And yet you ruled out demons and possession as false.
It wasn’t all the Canaanites, just a (large) set of specific tribes whose lineage the OT ascribes to the Nephilim/Anakim/Rephaim.
Possibly she was free of that heritage; also she showed she was “on the Lord’s side”, to borrow a phrase from Moses.
As sketchy as our knowledge of what the different words is, it’s hard to say. It’s fairly clear that the Hebrews distinguished between sources of power, some of which were natural, but without consulting possible scholarly literature I wouldn’t venture to say which Hebrew word (there are about a half dozen) connects with which source of power – though I will note that today’s pharmacists might arguably fall within one of the categories!
Is he one of the idiots who consider depression, insomnia, doubt, and all sorts of other things to be demons?
Some who assist with an exorcism are put under restrictions that I presume are also on the actual exorcists. The Orthodox priest I knew who’d assisted once wasn’t allowed to give any details that could potentially lead to identifying the afflicted person, not even the state or the year.
Especially since any attention given the Adversary (save to rebuke) is taken by him as a kind of worship.
This reminds me of a class discussion about demonic activity and Christians. One student averred that demons can’t bother Christians at all, that our persons are like castles and we are completely immune. Another responded asking if the guy had ever heard of a catapult, an analogy the professor agreed with: demons can’t touch us directly because our “castles” are surrounded by the waters of Baptism which the Enemy dare not touch, but that doesn’t keep him from throwing things across the moat.
That took me back to an incident when I was first in college where I’m certain a demon was involved . . . which I prefer not to expand on at the moment.
This made me think of the time I was teaching at a church school in Miami and got a phone call not long before classes were starting for the morning. One of the kids called to say he was trapped at home by evil spirits (he described the symbols and such involved). I asked him, weren’t you at the Eucharist yesterday? which he had been, so I told him to remember the Lord’s Body and Blood and just walk out of the house and come to school – not to try to challenge the spirits, just trust the Blood of Christ and ignore them.
I told the pastor/priest about this and he just shook his head and said he’d take care of the rest. I don’t know what happened, but when the student went home that afternoon all signs of the occult rituals were gone, and that evening when the whole family was home he performed a home blessing.
What all exactly would qualify as “attention”? I’m assuming that keeping somewhat in mind of potential actions of demons or works including them or him explicitly negatively like the Divina Commedia or The Screwtape Letters (and its sequel) would qualify as “rebuke” here.
I believe in the healing miracles of Jesus. I just see the afflictions attributed to demon possession as caused by things such as mental illness, epilepsy, etc. The afflicted people were truly healed by Jesus. There are others who believe this as well.
How do your exorcists know how to rule out other causes for the odd behavior? Do they have medical degrees? Do they get the medical community involved?
So believers are not supposed to drive out demons?
My point was that nobody can prove a negative but you just dodge everything.
You are dodging the question about witches and sorcerers.
The Bible just says “Canaanites” were to be destroyed.
She is described as a Canaanite.
So it’s okay to reject demonic possession?
btw, If Canaanite religion was so dangerous to Israelite religion, how do you explain the influence of Canaanite poetry on the Psalms?
I dodge everything? You’re the “artful dodger”. Where’s your evidence that your denomination denies the existence of demons or affirms that all witches and all sorcerers are simply deluded individuals?
And. even if the Episcopal Church in New York City did openly and publicly acknowledge one, the other, or both demons or witches and sorcerers, would the Episcopal Church in America be willing to publicly deny their existence anywhere in the universe outside of New York City? Where’s your evidence?
And suppose you did manage to prove that the Episcopal Church in America denies demons, witches, and sorcerers; does that prove that there aren’t any? No.
So I can’t prove that there are demons, witches, or sorcerers and you can’t prove that there aren’t. And yet you think I’m dodging everything?
The Latin Church Bishops of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops approved the English translation of De Exorcismis et Supplicationibus Quibusdam, editio typica in November 2014. The final text of Exorcisms and Related Supplications (ERS) was confirmed by the Holy See in December 2016 and implemented in the dioceses of the United States as of June 29, 2017. In the course of the approval process, a list of frequently asked questions on exorcism and its use in the Church’s liturgical life was developed by the Secretariat of Divine Worship. Answers were provided by specialists in this ministry and by experts in canon law.
Since so much of the common perception of the nature and application of exorcism is shaped by the exaggerations of movie scripts and television programs, the Committee on Divine Worship has approved dissemination of these basic questions and answers, in hopes that clear information is brought to bear on a topic that is often shrouded in mystery or misinformation.
If there is a doubt that the condition might be a health problem, the patient is directed to a doctor, a psychiatrist or other specialist. So yes, the medical community is indirectly involved.
If necessary, the followers of Jesus have the authority to drive out demons and may need to do it if there really is a demon involved. Such cases have been very rare in western societies, possibly due to the Christian influence in these societies (my guess). If possible, it would be better to leave the exorcism to the leaders of churches (elders, pastors, priests) rather than trying to do it alone.
There have been many who have tried to drive out demons but most of these persons and groups are mislead. If someone has a problem, like an addiction, that problem is outsourced to an imaginary demon and handled with ‘driving out the demon’. For example, if the person is not able to quit smoking, these persons may drive out ‘the spirit of tobacco’ or some related ‘demon’.
This kind of behaviour is both sad and harmful. In worst cases, it might lead to serious health problems or even death if the victim of this behaviour does not seek medical help in a serious health condition.
In the case of the Orthodox priest I knew who assisted with an exorcism, the actual exorcist has a team with psychiatrist, psychologist, and a medical doctor, all with relevant expertise.
No, I’m saying “insufficient data”.
It names various tribes, ten in all, three east of the Jordan, seven west of it. It also says that driving them out was sufficient, and to leave them alone if they fled.
Then there’s the command to not intermarry with them, which would be odd if they were all supposed to be exterminated.
I don’t see how you could get that from what I wrote; it’s not a logical conclusion.
Calling the Ugaritic people Canaanites is stretching things. But even if it wasn’t, the influence was not religious in the sense of bringing Ugaritic-speaking religion into Israel. It is primarily structural, while in thematic material it does something common at the time, taking themes ascribed to other gods and re-assigning them to Yahweh.
Most assuredly. I had a friend with a drug problem which his church addressed by “casting out the spirit of addiction”, with predictable results: he got clean for a time but relapsed. What actually worked was when he had traded his car (a classic VW bug) for drugs – and I and another friend went and got it back; that he had fallen so low made him actually finally admit the problem.
Crazily, lemon drops were the tool that really worked: I’d found a brand that was so good they were almost addictive themselves, and gave him a bag of a hundred with the admonition to pop a lemon drop any time temptation came along. This led to another tool: that first bag lasted him three days; the next lasted four; the third a week, at which point the twenty-four calories per lemon drop started manifesting in weight gain, so some of us pitched in and got him a bicycle, and I led him on rides as tough as I thought he could handle.
On the flip side, another addict who got the same treatment (or rather the lack of treatment) from that church attempted suicide after people at the church had been telling him for weeks that he lacked faith. He barely survived – and switched churches.
That’s fine. You can certainly consider all the gospel details where Jesus talks to demons made up and believe he healed medical illnesses that were perceived to be demonic possession by some. You can reject where Jesus privately distinguishes between types of demons to his disciples as fiction and even acknowledge that the NT needlessly distinguishes between types of healings. You can also reject things like the devil entered Judas as made up.
At the end of the day, rejecting demons has trade offs. In doing so one starts to question the reliability of the Gospels. Also, theodicy is an issue. Instead of attributing at least some sickness to nefarious, evil agents (free will defense), as evolutionists, we are basically saying they are all solely caused by God’s good creation. I’m not so sure we are trading up in that scenario. God gave this person cancer, not the devil (as a Christian I feel I can only believe in a God guided evolution — anything else is inconsistent with what scripture intends to teach about creation and the world).
But my main point is you suspend methodological naturalism for supernatural healings in other places so you should not be appealing to it here or claiming this is God of the gaps. It is not. For those who believe in exorcisms, it is just trusting the Gospel portraits of Jesus and/or firsthand accounts/anecdotes. Most of realize not all sickness is demonic. Jesus taught that himself and the NT distinguishes between types of healings.
Big deal! It’s still impossible to always prove to everybody that everything you believe is true. Meanwhile, you waive away evidence that some things exist, including the Episcopal Church’s secret rite of exorcism. Wave away, lady, wave away while you’re in this world. Dodge, dodge, dodge, while you can.
As I said, for me it’s God guided evolution or bust. What scripture intends to teach is inconsistent with anything else.
Don’t know.
As he should. He is not an atheist. Christians believe God is the creator and shaped and designed things the way He wanted them to be. I don’t see how nature has volition or free will or can “choose” anything. Things just happen in accordance with chemical and physical laws. The same laws God created with all the initial conditions God wanted.
I take it you think “nature” made viruses and this gets God off the hook? That is wishy-washy theology to me. In my mind, Genesis 1 quite clearly attributes the form and function of the universe to God, not some random chance process where God was surprised by the outcome.
Many here are quick to point out the Bible is not a science text but they also seem to forget what scripture teaches over and over about God being the creator of all things.
Col 1:16-17For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Isaiah 45:18: For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (he is God!), who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): “I am the Lord, and there is no other.
Rev 4:11 “ “Worthy are you, our Lord and God, to receive glory and honor and power, for you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created.”
We could use a little Psalm 139:14:
I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well.
So what, quantum randomness is Creator now, not God the Father and God the Son? No thank you.
Me: If a person does not believe that demons, sorcerers, and witches exist, and if that same person believes that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist, does that mean that that same person does not believe that God, fairies, unicorns, and the Easter Bunny exist?
ChatGPT: Not necessarily. Believing that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something (like demons, sorcerers, and witches) does not automatically mean that a person does not believe in the existence of other things (like God, fairies, unicorns, and the Easter Bunny).
Here’s a breakdown:
Belief in Non-existence: The person in question does not believe in the existence of demons, sorcerers, and witches. They hold this position because they do not see sufficient evidence to support their existence. However, they also acknowledge the epistemological stance that it is generally impossible to prove the non-existence of something.
Belief in Existence: The existence of God, fairies, unicorns, and the Easter Bunny are separate entities or concepts. Whether this person believes in any of these depends on their individual beliefs, upbringing, experiences, and worldview.
Epistemological Position: The person’s statement about proving non-existence reflects a philosophical position often related to the burden of proof and the nature of evidence. It’s a recognition that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but it doesn’t dictate their belief in specific entities.
Therefore, the person’s disbelief in demons, sorcerers, and witches due to lack of evidence does not dictate their beliefs about the existence of God, fairies, unicorns, or the Easter Bunny. These beliefs are formed independently based on individual perceptions, cultural influences, and personal interpretations of what constitutes believable phenomena.
Me: So it seems to me that you’re saying that “absence of evidence is not evidence” and that a person, A, who believes that demons, sorcerers, and witches exist but cannot prove that they do exist, and a person, B, who believes that those same things do not exist but cannot prove that they don’t exist, simply don’t agree?
ChatGPT: Yes, you’ve captured the essence of the situation well. Let’s break it down:
Person A and Person B both share a common belief: they cannot prove their respective beliefs about the existence or non-existence of demons, sorcerers, and witches.
Person A: Believes that demons, sorcerers, and witches exist, but acknowledges that they cannot provide definitive proof of their existence. This stance is typically rooted in faith, personal experience, or cultural beliefs that do not hinge on empirical evidence.
Person B: Believes that demons, sorcerers, and witches do not exist, but also recognizes that proving the non-existence of these entities is challenging or impossible. This belief is based on a lack of empirical evidence supporting their existence.
In this scenario:
Both Person A and Person B do not have empirical evidence to substantiate their beliefs about the existence or non-existence of demons, sorcerers, and witches.
They differ in their conclusions (existence vs. non-existence), but both acknowledge the epistemological difficulty in proving the non-existence of something.
Therefore, while they do not agree on whether demons, sorcerers, and witches exist, they share a similar epistemological position regarding the challenges of proving non-existence. Their beliefs about these entities stem from different perspectives and interpretations of available evidence or lack thereof.