 |
| 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
|
| 
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/27/2004 5:09 AM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by Springs
Spark: "Brother Icon, maybe there is something wrong with your point, when you have to work so hard to prove it."
Or maybe it's just that our core belief in the reality of angels and demons is so strong that makes it hard for us to understand the proof. 
I say we compare Iconoclast's weight to that of a duck!!!
http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/grail/grail-05.htm
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/27/2004 5:48 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Springs
How do we know the town's people were innocent? Maybe the loss of the heard was just. Perhaps the horrible state of the madman's mind was the direct result of the abuse inflicted on him by that community.
Hi Springs,
I have read many of your post you shared here in the archives and would like to extend my thanks. I enjoy reading and learning from your contributions made here on the board.
Let me try to explain my comment about Icon needing to try so hard to prove his point. In order for his hypothesis to work, we have keep reaching beyond the simplest most logical explanation. Your last post is a good example, you asked me to assume many things. “How do we know the town's people were innocent?” Do you see how we need start making assumptions, do you see how we need to start passing judgment on people and things beyond the text? “Maybe the loss of the heard was just.” Maybe a lot of things, if we let our imagination run away we could come up with endless maybes. Maybe if this round peg was square it would fit. “Perhaps the horrible state of the madman's mind was the direct result of the abuse inflicted on him by that community.” Perhaps, maybe, possibly, might, could have, how do we know, if this, if that. Please, if this was the only verse, then maybe , but Icon is asking us to use our imagination to read into the text of Scripture, not for just one verse mind you, but extensively throughout the Bible.
Shalom,
Mark
quote:
Originally posted by Springs
Semeia mentioned that Satan is a metaphor. I disagree but am curious about where that idea comes from and what the theological implications are.
P.S. Have you changed your mind on this issue?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/27/2004 6:04 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
I say we compare Iconoclast's weight to that of a duck!!!
Before we stoke up a fire; I say we compare your imagination to his. Come on Sis let loose, what do you really think! Let your hair down and hop on into this pig pen. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/27/2004 6:33 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
sparknheart
I conclude that Jesus did ascribe to the belief of literal angels. If not, he would be bordering on being a lunatic for calling on metaphors for physical protection.
Matthew 26:53
Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?
Iconoclast
I understand this as Jesus calling on His Father who would send great power (many aspects of Himself).
Jesus already possessed many aspects of God, he was God. He had no need to call for more aspects of himself. He was referring to physical swords of angels that would have the ability to cut off a soldier’s ear.
Peace,
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sisters of Cain
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2004
Total Posts : 431
| Posted 8/27/2004 7:12 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
I say we compare Iconoclast's weight to that of a duck!!!
Before we stoke up a fire; I say we compare your imagination to his. Come on Sis let loose, what do you really think! Let your hair down and hop on into this pig pen.
<sigh>
You just can't find angry, pitchfork-carrying villagers these days.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/27/2004 7:34 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Sisters of Cain
You just can't find angry, pitchfork-carrying villagers these days.
I sent out some propaganda to the masses implying that Iconoclast was a five point Calvinist that hated pigs.
I got one volunteer to step forward.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/27/2004 9:13 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
Iconoclast
Are you suggesting that for the man to use his free will, acting out of faith, IS for Jesus to be complicit in evil?
John
Huh? As far as I understand the question, my answer would be no.
Maybe you don’t understand the question, John.
Icon has suggested that the madman used the same type of miracle power, through faith in God, as Peter did walking on water. I contend that it was neither the madman nor Jesus that sent the pigs to their death, but that it was in fact literal demons.
It’s like God empowering Charles Manson with a miracle. God gifts Charlie the power to walk on water because Charlie has faith. But then, Charlie uses this God giving power to influence your pet dog, and all of the bro dogs in the hood, to run into the street to their death. Your dog is dead but Charlie feels really good. So as long as Charlie feels better, then God is ok with it. Does this square with your theodicy of an all good and loving God?
Peace,
Mark
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 8/27/2004 9:19 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by sparknheart
quote:
Originally posted by JEE
Iconoclast
Are you suggesting that for the man to use his free will, acting out of faith, IS for Jesus to be complicit in evil?
John
Huh? As far as I understand the question, my answer would be no.
Maybe you don’t understand the question, John.
Icon has suggested that the madman used the same type of miracle power, through faith in God, as Peter did walking on water. I contend that is was neither the madman nor Jesus that sent the pigs to their death, but that it was in fact literal demons.
It’s like God empowering Charles Manson with a miracle. God gifts Charlie the power to walk on water because Charlie has faith. But then, Charlie uses this God giving power to influence your pet dog, and all of the bro dogs in the hood, to run into the street to their death. Your dog is dead but Charlie feels really good. So as long as Charlie feels better, then God is ok with it. Does this square with your theodicy of an all good and loving God?
Peace,
Mark
No, that would't square with my theodicy of an all good and loving God.
Personally, I don't see why the pigs running off the cliff into the lake couldn't have been simply the pigs' response to the attempted invasion of their bodies by the demons.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/27/2004 9:52 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by JEE
No, that would't square with my theodicy of an all good and loving God.
Good, now grab a pitchfork!
(Psssss…. the old "he's a Calvinist" trick works every time. )quote:
Personally, I don't see why the pigs running off the cliff into the lake couldn't have been simply the pigs' response to the attempted invasion of their bodies by the demons.
Hey, I like your version  . The whole thing is kind of weird though, I’ve never envisioned myself defending demons.
John Hutchison quoted, "The greatest trick the devil ever played was to convince the world he did not exist."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/27/2004 2:30 PM (GMT -6) | | sparknheart
You have a mixed basket of fruit, Icon. The two versions are not one in the same. Jesus permitting literal demons their freedom is no comparison to empowering a madman’s faith in God to do evil. The literal demons acted on there own power and choice. They DID NOT receive power or a miracle through their faith in God (like Peter did walking on water). You can not equate evil acts with miracles. The act is not about violating animals but about violating the people that owned them. These people did not embrace the event as a miracle (the madman did); instead, they ran Jesus and his disciples out of town.
Iconoclast
I am struggling with your logic here on several levels.
What I hear you saying is the following:
1. It was an evil act for the man to kill the pigs.
2. Since the man was acting out of faith like Peter did that means that God was really acting through him – there was no free-will choice involved.
3. Therefore the man killing the pigs is the same as Jesus killing the pigs.
4. And since, killing the pigs was an evil act, Jesus committed (was complicit in) an evil act.
Here are the disconnects I have with this supposition:
It is not self-evident to me that the man killing the pigs was an evil act – especially as the man asked Jesus if it would be okay to do so and Jesus said yes.
If it was an evil act for the demons to kill the pigs then why did Jesus allow the demons to go into the pigs versus just throwing them into the abyss? Did Jesus not know that the demons would kill the pigs? If Jesus did know that it was highly likely that the pigs would not survive a demon attack then how is Jesus not complicit in that evil – assuming it was evil? How is this different than a judge ordering all the convicted murderers to be released? If one of those murderers killed someone would we not hold the judge responsible – wouldn’t this be considered negligence?
Your logic presupposes that any act that looks like an evil act IS an evil act even if it was committed using the “faith-based” power of God.
But if this is true then how do you explain what Elisha did to the group of youths who were taunting him? Elisha used the “faith-based” power of God to strike them all dead! Just because they were taunting him!
So, was what Elisha did an evil act?
If you say yes, it was an evil act, then do you deny that Elisha was using the “faith-based” power of God? If so, then why couldn’t I deny this same thing for the man who killed the pigs? How is this different?
If you say no, it was not an evil act, then how is it that you judge killing some pigs to be an evil act but not killing some youths? I would say that killing some pigs in order to be healed of a lifelong malady is a lot less evil that killing a bunch of youths because they were taunting Elisha.
sparknheart
Brother Icon, maybe there is something wrong with your point, when you have to work so hard to prove it.
Iconoclast
This is also not self-evident to me.
Did Einstein have to work hard to prove relativity theory? Did Copernicus have to work hard to prove that the earth goes around the sun? Did Columbus have to work hard to prove that the world was round?
Do people have to work hard to understand Calculus?
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 | | |
|
Semeia
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2001
Total Posts : 522
| Posted 8/27/2004 3:26 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE said:
About Elisha cursing the children (youths) in 2 Kings 2, the following footnote from the Amplified Bible is enlightening:
quote:
This incident has long been misunderstood because the Hebrew word "naar" was translated "little boys." That these characteristic juvenile delinquents were old enough to be fully accountable is obvious from the use of the word elsewhere. For example, it was used by David of his son Solomon and translated "young and inexperienced," when Solomon was a father (I Chron. 22:5; cf. I Kings 14:21 and II Chron. 9:30 ). It was used of Joseph when he was seventeen (Gen. 37:2). In fact, not less than seventy times in the King James Version this word "naar" is translated "young man" or "young men."
Semeia:
Does it really make a difference whether or not the boys were ten or seventeen? All they did is taunt Elisha, saying "Go away, baldhead!" Do you really think that an appropriate, just response to being teased is to have forty-two of the boys "mauled" by bears? Even if they were old enough to be accountable (and it is hard for me to believe that in a big group of boys that there weren't some younger ones tagging along as well) it seems quite beyond my understanding to think that being mauled by a bear is a just punishment for calling someone "baldhead".
And the idea that Jesus wouldn't have responsibility for what the "demons" did to the pigs also escapes logic for me. To use an analogy: let's say the demon possessed man is like a prison guard being held hostage by the violent prisoners he is guarding. If one rescues the hostage by opening the doors of the prison and releasing all the criminals, wouldn't one bear some responsibility for any future crimes they did? If these demons were evil, why release them from the man, when they could go inhabit ten more people?
If the demons are literal beings, and Jesus heals the man by sending them out of him, how is he not responsible for what the demons do? How would that not be like opening the doors of the prison for the criminally insane?
Now if the demons are really more along the lines of the man's subconscious rage, which finds its last cathartic expression in killing the pigs, then Jesus would be quite confident that the "demons" have no future destructive life.
But think about it, why would sending the pigs off the embankment do anything to the demons, anyway? If demons are literal spiritual beings they wouldn't die just because whoever they were inhabiting died: they would move on to the next victim. So why would Jesus heal someone only to let the same demons infect lots of other people?
Or do you think Jesus was "tricked" by the demons into thinking they would stay in the pigs? I tend to think it's pretty hard to trick God.
Thanks,
Semeia
"The opposite of sin is not virtue, but faith."--Soren Kierkegaard | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 8/27/2004 3:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Deut. 32:35 To me belongeth vengeance and recompence; their foot shall slide in due time: for the day of their calamity is at hand, and the things that shall come upon them make haste. 36 For the LORD shall judge his people, and repent himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone, and there is none shut up, or left. 37 And he shall say, Where are their gods, their rock in whom they trusted, 38 Which did eat the fat of their sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink offerings? let them rise up and help you, and be your protection. 39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. 40 For I lift up my hand to heaven, and say, I live for ever. 41 If I whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment; I will render vengeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me. 42 I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh; and that with the blood of the slain and of the captives, from the beginning of revenges upon the enemy. 43 Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 8/27/2004 6:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks Sparknheart, you are too kind. Thanks also for finding that thread in the archives and pulling it up for us. There’s some good stuff in there.
You say my last post was reaching beyond the simplest and most logical explanations and asking you to make assumptions. I get your point about extra biblical extrapolation, but wasn’t that what you were doing when you assumed the townspeople were innocents who had had an evil perpetrated on them?
My use of perhaps, maybe, etc. has to do with my desire to write charitably. It’s surely a better way to express my thought than say…”there is no way you can assert that the people were innocent, that is just so much taffy pulling.” What if this, and maybe that, are in no way akin to putting round pegs into square holes.
Iconoclast is helping us explore another interpretation for verses on angels and demons, is it his fault there are so many of them in the bible?
No, I have not changed my mind on this issue. But as I have said before I find this to be an interesting discussion.
Iconoclast, I am interested in how you interpret this verse: 1 Cor. 6:3 “Do you not know that we will judge the angels?” Thanks.
Springs
___________________________________
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts…mom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 8/27/2004 6:36 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE said:
About Elisha cursing the children (youths) in 2 Kings 2, the following footnote from the Amplified Bible is enlightening:
quote:
[size=3]This incident has long been misunderstood because the Hebrew word "naar" was translated "little boys." That these characteristic juvenile delinquents were old enough to be fully accountable is obvious from the use of the word elsewhere. For example, it was used by David of his son Solomon and translated "young and inexperienced," when Solomon was a father (I Chron. 22:5; cf. I Kings 14:21 and II Chron. 9:30 ). It was used of Joseph when he was seventeen (Gen. 37:2). In fact, not less than seventy times in the King James Version this word "naar" is translated "young man" or "young men."
Semeia:
Does it really make a difference whether or not the boys were ten or seventeen? All they did is taunt Elisha, saying "Go away, baldhead!" Do you really think that an appropriate, just response to being teased is to have forty-two of the boys "mauled" by bears? Even if they were old enough to be accountable (and it is hard for me to believe that in a big group of boys that there weren't some younger ones tagging along as well) it seems quite beyond my understanding to think that being mauled by a bear is a just punishment for calling someone "baldhead".
JEE:
I think it makes a HUGE difference how old these youths were. As I find God says of little children, "of such is the kingdom of God," the youths in this story were apparently old enough to know better than to mock the man of God.
Elisha has just received God's anointing/mantle from Elijah. He was now THE chief prophet in Israel. This episode seems to me no different than when Ananias and Sapphira were killed just for lying, or when the ground opened up and swalloed Korah and his crew for rebelling against Moses' authority. God is jealous for the honor of his prophets and apostles.
Semeia:
And the idea that Jesus wouldn't have responsibility for what the "demons" did to the pigs also escapes logic for me. To use an analogy: let's say the demon possessed man is like a prison guard being held hostage by the violent prisoners he is guarding. If one rescues the hostage by opening the doors of the prison and releasing all the criminals, wouldn't one bear some responsibility for any future crimes they did? If these demons were evil, why release them from the man, when they could go inhabit ten more people?
If the demons are literal beings, and Jesus heals the man by sending them out of him, how is he not responsible for what the demons do? How would that not be like opening the doors of the prison for the criminally insane?
JEE:
Apparently Jesus didn't think pigs were worth much. Also, in my view, demons do not have authority to inhabit someone against their will, though once in, they take control (just like their lord, Satan). So it is not the case that this Legion of demons would automatically be enabled to inhabits lots of other people, unless those other people were already voluntarily serving Satan.
Semeia:
Now if the demons are really more along the lines of the man's subconscious rage, which finds its last cathartic expression in killing the pigs, then Jesus would be quite confident that the "demons" have no future destructive life.
But think about it, why would sending the pigs off the embankment do anything to the demons, anyway? If demons are literal spiritual beings they wouldn't die just because whoever they were inhabiting died: they would move on to the next victim. So why would Jesus heal someone only to let the same demons infect lots of other people?
JEE:The demons had begged Jesus not to torment them before their time. Scripture reveals elsewhere that demons still await their final judgment.
Semeia:
Or do you think Jesus was "tricked" by the demons into thinking they would stay in the pigs? I tend to think it's pretty hard to trick God.
JEE:
I don't think God was "tricked" at all in this instance. I think Jesus could have allowed the demons to attack the pigs to demonstrate His power and authority over them.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 8/27/2004 6:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Semeia: "If the demons are literal beings, and Jesus heals the man by sending them out of him, how is he not responsible for what the demons do? How would that not be like opening the doors of the prison for the criminally insane?"
Me: Doesn't this go back to the problem of evil? Why would God allow humans to be born when he knows they will do evil?
Semeia: "So why would Jesus heal someone only to let the same demons infect lots of other people?"
Me: He healed leperous people but he didn't wipe the disease off the face of the planet. I don't know maybe it has something to do with the fact that he said he hadn't come to stand in judgement, that is the be his function in the escheton.
Springs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/27/2004 7:51 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Springs
Thanks Sparknheart, you are too kind. Thanks also for finding that thread in the archives and pulling it up for us. There’s some good stuff in there.
Thank you for starting that other thread. I agree, there’s some good stuff in there.
quote:
You say my last post was reaching beyond the simplest and most logical explanations and asking you to make assumptions. I get your point about extra biblical extrapolation, but wasn’t that what you were doing when you assumed the townspeople were innocents who had had an evil perpetrated on them?
You’re right. I overstated it by using the word “innocent” people. My point was more in the line of innocent bystanders. But one important thing to remember, regardless of what kind of people they were, Jesus loved all of them. Tax collectors, prostitutes, etc. and he most likely did not want to harm or do a disservice to any of them.
quote:
My use of perhaps, maybe, etc. has to do with my desire to write charitably. It’s surely a better way to express my thought than say…”there is no way you can assert that the people were innocent, that is just so much taffy pulling.” What if this, and maybe that, are in no way akin to putting round pegs into square holes.
Sorry if I was being hypocritical. Please see above for my explanation.
The round peg, square peg was a reference to characterizing and pegging Jesus. Jesus would not want anything bad to happen to the townspeople regardless of their innocence. His character was to love people right where they were.
quote:
Iconoclast is helping us explore another interpretation for verses on angels and demons, is it his fault there are so many of them in the bible?
But hey, I need to shave, eat, sleep and shower at least once a week.
quote:
No, I have not changed my mind on this issue. But as I have said before I find this to be an interesting discussion.
I echo your thoughts, a very interesting discussion.
I have a strong belief that mankind would be better served, by looking into the mirror  when searching for satan.
Hey, is that you standing behind me?
Peace,
Mark | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/28/2004 3:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Iconoclast
2. Since the man was acting out of faith like Peter did that means that God was really acting through him – there was no free-will choice involved.
It is by our free-will that we choose to put our faith in God. Jesus did not walk Peter on water like some kind of puppet, forced against his will and choice. I think you know this, and I think you know that I know this, so what are you trying to imply?
Maybe this will help clarify my point:
You can discern which men have truly put their trust and faith in God by the fruits they bear. If I surrender myself to God’s will, if I align my will with his, would the fruits I bear be of good or bad character?
I contend when a so-called man of god does bad it cannot be contributed to God. At that point, it might be his "demonserpent brain”. By the way, you explained what a demonserpent brain was not, I’m still waiting for your definition of what it is.
Thanks for your help and patience.
Peace be with you and your family,
Mark
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/28/2004 5:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Sahid,
quote:
To further confuse the issue.... How do we explain "natural evil" without a literal devil? While animals don't have human dignity, they still are God's creatures, and He still cares for them. From all indications animals suffered natural evil long before man got a chance to let the serpent side of himself screw things up. So, it seems to me like either natural evil really isn't evil, but instead the suffering of animals is somehow pleasant or unimportant to God, or someone other than God or man is responsible for it. If you then rule out angels and demons, all your left with are the animals themselves.
If God likes animals to suffer, let's get busy and make them suffer.
Aye. At bare minimum, we would need to have an explanation as to why it is wrong for us to torment animals, in spite of the fact that God is still benevolent in doing so.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/28/2004 6:31 AM (GMT -6) | | sparknheart
I contend when a so-called man of god does bad it cannot be contributed to God.
Iconoclast
I agree with this.
My view is that even if one is acting out of faith that moves mountains (the "power of God") and one does something bad it still cannot be attributed to God. Thus, Elisha using the power of God to have those youths mauled by a bear does not mean that what he did was what Jesus would have done.
Ananias and Sapphira being killed for lying, in my view, can be attributed to Peter and not to God even though it was clear "God's power" that was used.
A very clear example of this is Moses striking the rock and having it bring forth water. Moses used "God's power" to do this but God was not happy with him at all regarding how he went about it - to the point of punishing Moses severely for this. But "God's power" still went forth.
In my view our ability to walk is as much "God's power" as any "faith the size of a mustard seed" sort of thing we do. God gives us power - it is up to us how we use it.
Again, Jesus said that if we have the faith the size of mustard seed we can say to this mountain go jump into the sea. Now, when is it God's will some mountain goes and jumps into the sea? Jesus doesn't condition this statement saying that it will only happen as long as it is on balance a good thing and not a bad thing. The meaning to me is that God has given us awesome power (as well as limitations) - for good or for ill.
This view precludes us from saying whether the man with "legion demons" was acting out of faith-based power or not based on what the actual outcome of his actions were - whether we judge the results as good or bad.
In my view people have amazing power - it is just hard to tap into. I believe the stories where people have lifted cars off their loved ones in a crisis. I also believe the view that poltergeists are real phenomenon caused by a person in great emotional distress. And that this is where much of the experience people have of "demons" comes from. Everything I have read regarding these phenomenon seems to fit with this interpretation. Thus, "casting a demon" out of someone is a real phenomenon - it means to help them overcome their emotional distress. Their emotional distress and the "demon" are one and the same. The "demon" (literally: unseen agent) is both the cause and the effect. Gestault therapy and NLP have a very similar model to the "demon" model and they are fabulously effective means of helping people overcome their "unseen agents" - their subsconscious processes that are in disunity with themselves. And NLP (which is the foundation for hypnotic therapy) has been shown to actually call out these sub-conscious processes in people and talk to them as independent entities from the person's conscious process. Evangelicals would interpret this as talking to some demon within them and from a phenomenalogical perspective they are the same except that in NLP one does not assume the demon within is evil - it actually turns out that the fragmented sub-conscious process is really trying to be helpful to the person but is not aware of how it is vestigial and no longer needed to help the person defend against something bad they experienced before.
Moreover, in hypnotic states people can do things that seem miraculous. But they are not really miraculous - they are simply things that our bodies and spirits are actually capable of but our conscious mind limits us from actually doing. The evangelical interpretation of this is that this person must really have a demon in them or the person doing the hypnosis is putting a demon in them and causing this sort of miraculous behavior. But, in my view, this is to see things in terms of good and evil and is therefore not helpful - the "demon" model is a limited model in this sense - the NLP model is a much more helpful model that does not call out the knowledge of good and evil within us - that does not lure us into the "legal view" but rather focuses on how we can actually be helpful to people in need. And THAT is why it is to be preferred to the "demon" model - it is simply more useful for helping those in need - and THAT is what it is all about.
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 | | |
| 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 4:16 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 |
|
|