 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > I met the devil, and he is me ( Doc/Icon) | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/18/2004 3:09 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by billzbob
I see that Icon has given JoAnne a sort of an answer. She can decide how much that satifies her. I take the narrative of Christ actually being brought up upon the temple literally, so while I think there are psychological truths in what Icon is saying, the gloss dismissal of his is, first, unwarrented, and second, unsupported. But the two verses from Matthew and James are waiting.
bZb
Did you not see my response to these on page 2?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/18/2004 4:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Jo-Anne
I guess this is all news to me. I've never heard any of this before, and wonder how we can be involved in spiritual warfare if there is no "real" enemy. Is it just "us" then; is it literally "me" that I am warring against in prayer? Does that make sense? Is this really, "I have seen the enemy, and he is us?"
Iconoclast
Have you ever noticed how "spiritual warfare" and the way we are supposed to fight it is so radically different from literal warfare?
In literal warfare we are supposed to hate and kill our enemies.
In "spiritual" warfare we are suppose to love our enemies.
Literal warfare is all about the other. We win when we overcome the enemy.
"Spiritual" warfare is all about us. We win when we overcome ourselves.
In literal warfare we must kill to live.
In "spiritual" warfare we must die to live.
So, who is the real enemy in "spiritual" warfare? It looks to me like it is us. We must overcome ourself. We must die to live. We must love our enemy. Doesn't this point out who the problem really is? Isn't it us?
In terms of who we are warring with in our prayers let's look at how Jesus suggested that we pray:
Mat 6:9-15
Pray then like this: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; And forgive us our debts, As we also have forgiven our debtors; And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
Notice the heavy emphasis on us forgiving other people's trespasses against us. In fact, Jesus even teaches us here a little of bit of NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming) in order to help us do exactly that. He says:
"And forgive us our debts. As we also have forgiven our debtors;"
He is telling us to pray in such a way as to presuppose in our minds that we have already forgiven our debtors.
Jesus then goes on to tell us to pray:
"and lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil."
It seems to me that the evil we are to pray about being delivered from is temptation. It is about our own corruption. And what would this corruption look like? Well based on the text before and after it looks to me like the ultimate corruption is when we refuse to forgive others. In other words - judgment.
For Jesus then says:
"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
This is an amazingly powerful, clear and concise statement of Jesus'. God will forgive us if we forgive others and He will not if we don't. It sure seems that everything hinges on this one thing. "Judge not, lest ye be judged. For the judgment you make is the judgment you shall receive." Kind of sobering when you think about it.
The "spiritual" war is a spiritual war because it has to do with the spirit of judgment that comes from US. When we anthropomorphize our "spirit of judgment" and see the enemy as outside of us, as some great literal evil entity, all we do is take the focus off of ourselves. It seems to me that Jesus' was all about putting the focus back where it belonged - on each one of us.
Now, is there a "spirit of judgment" that is outside of us, outside of 'I' the individual? Yes, absolutely. But this spirit comes from all of us. We have created a culture of judgment and hate that has reverberated in horrible ways throughout our history. And does this spirit assail us today? Yes. But what is important is to start to become aware of how we, each of us as individuals, are actually the creators and sustainers of this spirit. It is not they who are creating this spirit, it is us. The very accusation that it is they who are creating this spirit is itself an action that creates and sustains this spirit.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/18/2004 4:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Hello Iconoclast,
please don’t be discouraged by the abrasive nature of some people here on this board. I think there are a lot of people here that enjoy hearing your perspective, I do.  I might not agree, but I will hear you out.
I can understand your argument for a metaphoric satan. Satan is really quite harmless without using man as an instrument to carry out evil. The bible says the devil don’t make you do it! But demons are not so easy to discount as some kind of psychological disorder. Matthew 8:28-34 comes to mind as a good example. Jesus performed a miracle by sending the demons into pigs; if He did this only for the purpose of some kind of psychological therapy on the mad  man, then he used a form of deception. If that is the case, then we have belittled his miracle to no more then a form of black magic, a witchdoctor.
Thanks,
Mark
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Mayflower
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2002
Total Posts : 445
| Posted 8/18/2004 4:26 PM (GMT -6) | | .
Amen...
sparknheart wrote:
quote:
Iconoclast, please don’t be discouraged by the abrasive nature of some people here. I think there are a lot of people here that enjoy hearing your perspective, I do.
.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/18/2004 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | A second point,
Several of us have raised the objection against your theory that notices that ANGELS actually exist, and are not metaphors. Several people have offered the observation that since "actual demons" are fallen angels (and not created evil, and not existing of their own self-creation, and not autonomous to God's power) that IF ANGELS EXIST, THEN DEMONS EXIST.
The Scripture shows us that ANGELS actually exist, and are beings similar to us in some ways, and unsimilar to us in others.
The CREED says that God is creator of everything "SEEN AND UNSEEN." And angels and demons are in the later -- the "unseen."
Likewise, seeing angels is something "revealed" and not an automatic, and frequent event "in history."
Angels exist. Therefore it is unreasonable to assume that demons portrayed in scripture do not exist.
DOES ANYONE HAVE DIFFICULTY FINDING PROOF IN SCRIPTURE FOR ANGELS?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/18/2004 5:02 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Iconoclast: If you want to interact with my alternative interpretation I am willing to chat about it. Otherwise, what is the point?
It IS interacting with your alternative interpretation to examine it.
Personally, I've mentioned some things about it that have potential. But I also mentioned stark weaknesses. That's "interaction." Should you expect any less? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/18/2004 5:27 PM (GMT -6) | | sparknheart
Iconoclast, please don’t be discouraged by the abrasive nature of some people here on this board. I think there are a lot of people here that enjoy hearing your perspective, I do. I might not agree, but I will hear you out.
Iconoclast
Thanks Mark. I appreciate that.
sparknheart
But demons are not so easy to discount as some kind of psychosocial disorder. Matthew 8:28-34 comes to mind as a good example. Jesus performed a miracle by sending the demos into pigs; if He did this only for the purpose of some kind of psychological therapy on the mad man, then he used a form of deception. If that is the case, then we have belittled his miracle to no more then a form of black magic, a witchdoctor.
Iconoclast
I am a little confused why you would say, “if He did this only for the purpose of some kind of psychological therapy on the mad man, then he used a form of deception.”
I mean, if the real problem was a psychological problem and Jesus healed the man of his psychological problem then how is that a “form of black magic, a witchdoctor”? What exactly is the deception?
And why would this be to “belittle his miracle”? I think it is an absolutely amazing thing to heal someone of multiple personality disorder – much, much harder than healing epilepsy or hemophelia. Are you aware of the horiffic abuse a human has to endure before they finally build a multiple-personality disorder defense to protect themselves? We are talking deep, deep wounds and massive distrust of other humans.
Back to the question of deception. My guess is that if this really was a psychological problem then you would say that for Jesus to speak as though these multiple personalities were literal evil entities that had invaded this man’s body would be deceptive on Jesus part. If my view is correct then this is not a problem at all since Jesus is speaking metaphorically. Jesus is using a model – a very accurate and powerful model.
Mark, are you familiar with the distinction between the map and territory? This concept is basically that none of our speech or concepts are the actual territory – they are only a map of that territory – a “model” if you will of actual reality. Thus, all of our speech is “deceptive” in the sense that it is never literal reality – it is always and only a model of literal reality. Of course, once we accept that all speech is a model of literal reality then the concept of “deception” cannot really mean a discrepency between our model and literal reality it can only mean that we are using some particular model to deceive another for our own purposes. A “model” then can never be true or false it is only more or less useful for some purpose. Now, our purpose may be true or false but technically the model never is – it only gains that attribution when it is used falsely – that is – for some false purpose.
Clearly Jesus is using a “demon” model (or metaphor) for the purpose of healing this man. That it works shows the power of this model. Now, we have to be careful here because the literal meaning of the word “demon” is simply “unseen agent” and while I don’t disagree that many of the NT writers may have conceptualized this as a literal evil entity it is by no means clear that Jesus did.
Again, model are just models of reality. They are neither true nor false. They are simply more or less useful given some particular context. I conceed that the “demon” model is a useful model in many contexts – it gives us some measure of understanding of certain phenomena.
I am interested in exploring two questions then:
1. Is there a more useful model than the “demon” model for understanding the “territory” that we are exploring?
2. Does the “demon” model confuse our understanding to some extent because we confuse it with the actual “territory”?
I think both answers to this are, yes.
Let’s look at the version of this story in Mark as it seems a bit more detailed in its description.
Mark 5:1-13
They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Ger'asenes. And when he had come out of the boat, there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, who lived among the tombs; and no one could bind him any more, even with a chain; for he had often been bound with fetters and chains, but the chains he wrenched apart, and the fetters he broke in pieces; and no one had the strength to subdue him. Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out, and bruising himself with stones. and crying out with a loud voice, he said, "What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me." For he had said to him, "Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!" And Jesus asked him, "What is your name?" He replied, "My name is Legion; for we are many." And he begged him eagerly not to send them out of the country. Now a great herd of swine was feeding there on the hillside; So he gave them leave. And the unclean spirits came out, and entered the swine; and the herd, numbering about two thousand, rushed down the steep bank into the sea, and were drowned in the sea.
I posted an alternate – non “demon” model interpretation of this on page 2 of this thread. In it I ask the question about how we can reconcile the “demon” model with the fact that the demons who did not want to be sent into the country side but rather wanted to be sent into the pigs ended up making the pigs run off a cliff and die? How does this make sense if these demons are literal evil entities? Don’t they know that if they kill the pigs they will then be homeless? Why did the evil entities kill the pigs?
Another discrepency with the “demon” model in this account is that the demons did not come out of the man after Jesus said “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!”? The demons did not obey Jesus command but rather started imploring him. In fact, they called upon the name of God! How is this consistent with a “demon” model? And why does Jesus then start talking to the demon? Jesus asks the demon what its name is? Again, how does this square with a literal demon possession model? Sure, I think we can come up with stuff to sort of make it fit but then we end up with a very confused understanding of demons in general because we are doing this everytime the word demon comes up in scripture. We end up with a very confused and confusing picture of demons.
In my view a psychological disorder is a better fit for what is happening here.
Also, doesn’t the bit about the demons not coming out at Jesus first command but only after Jesus learns the demon’s name and chats with it a bit seem similar to when Jesus did not heal the blind man on the first try? Didn’t Jesus say that some things are more difficult to heal. Aren’t the most difficult things to heal psychological?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/18/2004 5:31 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by billzbob
TO QUOTE PRESIDENT RONALD REAGAN: "NOW THERE YOU GO AGAIN!"
quote:
billzbob: Icon merly said he dealt with scripture. He ducked it....who sent "into" the swine? Icon...missed addressing the narratives of the Gospels.
Iconoclast: I just posted a bunch of stuff dealing directly with these scripture you wanted me to and your only response is to say that I didn't - that I "ducked it".
Iconoclast: If you want to interact with my alternative interpretation I am willing to chat about it. Otherwise, what is the point?
ICON, YOU DID NOT "INTERACT" WITH THESE SCRIPTURES. SO I'LL POST THEM AGAIN. IF YOU MISSED THEM, THEN I UNDERSTAND. (I'd missed where you gave an answer to Jo-Anne too, as it was scrolled up too far for me to see.)
SO, ICON, IF YOU MEAN TO ADDRESS SCRIPTURE, HERE IT IS!!!
(No "yelling" intended. Just visual design.)
quote:
Originally posted by billzbob
quote:
Matthew 8:28-34
28When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. 29"What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?" 30Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. 31The demons begged Jesus, "If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs." 32He said to them, "Go!" So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. 33Those tending the pigs ran off, went into the town and reported all this, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men. 34Then the whole town went out to meet Jesus. And when they saw him, they pleaded with him to leave their region.
.
James 2:19
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that–and shudder.
IS THIS THE THIRD OR FOURTH TIME, ICON?
I dealt with both of these on page 2. Do you agree that I offered an alternative interpretation for these two passages? Did you read my alternative interpretation? If so, please paraphrase it for me.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/18/2004 5:37 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by billzbob
A second point,
Several of us have raised the objection against your theory that notices that ANGELS actually exist, and are not metaphors. Several people have offered the observation that since "actual demons" are fallen angels (and not created evil, and not existing of their own self-creation, and not autonomous to God's power) that IF ANGELS EXIST, THEN DEMONS EXIST.
The Scripture shows us that ANGELS actually exist, and are beings similar to us in some ways, and unsimilar to us in others.
The CREED says that God is creator of everything "SEEN AND UNSEEN." And angels and demons are in the later -- the "unseen."
Likewise, seeing angels is something "revealed" and not an automatic, and frequent event "in history."
Angels exist. Therefore it is unreasonable to assume that demons portrayed in scripture do not exist.
DOES ANYONE HAVE DIFFICULTY FINDING PROOF IN SCRIPTURE FOR ANGELS?
I have answered this objection also again and again. My view is that angels are not independent literal entities they are, in fact, God Himself. They are messengers of God - they are an aspect of God. I do not believe they have independent free will from God since they ARE God.
Have you never heard of the Angel of the Lord? Isn't this clearly God in the scriptures? Doesn't angel literally mean "messenger"? So why would God come down as the "Angel of the Lord"? Why doesn't it just say that God came down and visited Abraham?
In my view angel simply means an aspect of God that is delivering a message.
Now, PoW, do you agree that I have answered this objection? I do not mean "answered it to your satisfaction" I mean, do you now understand my point of view on this and how it is completely consistent (not that you agree with it)? Can you please paraphrase it for me?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
larris
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 181
| Posted 8/18/2004 7:00 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
larris
You are not going to be judged by the judgment YOU make. You are going to be judged according to the clear written standards of God’s judgment and according to his Word.
Iconoclast
This is confusing to me larris. How is this statement not an interpretation of the bible. It certainly directly contradicts the plain meaning of Jesus' words when He says that the judgment you make is the judgment you shall receive. Are you saying that the plain meaning of Jesus' words here is somehow different than "the judgment you make is the judgment you shall receive"?
Matt. 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
I'm sorry but it just DOSE NOT SAY anything about the JUDGMENT YOU MAKE. I don't see the word "MAKE" in there anywhere. As I stated God is going to JUDGE YOU according to some very SPECIFIC STANDARDS in his WRITTEN WORD.
john 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Now if you want to MAKE UP what you want that judgment to be go right ahead.
Rev. 21:27 And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.
Rev. 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.
How do you MAKE A LIE? Simple you take a verse of scripture and put a metaphorical SPIN on it. You take it and turn it from a real event with real people, places and things and make it into an allegory. larris
"If you continue (abide and live) in my word, then you shall be my disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free." Jesus Christ. (John 8:31) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/18/2004 7:57 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
I am a little confused why you would say, “if He did this only for the purpose of some kind of psychological therapy on the mad man, then he used a form of deception.”
I mean, if the real problem was a psychological problem and Jesus healed the man of his psychological problem then how is that a “form of black magic, a witchdoctor”? What exactly is the deception?
Icon,
If I follow your line of reason, the demons did not commit suicide nor did Jesus trick them. Instead, Jesus sent the alleged demons into the pigs, and ultimately to their death, in order to free the madman. To emphasize, let me highlight a few things you posted on page 2.
“One more point that I find very interesting in this story. The demons asked to go into the pigs. Jesus let them. The pigs, ostensibly under demon control, killed themselves thus giving no home to the demons. Now one might argue that the demons were stupid or that Jesus tricked them and then Jesus caused the pigs to go into the sea. However I would like to offer another explanation. The multiple fragmented parts of the self were the very, very angry parts that also were accusing the “True Self” of being unworthy: “what have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God.” Notice also what Jesus said: “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit.” This language presupposes that the fragmented angry, accusing parts of the man are simply parts, they are NOT the True Self, they are NOT the man. Jesus is OK with the man – but not with the angry, accusing parts – they have to go. The True Self hears this and also hears Jesus commanding these other parts to leave – the man can now let go of the anger he has been affirmed as being OK and in control – but wait the angry parts are also part of the man – they are also part of himself. They have served him and shouldn’t or can’t just be let go of – they must have their final angry expression and therefore justification. That final angry expression is for the man in his intense unconscious passion to send the pigs to their death. Jesus in his mercy is OK with this expression of anger.”
Correct me if I'm wrong, what I hear you saying is Jesus sent innocent pigs to their death in order to free the madman. The deception does not come from Jesus tricking the demons, but rather from Jesus tricking the madman.
Shalom,
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 8/18/2004 8:04 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Pow / billzbob
Icon merly said he dealt with scripture. He ducked it.
Jo-Anne, you bring up an important one here.
Also, who sent "into" the swine?
Icon's has vaporously missed addressing the narratives of the Gospels.
Iconoclast
Well now I am thoroughly confused. I just posted a bunch of stuff dealing directly with these scripture you wanted me to and your only response is to say that I didn't - that I "ducked it".
I guess I just don't feel like playing this game with you anymore PoW / billzbob. If you want to interact with my alternative interpretation I am willing to chat about it. Otherwise, what is the point?
thanks,
Iconoclast
Iconoclast,
I am not threatened that you have a different interpretation - than the view that I've always assumed, or been taught. I've never studied this, and this is totally new and fascinating to me; especially after reading God At War, and Satan and The Problem of Evil. Nowhere in those two books by Dr Boyd did I get even a glimmer that Satan was not an actual being. The only time I've come close to anything like that (besides this thread) was in "Is God To Blame" when Job is discussed, and when, for the very first time - I realized he was the satan; not Satan. That was somewhat confusing to me, as Job talks about him appearing in the heavenly council, and challenging God to a "duo".
This thought/question comes from that: The Father God was not/is not human at all; yet He addresses the satan. We cannot liken it to Jesus' temptation in the desert of course, because Jesus was also flesh/fully human, as well as fully God. So how would you explain God the Father talking to the satan in the heavenly council? 
If I feel (now or in the future), that you are not answering what I asked, I would clarify, rephrase, or even ask again. I've never felt you have purposefully ignored me (ever). I know it is impossible to address every question asked in every post.
Having said that though, there was one that I mentioned that I'm still very curious about, and anyone can answer: Who was The Prince of Persia in Daniel 10, that the messenger of God said "prevented" him from coming to Daniel (if not an actual demonic being)?
Thanks & God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 8/18/2004 8:18 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
For Jesus then says:
"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses."
This is an amazingly powerful, clear and concise statement of Jesus'. God will forgive us if we forgive others and He will not if we don't. It sure seems that everything hinges on this one thing. "Judge not, lest ye be judged. For the judgment you make is the judgment you shall receive." Kind of sobering when you think about it.
The "spiritual" war is a spiritual war because it has to do with the spirit of judgment that comes from US. When we anthropomorphize our "spirit of judgment" and see the enemy as outside of us, as some great literal evil entity, all we do is take the focus off of ourselves. It seems to me that Jesus' was all about putting the focus back where it belonged - on each one of us.
Now, is there a "spirit of judgment" that is outside of us, outside of 'I' the individual? Yes, absolutely. But this spirit comes from all of us. We have created a culture of judgment and hate that has reverberated in horrible ways throughout our history. And does this spirit assail us today? Yes. But what is important is to start to become aware of how we, each of us as individuals, are actually the creators and sustainers of this spirit. It is not they who are creating this spirit, it is us. The very accusation that it is they who are creating this spirit is itself an action that creates and sustains this spirit.
thanks,
Iconoclast
Thank you for the explanation Iconoclast. I agree that the Bible is not just powerful theology, but wonderful psychology as well. I agree that much of the struggle is one that needs to be won over our flesh, in submission to the Father, and living as Jesus lived.
I don't know if this was answered earlier. If it was I missed it - sorry. What was it that went into the pigs when Jesus cast the demons out of the demoniac? I see what you're saying about the "enemy being us" - our own free will wages war against us - but I also believe that there are evil forces that influence that free will; that we open ourselves up to. Warfare is multi-faceted (IMHO).
I think we are somewhat shielded in North America from seeing the enemy as vividly as other cultures. Our daughter went to South Africa, and I have no doubt that people in countries such as South Africa, and Haiti witness things that would make our hair stand on end. The enemy is us - no doubt - but He is also a real being. I do believe that cosmic forces are at play that are beyond our comprehension.
I'm listening. I am far from knowledgeable in this regard.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 8/19/2004 5:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
That's because Doc specfically argues that devil/demons are literal beings. In my original post I queried Doc to find out if he had altered his position any over the last several years.
peace, don
I thought this was helpful (from a long time ago):
quote:
Mephi:
Critical realism PRIDES itself on the "maps/territory" idea.
See, Doc's epistemological LAST STAND is Jesus. Doc would say "Jesus thought demons were ACTUAL, personal spirit beings. Therefore, they MUST be." Doc believes because Jesus believed. You, Icon, would be more prone to emphasize Jesus' HUMANITY here and say that Jesus was following the most accurate map or the territory available for that time period...BUT A MAP NONETHELESS. Sure, Jesus exorcised demons. But in doing so, he was merely effectively using a map that didn't DIRECTLY correspond to actuality. If the pragmatic approach is taken, then Jesus' use of that model and its effectiveness is ALL that really matters. Summed up, Doc philosophically begins with christology while Icon begins more with ANTHROPOLOGY. (Am I right about this, y'all?)
Iconoclast:
Oooohhh...Yer good Mephi. Clarity, Clarity, Clarity.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/19/2004 6:07 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JET
quote:
Mephi:
. . . See, Doc's epistemological LAST STAND is Jesus.
This variety is called "theology from below." Scholasticism is called "theology from above." gregscouch.homestead.com/files/HodgeGrenz.html
But the Early Church Fathers followed neither. They did not begin with mere history; nor with a comprehensive system. They began with the CROSS, and read everything through the lense of the Cross.
Only after the whole narrative is finished does the meaning of the Cross within it become evident. And the first scriptures about the Cross were the OT. And the early Christians used them as their sole scripture, and preached "Christ crucified according to the scriptures."
CHRIST ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES (rather than from above, like liberation theology, or from below, like scholasticism):
quote:
Irenaeus (c. 130-c. 200)
We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed 'perfect knowledge,' as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. ANF, Vol. I, Against Heresies, 3.1.1.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers/ANF-01/iren/iren3.html
AND, from Christianity Today Mag. (Great!!!!!!!):
quote:
Midwife of the Christian Bible
Irenaeus identified the books of the New Testament, then showed the church how they fit with the Old.
by Fr. John Behr
www.christianitytoday.com/ch/2003/004/6.16.html
. . . "If anyone reads the Scriptures in this way," Irenaeus argues, "he will find in them the Word concerning Christ and a foreshadowing of the new calling." Using Christ's image of a treasure hidden in a field (Matt. 13:44), where the disciples are sent to reap what others have sown (John 4:35-8), Irenaeus suggests that Christ himself is the treasure, hidden in Scripture, in the types and parables, the words and actions of the patriarchs and prophets, which prefigure what was to happen in and through Christ in his human advent as contained in the Gospel. By their writings, the patriarchs and prophets have prepared the world for the advent of Christ, so that the field is ready for harvest. . . .
That makes all the difference.
- - - - - - - -
Sorry, everyone, for the tangent. Don's remark brought up something that has been in my mind about Doc's modernist (neo-liberal)approach for some time now. And there are not just two alternatives -- liberal and scholasitc/"classical" -- there is an older tradition of scripture in BOTH West and East, as represented here by the Western St. Iranaeus of Leon (France).
| | Back to Top | | |
| 228 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:52 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|