Demons or Psychotherapy?

[seeker_two]

If demons exist, then so do leprechauns, dragons, and a myriad of other mythical creatures.  Is voodoo also real?  What about Sangria?

Yes, Virginia, there is Sangria....and it is good..... 

[Perd Hapley]

I think he meant Santeria.   

[Iain]

Interesting fistful. Is your sister older or younger than you?

I've got to eat and do some shopping, but I do have experiences and reflections on the whole thing to recount. I'm younger and was more peripherally involved, and I've since moved away from religion/church.

[Tecumseh]

If demons exist, then so do leprechauns, dragons, and a myriad of other mythical creatures.  Is voodoo also real?  What about Sangria?

Yet another non sequitur courtesy of tecumseh. 

  Can you expand on this? 

If one religions mythical creatures can exist, is it unfeasible that other mythical creatures exist?  Why doesnt that logic follow.  Let me explain it to you.

I am not a Christian but an agnostic at best.  Now I am going to assume you are a Christian.  You don't believe in Hinduism, do you?  You are an atheist when it comes to Hinduism if you will.  Are you following this, it is not to complicated.  Now I am an atheist when it comes to Christianity, so why is it so hard for you to not be able to understand that I am an atheist to your religion, when you can so easily be an atheist to other religions? 

Can you provide references proving that I am a Christian? How about a link?

Look man... I'm not here to debate with you. I just find it laughable how you jump into threads to stir up trouble. Your pseudo-intellectual verbal vomitus isn't impressive, and I'm getting tired of reading somewhat interesting threads only to have a complete "WTF" moment when I reach your post.

  If you read what I said, I said I am going to assume you are a Christian.  I assume this because the majority of the United States is Christian.  If I am wrong I apologize.

If you don't like what I have to say, then don't read it.  I am just saying that if demons are possible then surely other mythical creatures are possible.  What is wrong with that?

[Tecumseh]

I think he meant Santeria.   

  Correct.  I could have sworn it was Sangria.  I am not to familiar with these religions.  But essentially, if I remember correctly, it is a hybrid of Catholicism and Voodooism.  I believe they attribute the saints to be some kind of spirits and the spirits to be the demons, devils, and angels that Catholicism addresses.

[seeker_two]

I think he meant Santeria.   

  Correct.  I could have sworn it was Sangria.  I am not to familiar with these religions.  But essentially, if I remember correctly, it is a hybrid of Catholicism and Voodooism.  I believe they attribute the saints to be some kind of spirits and the spirits to be the demons, devils, and angels that Catholicism addresses.

True.....but Sangria is better...... 

[Perd Hapley]

Interesting fistful. Is your sister older or younger than you? 

About two years older. 

If demons exist, then so do leprechauns, dragons, and a myriad of other mythical creatures.  Is voodoo also real?  What about Sangria?

  I am just saying that if demons are possible then surely other mythical creatures are possible.  What is wrong with that?

Those are two different statements, two different claims. 

The last statement just doesn't seem to logically follow.  It's like saying that, if alien abduction could possibly be real, then there could also be a race of tiny men living under the earth.  There's no connection between the two.

The first statement is even less logical, because you are claiming that existence of demons would necessitate leprechauns.  But why would demons be dependent on leprechauns?  Is it not possible to have demons, without having leprechauns? 


Are we really having this conversation?   

[James Fitzer]

My point exactly... we went from a moderately interesting thread to a bunch of nonsense. And quite frankly it's annoying

[Perd Hapley]

Actually, talkin' about weird stuff is one of the joys of APS.     

[wooderson]

I think Tecumseh's point - though not necessarily relevant to this thread - is that once you've opened the door to some supernatural phenomena, how do you gain standing to claim other phenomena is absurd or untrue? (ex.) If you're a Christian, how does demonic possession suddenly become a punch line?

To what extent are those beliefs different? From an outsider's perspective, should they be treated the same.

[Perd Hapley]

See expanded reply below.

 

[MrRezister]

I think the point being made is that if one person's belief in an old man in the sky can be considered valid justification for some action, then some other person's belief in magical fairies in galoshes cannot reasonably be criticised as invalid or ludicrous, as there is just as much scientific evidence for one as there is for the other.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Mr.R, I think that there's a distinction between what you said and what Tecumseh said.

Your statement to me reads that person one believes that "a" exists.  Therefore person one can't claim that person two's belief in "b" is therefore false.

Tecumseh's statement reads that if "a" exists, then "b", "c", "d", and "e" exist.

[MrRezister]

Mr.R, I think that there's a distinction between what you said and what Tecumseh said.

Your statement to me reads that person one believes that "a" exists.  Therefore person one can't claim that person two's belief in "b" is therefore false.

Tecumseh's statement reads that if "a" exists, then "b", "c", "d", and "e" exist.

It's true, the two statements are not the same, but I think they originate from the same general type of viewpoint - specifically, that it is just as impossible to disprove the existence of demons as it is to disprove the existence of leprechauns, unicorns, etc.  Thus, they all have equal standing as far as reality vs. fantasy. 

The fact that more people are likely to express a belief in angels/demons does not make them any more likely to exist in objective reality than loch ness monsters or giant flying transparent bikini zombies. 

I don't know where that came from.

[Perd Hapley]

Once you've opened the door to some supernatural phenomena, how do you gain standing to claim other phenomena is absurd or untrue?

I don't have to open the door.  The door of possibility is open.  I don't have to gain standing to claim that other phenomena is absurd or untrue.  If leprechauns aren't real, then they're not real.  Again, what connection do demons have to leprechauns?  We don't assume that unicorns exist, just because other animals do.  Nor does my belief in turtles obligate me to disprove the existence of unicorns.

To what extent are those beliefs different? From an outsider's perspective, should they be treated the same.

Of course.  And I am.  I don't believe in that other stuff, because there's simply no reason to.  Christian doctrine, on the other hand, is entirely reasonable, believable, and in line with the evidence. 

[Iain]

Right back to BP, my and fistful's derailing.

I was involved with a church that was always vineyard-y in my childhood and early teens. We moved away and attended a far more conventional Anglican church for a time, however we continued to attend summer camps and occasionally returned to visit the old church. First experience with the Toronto stuff was at one of these camps, the roaring the laughter the slaying in the spirit.

We then visited the old church and found that several of their members had visited Toronto. I hadn't been comfortable with it at the camp although it had gone on at the adult meetings and I had only attended one or two of those. I was not comfortable with it at this church. The peer pressure to be ministered to was high at both venues, and although I was 14 I quickly realised that unless I fell over soon the nice ladies weren't going to leave me alone, and my lunch would be missed.

Looking back I recognise it as group hysteria. There was nothing terribly new about Toronto, it was another revival movement and for many it was another sign of the end times. Later political church squabbles led to disenchantment with church, but the feeling of being manipulated and pressured by people I trusted, who were probably equally pressured and I suspect manipulated (intentionally or not),  I attribute a good part of the loss of 'faith' to. There are different reasons now, but I get how fistful's sister might feel, especially if she was more centrally involved in it.

[Perd Hapley]

I haven't suffered the same hurt feelings from it.  I'm not sure why that is.  It may have been due to my military service, from age 21 to 24.  During which years I did not attend church, just out of laziness, and the fact that it can be tough to find a church in a new area, where one feels at home.  When I came home, I went back to that church, and only then really began to have misgivings about it.  By then my family had moved on as well.

I am much more bothered by the shallow character of many contemporary American churches, and I find I have a lot of company.  Like many churches, although we talked incessantly about the first century church, there was little mention of the two thousand intervening years, which is just sad.  And then the modern worship music is just so blah, compared to the hymns of Wesley, or Watts, or Luther.  And so on.   

I don't know if we have any Charismatics here, or anyone who believes in deliverance.  I don't mean to imply that such people are not Christians.  I still have good friends from those days.  And overall, I think those churches had a positive influence on my life. 

[drewtam]

I am much more bothered by the shallow character of many contemporary American churches, and I find I have a lot of company.  Like many churches, although we talked incessantly about the first century church, there was little mention of the two thousand intervening years, which is just sad.  And then the modern worship music is just so blah, compared to the hymns of Wesley, or Watts, or Luther.  And so on.   

Please explain more...

What do you mean by shallow character? In teaching?

[lee n. field]

Yes, this is an accurate description of a church that I attended, briefly.  --brokenpaw

I believe you, absolutely.

Yes, the church had the word "Christian" in its name.  No, I am not casting aspersions at Christians in general.  --brokenpaw

We're not all like that.  There is a lot, huge amounts of horrible wackiness out there, calling itself Christian.

  After all, I was one at the time. --brokenpaw

If you're not one now, I'd say you weren't really one then.  As a diagnostic question, what did they tell you the gospel was?

I was fooled by these things, too, of course, and my parents' new church was also helpful in my "recovery" if such dramatic language is really appropriate.  I certainly believe in gifts of the spirit, but I no longer expect them to be normative parts of everyday Christian experience.  I eventually also realized that chasing such phenomena, trying to catch the Galloping Ghost of the Holy Spirit, is a big distraction as well.  Too many people hope for fulfillment in such flashy displays (which are usually not genuine), and miss out on the real stuff of the Christian experience.  That is, family life, helping others, quiet, meditative Bible-reading and prayer.  In full disclosure, I'm not doing so good on those things, lately, myself.  --fistful

A church my wife and I went to for a bit, back before and shortly after we were married, started to go that way.  Ecstatic singing, "words of knowledge", that kind of stuff.  I had zero, flat out ZERO internal assurance that this was what it purported to be.  (To give you an idea of where my head was, while all this was going on, I was in the back reading B. B.Warfield)  We hightailed out, eventually, for saner ground. 

Call me a filthy atheist, but group hysteria coupled with peer pressure seems the best explanation of most that I saw. --iain

Or demonic.  The stuff seriously creeps me out when I see video of it.

[Paddy]

Anybody who so easily dismisses the existence of demons has lived a very shallow, limited, and one dimensional life.  Sort of like a one cylinder John Deere tractor.   thump-a-thump-thumpa-thump-thumpa-thump.  IOW, you really don't know how funny you are. 

[lee n. field]

I am much more bothered by the shallow character of many contemporary American churches, and I find I have a lot of company. --ff

What do you mean by shallow character? In teaching?

I'll take a stab at that.

Seriously stunted hymnody.  "Jesus is my boyfriend" type contemporary Christian top 40 worship songs.  Worship as a "show", and the loss of a sense of the holiness and transcendence of God.  Preaching that amounts to "Law Lite" (lite and fluffy, but Law nonetheless) instead of gospel.

Have I hit the high points fistful?

[Paddy]

Yes, fistful is quite legalistic, not having warmed up to the concept of grace.......and surrender to God's will yet. 

That's OK.  He's on a journey, and will arrive on schedule.

[Perd Hapley]

.

[Perd Hapley]

I am much more bothered by the shallow character of many contemporary American churches, and I find I have a lot of company. --ff

What do you mean by shallow character? In teaching?

I'll take a stab at that.

Seriously stunted hymnody.  "Jesus is my boyfriend" type contemporary Christian top 40 worship songs.  Worship as a "show", and the loss of a sense of the holiness and transcendence of God.  Preaching that amounts to "Law Lite" (lite and fluffy, but Law nonetheless) instead of gospel.

Have I hit the high points fistful? 

Not so much.  The music is probably the least of the problem, and a lot of it might just be personal taste.  I find the Gaither/Southern Gospel stuff and even a lot of the twentieth century hymns to be just as bad as the "contemporary" stuff. 

I'm not talking about the Law and Gospel issues so much, either.  I mentioned it earlier, in that most churches seem to be historically adrift.  They're either a very hip church, that talks about the way things were done in the first century.  Or it's an old-time-religion church, where the historical perspective only goes back about fifty years, or maybe a hundred. 

And a lot of it is just the fact that most people aren't nerdy little egg-heads like me, so they aren't reading The Bondage of the Will, or The City of God, or whatever.  (Of course, I haven't read those, either.)   

[Paddy]

Uh, no, you have zero information on which to base such judgments.  Buzz off.

8690 posts from somebody who lives in Missouri and works as a maintenance man in a mall.  Yeah, you're really hard to figure out, Josh.