMENT on 12:1–5) is rein- terpreted as an allusion to the exile of the Jews from their land. Similarly, Pss. Sol. 9:1, a pre-Christian text, speaks of the exile of the Jews from their “inheritance” as punishment for their sins: “When Israel was taken into exile to a foreign country, when they neglected the Lord, who had redeemed them, they were expelled from the inheritance which the Lord had given them.”

Mark, then, seems to be moving in the direction of Matthew’s supersessionist (see the GLOSSARY) interpretation of the parable (see Matt 21:43), although he is less explicit than Matthew. On the hermeneutical problems posed by superses- sionist texts, see the COMMENT on 12:6–9.

How much of Mark 11-13 is historical is an open question. A good argument can be made it was written after the temple’s destruction. But as the text stands, Jesus prophecies and attributes the destruction of the temple/people for not producing fruit.

And my original point of all this is that Inhave immense difficulty with the violence in the Bible, but it does occur on the lips of Jesus as depicted in the Gospels. He is not as easy to wave away as Iron Age war-mongerers…

[Terry_Sampson]

• For the literate uninformed:

  • Deliver Us from Evil: The purpose and practice of exorcisms in the Church

    • April 20, 2023
      by Bishop David M. O’Connell, C."M.
      • “IT SEEMS TO GO IN CYCLES, but recently I have been asked questions about “exorcisms” – no doubt, because of current films dealing with demonic possession like, “The Pope’s Exorcist,” (which I saw) and, “Nefarious,” (which I have not seen) – and the possibility of performing this ritual for people who believe they “might be possessed by the devil or demonic spirits.” I did some research into the topic and here is what I found: …”

  • Demons and Exorcism in the Episcopal Church
    *
    

    

[knor (Kai)]

@beaglelady

If " comprehensive physical, medical, and psychiatric assessments are useful, and appropriate to rule out non-demonic causes" who evaluates all the data and makes the final decision to do an exorcism? Would it be the exorcist himself or a panel of experts at his church?

Those performing exorcisms in the national Lutheran church explained something about their practices.

First, they (always two persons with assistants that protect the exorcists from a violent physical attack) evaluate the information they get. If it seems that some kind of mental disorder might explain the unusual behavior, they send the person to a psychiatrist. Normally the possessed persons have been seriously involved in witchcraft, worshipping of idols or something similar that exposes the person to evil spirits.

Second, exorcism is always based on voluntary participation. The situation is kept as peaceful as possible to keep the person calm. If the person seems to become uncomfortable, they ask the person if (s)he is willing to continue.

Third, the exorcism is started as a ‘usual’ prayer meeting with reading of the Bible and prayers. If the person is possessed, the demon usually manifests during the prayers. When the demon has manifested, it is ordered to leave the person in the name of Jesus Christ.

I would say that the procedure seems credible. Nothing like the ‘movie exorcisms’.

One point to add is that the persons doing the exorcisms (believers) would like to quit it because it is mentally burdening. They said they only do it because they believe God has called them to do it. One of the persons told that she said to God that she does not continue it unless God gives an obvious sign to continue. She selected something that she considered to be very unlikely as a sign and that happened. So she continues.

[St.Roymond]

@knor

Third, the exorcism is started as a ‘usual’ prayer meeting with reading of the Bible and prayers.

The word “usual” triggered a memory.

Have you ever heard of an accidental exorcism? On happened at a Thursday evening Eucharist healing service: a lady passed out after drinking from the chalice, and when she came to her demeanor had changed drastically; she was no longer constantly irritable and complaining and snapping at others, no longer hearing a voice that talked about unspeakable horrors, no longer feeling trapped inside her own brain while something else ran her body.
The priest recognized what had happened and switched liturgies once everyone had communed. He wrote a detailed report for the bishop, who after some time affirmed that the reception of the holy chalice had driven out a demon.

@knor

Nothing like the ‘movie exorcisms’.

Definitely.

[Terry_Sampson]

@St.Roymond

driven out a demon.

Ha! That demon must have been sleeping on the job or sedated to let the woman get a sip from the chalice.

[St.Roymond]

@Terry_Sampson

Ha! That demon must have been sleeping on the job or sedated to let the woman get a sip from the chalice.

Heh. Or maybe her husband made her attend? I don’t know fine details; I only know about it because at the time I was on the team that ‘managed’ the Eucharistic vessels, making sure they were clean and ready before each use, then clean and polished and properly stored afterwards, and one of the team was present when it happened.

Just BTW, it wasn’t the only Eucharistic miracle at one of those Thursday healing services – a phenomenon that really freaked out some Charismatic types who insisted healing had to happen via laying on of hands. Fr. Evanson referred people with such ideas to a text from around the eighth century that talked about the Eucharist as “the medicine of immortality” and to a little piece by Martin Luther where he wrote concerning the Eucharist that “where there is forgiveness of sins, there is life, health, and salvation”.

[beaglelady]

@St.Roymond

As I recall there are three possibilities for the name, and all of them were pagan.

You are correct on this point. My bad.

[beaglelady]

@Vinnie

I am not misunderstanding you. You push aside methodological naturalism only when convenient for you (Jesus is God incarnate, Jesus rose from the dead, born of an virgin, worked actual supernatural miracles–if you believe in these?) but the minute someone pushes it aside to agree with what Jesus plainly does many times in the gospels (exorcises demons who he talks to and distinguishes between types privately to his disciples) and what the Bible clearly thinks is real (possession) you cry YEC/GAPS. You are sawing off the branch you are sitting in.

We all use methodological naturalism. You probably do also. If part of my sandwich disappears, I assume my beagle stole it not that an angel ate it. If something has been nibbling on my hostas, I assume it was deer, not God.
Scientists look for natural causes for disease outbreaks and the like, and that is why we have lifesaving vaccines, antibiotics, and the like. The scientific enterprise has been very fruitful adding years to our lifespans. This does not preclude belief in the supernatural. There are many religious scientists, and some have written for BioLogos. e.g. Karl Giberson, Denis Lamoureux, etc.

[beaglelady]

I have some questions about the Canaanite genocide:

If the Canaanites were so evil and rotten to the core they had to be exterminated, why did Rahab the harlot and her family get to live? And more, why did she get to be the ancestor of Joseph the husband of Mary?

If Canaanite religion was so dangerous to Israelite religion, how do you explain the influence of Canaanite poetry on the Psalms?

@Terry_Sampson

“We” who?

It’s a serious question. Witches and sorcerers are mentioned in the Bible, so are we supposed to believe in them also? The infamous pastor in the disturbing “Jesus Camp” documentary told the children that if Harry Potter had lived in OT times he would have been put to death. Pastor Greg Locke has identified witches in his own congregation. He has written a manual on demon possession and thinks that bed-wetting is caused by demons.

@Terry_Sampson

But evidence of “no witches” is, I suspect, as paltry as your evidence for “no demons”.

How would you prove that invisible angels are NOT orbiting around Mars?

@knor

Those performing exorcisms in the national Lutheran church explained something about their practices.

Do they write about their experiences in any kind of journal?

[Vinnie]

@beaglelady

We all use methodological naturalism. You probably do also.

No one is disputing methodological naturalism or its fruit. I consider it a testimony to the ordered and coherent nature of God who continually creates and upholds our existence at every instant. Walking down the steps a few minutes ago while holding a box I couldn’t see over, I assumed the steps would still be there and did not entertain the notion a demon may have removed them or they are now made of jello I would fall through.

@beaglelady

If part of my sandwich disappears, I assume my beagle stole it not that an angel ate it. If something has been nibbling on my hostas, I assume it was deer, not God.

As does everyone else but you are missing the point

If Jesus body was put in the tomb I look for a natural explanation. The body was stolen by Necromancers. The tomb was mixed up and the body rotted. Or maybe there never was a kingly tomb full r Jesus, the body was buried in a shallow grave and eaten by dogs and the grief stricken apostles had visions that led to belief Jesus rose from the dead.

We have a lot of explanations of Jesus that don’t need to appeal to the supernatural. As I tried to explain to you— and this is the last attempt for me— you seem fine suspending methodological naturalism when convenient to you but uncharitably admonish others for just drawing the same line in a different part of the sand on the same beach. You are taken it to the extreme to critique supernatural beliefs which you seem to yourself hold to. This is highly inconsistent.

And the second point I have attempted to make is this:

Sure, I would assume your beagle ate the sandwich not an angel. But if my Lord and Savior, creator of heaven and earth, true God of true God, told me explicitly in his sacred writings that your sandwich was taken by an angel, who am I to disagree?

The point you fail to note is that many of us Christians suspend methodical naturalism —which is a limited—on the case of demons because we believe either 1) our Lord and Savior told us something different or God did in his sacred writings. Some Christians may add a 3rd reason. First hand experience. But nothing more is needed than 1 and 2.

Methodological naturalism is a way of learning about reality. But as a Christian so too are the words and actions of God Incarnate. As far as the pecking order goes, Jesus is my highest authority. If I think I am interpreting and understanding Him correctly, I have to go with that over EVERYTHING else. Everything else can make me question my understanding and interpretation of Jesus but it holds no intellectual authority in my mind to anything Jesus teaches.

@beaglelady

Scientists look for natural causes for disease outbreaks and the like, and that is why we have lifesaving vaccines, antibiotics, and the like. The scientific enterprise has been very fruitful adding years to our lifespans.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. No one is saying we should reject methodological naturalism as a principal for investigation. It works. We are simply saying there are other modes of knowledge about the world for us. They must be synthesized into a whole. If you only follow methodological naturalism you are then a philosophical naturalist which makes you an atheist in my uninspired book.

@beaglelady

This does not preclude belief in the supernatural. There are many religious scientists, and some have written for BioLogos. e.g. Karl Giberson, Denis Lamoureux, etc.

It also does not preclude belief in demonic possession to that a small number of medical issues in the world can be related to this.

My loyalties lie with a primitive, uneducated, pre-scientific Jew who thought demonic possession was real.

Vinnie

[Terry_Sampson]

@beaglelady

It’s a serious question.

• So’s mine.

@beaglelady

so are we supposed to believe in them also?

• I must have forgotten to say that what you personally believe is unimportant to me, until you try to tell me what I shouldn’t believe; and then I’m going to tell you that I don’t agree.
• Unless I did say something like that and you ignored what I said.

@beaglelady

Harry Potter had lived in OT times he would have been put to death.

• I hate to break it to you, but Harry Potter is a fictional character.

@beaglelady

Pastor Greg Locke has identified witches in his own congregation. He has written a manual on demon possession and thinks that bed-wetting is caused by demons.

• I don’t live in Tennessee and don’t know anyone who does. Do you? Or are you planning on starting a petition to have him locked up, psychoanalyzed, and treated or institutionalized?

@beaglelady

How would you prove that invisible angels are NOT orbiting around Mars?

• The same way that I would prove that you have bats in your belfry. I wouldn’t even try.

[knor (Kai)]

@beaglelady

@knor

Those performing exorcisms in the national Lutheran church explained something about their practices.

Do they write about their experiences in any kind of journal?

No, and most likely will not. They are trying to do their service with as low profile as possible. They told something because of malicious rumours, to show that their practices are acceptable, not something extreme or dangerous to the patients. Unfortunately, even that little caused opposition and malicious talks from those who do not believe in demons or even God.

It is not healthy to draw too much attention to demons, and academic debate about the topic may be interesting but not fruitful. Believers seeing and trying to drive demons out from many around them simply do not understand the reality and the will of the Lord. Our focus should be in our Lord, not the adversary. When people are with Jesus, they are relieved and protected from the evil spirits.

There is also the danger that some ignorant persons would try to do an exorcism in their own power or relying on some religious objects like the crucifix - not a good idea when you are dealing with strong demons. Only our living Lord has the authority and power to drive out the demons. We can do it in His name, if we belong to Him (are ‘in Christ’, as Paul would express it).