In the 6th and closing round, Burke argues from reason, scripture, and history.
From reason: The Trinity doctrine, argues Burke, is inconsistent with itself. The “Athanasian” creed presents us with three, each of whom is a Lord, and yet insists that there is only one Lord. As some philosophers have pointed out, it is self-evident that if every F is a G, then there can’t be fewer Gs than Fs. So if every divine person is a god, then there can’t be fewer gods than divine persons. (Burke leaves out this: Why say that this creed presents us with three? Because each one differs from the others, having at least one feature the others lack.)
Since the Trinitarian Jesus is believed to be God, everything in Scripture which applies to God must necessarily apply to him.
Right. If the “two” are really one and the same, whatever is true of one must be true of “the other”. That is, nothing can differ from itself at any given time. Bowman does seem to identify Jesus and God, even while he thinks some things are true of one but not of the other. Point, Burke.
But note that many trinitarians to not identify Jesus and God. Almost no evangelical philosophers do, for instance, and arguably none to almost none of the ancient catholics do. Sharing a nature with isn’t the same as being numerically the same as, nor does the first obviously imply the second (unless the “nature” is a haecceity).
Unfortunately, this section features repeated distractions concerning words. Burke complains that “Trinitarianism requires unique definitions of words.” So what. Theories often require us to coin new definitions. Similarly, Burke demands evidence from the Bible that the word “person” should be used as trinitarians use it. But the Bible doesn’t have rules about word definitions – at least not this one! Burke is trying to press the point that trinitarianism makes arbitrary and maybe inconsistent claims, and ones which ill fit the Bible, but these are not the ways to press points like that.
A more substantial point:
[Bowman] accepts the Trinity as “three persons”, when it suits him, but at other times he wants to count the three persons as one (ie. one Yahweh, or one Lord). He does this by effectively treating the three separate persons as a single unipersonal being, which is logically inconsistent…
I agree – it seems to me that like the rest of us, Bowman normally thinks of God as a magnificent self. But he doesn’t want four divine persons, so he sometimes thinks of God as… well, not a self, but some sort of thing which in some sense has three divine selves within it. But, Bowman finally addresses this in a comment in this last round… stay tuned.
From scripture: Mostly, Burke gives a good recap of his overall scriptural case. At one point, I think he goes too far:
Jesus and his apostles were adamant that everything people needed to know about him could be sourced directly from the OT. There was no “progressive revelation” about the Messiah; there was no new doctrine concerning his nature and identity; there was no change from OT to NT. (emphasis added)
I don’t think this is true. An important counterexample is Christ’s second coming, or the distinction between the first and second comings. I think it is a mistake to be hostile to any doctrine of progressive revelation. Why can’t something which is obscure later be made clear? e.g. what happens after death, how many times the messiah will come, how God will bring in people from all nations to his family. I think Burke rejects progressive revelation because he thinks it requires the later revelation to contradict the earlier. But the later might instead be correcting not what the earlier says or implies, but rather mistaken conclusions people are liable to draw from what it says and implies. e.g. that when one is all the way dead, one has ceased to exist
He effectively presses his point about Acts, which arguably conspicuously lacks any teaching of the “fully divinity” of Jesus or of any tripersonal God.
But where is the uproar [in Acts] against the notion of a Messiah who is also a God-man? Where is the backlash against a triune God? There is no such uproar; there is no such backlash; there is no outcry against Trinitarian concepts. On the Trinity and the deity of Christ, the preaching record and the Jewish response are both silent. In light of the Jews’ response to the Gospel message, this is inexplicable unless proto-Trinitarian doctrines were not preached at all. And if they were not preached, why weren’t they preached?
Irritatingly, this section has some scattershot charges – that trinitarians commit a lot of fallacies, that their readings of the Bible are convoluted, that their readings are marred by their love for their theory, which they always presuppose. This is just a fancy way of saying “look how ridiculous they are” – and it is about as effective as that charge. Best to stay on the subject at hand – the substance of Bowman’s case, not the alleged shortcomings of trinitarians in general.
In reiterating his case, I a few times noticed that he overstates it. Thus,
We saw that throughout the OT, God’s Holy Spirit is described as something that belongs to Him, like a property or a power. We saw that the NT follows this model exactly, without deviating in any way from OT teaching. There is no new revelation about the identity of the Holy Spirit.
This point can be argued, but it is too much to say that the “NT follows this model [of the Holy Spirit as an attribute] exactly”.
Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.” (Acts 5:3-4, NIV, emphases added)
As I explained before, this usage of “the Holy Spirit” (as a singular referring term, referring to the Father) needn’t bother a unitarian. Overstating the case makes it easy for one’s opponent to reject it out of hand.
Moving on, Burke asks some pertinent questions:
Why did God allow His chosen people to believe He is only one divine person instead of three, right up until the Christian era? Why did He conceal His triune identity? What was the rationale behind this divine deception? When and where was the new revelation first made clear? Rob claims it is “implicit”, but why only “implicit”? All the other key apostolic doctrines are explicitly preached. How can divinely inspired church leaders fail to provide an explicit teaching of the triune God if that is what they genuinely believe? Jesus told his disciples that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth (John 16:13); why didn’t it lead them to Trinitarianism?
I believe that Bowman stonewalls on all these through the whole debate. (Have I missed any answers?) I assume his view is just that we can’t understand God’s ways. But if so, better he should say and defend that answer. He loses points by refusing to answer. The audience he’s used to may not think much of them, but this is a more mixed audience.
On to history: Burke argues that the earliest material is “biblical unitarian”, while much (most) 1st century catholic theologians are subordinationist unitarians. He holds that:
Historically, doctrine always develops from the minimal to the complex, evolving as it is exposed to new influences and adapting in response to perceived heresies. Thus, the simplest doctrinal statements are more likely to be the earliest and most authentic. It is therefore significant that the earliest Christian creedal statements are Unitarian.
Is trinitarian theology, or subordinationist unitarianism more complex than humanitarian unitarianism? Maybe (it may depend on which Trinity theory we have in mind – some professed trinitarians simply hold that there’s one god with three ways of living, and that at least as simple as biblical unitarianism, isn’t it?). Are the early statements unitarian? One might not want to say they are explicitly so – as they are not written in reaction to any Trinity theory – but rather that they are compatible with, and a good fit with unitarianism, as they seem to assume that God and the Father are numerically the same. But if Bowman is right, we would not expect them to be this way.
In his summation, Burke urges us to lay aside the docetic thinking which dogs trinitarianism and embrace a Jesus who really shared our lot. Further,
…Christianity began as a Jewish religion. …Biblical Unitarianism calls for a return to those Jewish roots. I urge you to rediscover Israel’s God; the God Whom Jesus himself worshipped; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob — not the God of Justin Martyr, Arius, or Basil the Great.
Some will wonder what is so important about “getting back to our Jewish roots”? I mean, Judaism is a different religion, is it not?
More importantly, don’t these last three (or at least the last two – see below) also worship the god of Abe and Jesus? I think Burke oversells his theory, suggesting that unless you buy this, you may be worshiping another god. How likely is this, I wonder, for current day Christians?
Suppose I have a friend who thinks I (1) have huge muscles, (2) speak Chinese in addition to English, (3) love the New England Patriots, and (4) am half space alien. (He’s kind of a weird guy.) This friend is mistaken on all four counts – but he’s still my friend. These false beliefs about me may throw up somewhat of a barrier to our friendship, in certain situations. I’ll wish that he was better informed, but I’m not going to reject him for his false beliefs about me, even if he’s culpable for them. There are limits to this – it’s hard to see how I could be friends with someone who thought I was a wallaby, a donut, or a pair of socks.
Justin Martyr and Arius think, like Burke, that the one true god is the Father. So… they believed in Israel’s God, no? Even if they think he created the world by means of a newly formed, divine helper or two. (Basil is another case… if I understand him, he identifies God with an ineffable, simple divine nature.)
Again, consider Bowman, if Burke is right. Bowman worships the Father, considering him to be the one true god. That he, if Burke is right, is confused about Jesus and the Holy Spirit, doesn’t take this fact away. Doesn’t Bowman love the things God loves, in particular, Jesus? Are Bowman’s beliefs inconsistent? If so, this isn’t a good thing, but it won’t prevent his worshiping God and serving him.
In sum, Burke recaps what has been a pretty strong case. But he makes some points which, though they delight the choir (other unitarians), either beg the question (assume what needs proving), or are not very relevant when debating a non-unitarian. These too aggressive reaches are a debating mistake; one thinks one is going in for the kill, but in reality, hostile and some neutral listeners tune out.
Next time: Bowman’s closing statement.
Print 
PDF
Demon possession = Mental Illness of past ages.
I hope this will be my final post on this subject, as enough information has been already supplied to get to the heart of the matter for anyone really wanting to know.
We live in a society where we are almost totally isolated from those who have serious mental illnesses. People with these types of disorders are today in special care. Even until recently, they were in ‘lunatic assylums’, but now we know better, and try and treat them as people with mental illnesses.
When you communicate with some of these unfortunate people, you will be persuaded that they have more than one personality, which they do.
Symptoms include a lack of cohesion of thought and rationality, a lack of moral judgement, a lack of shame, words that are ‘from somewhere else’, strange voices and some of them are very strong and almost impervious to pain. (do some research on serious mental illness or talk to someone who works with them)
It is also a known phenomena, that a relatively high percentage of the general population ‘hear voices’, and sometimes these voices are aggressive, derisive, violent & evil. Again, these voices are the product of mental imbalance, and are now treatable with therapy.
Now take yourself back 2,000 years to a society inundated with ignorance & superstition, and a belief in fickle gods, evil spirits, demon possessions, lunacy and many other such concepts.
A society where mental illness / hearing of voices is not clinically identified as an illness, but generally identified and named as forms of spirit/demon possession.
A society where the affected individuals are in general society, where they speak and act in the most peculiar & irrational way.
A society where they appear and act as if they are possessed by some strange & unpredictable ‘spirit’, which of course they are.
When Jesus speaks to, or interacts with, these affected people he sometimes speaks to the malignent spirit that possesses them. It is a real phenomena, and is dealt with as real.
These ‘spirits’ are part of the affected individual’s organic and mental composition.
And Jesus healed them all with a word, as Matt.4:23-24 shows.
Did Jesus ‘endorce’ a belief in demons & spirits by his actions?
Of course, because they are a real phenomena.
Did Jesus teach that such demons/spirits are a manifestation of supernatural gods/agents?
I don’t believe so, and I don’t see support for this.
As I have said before, the foundations for all Jesus’ teachings & actions are found in the OT.
The OT is a place where there is not only no endorsement for a belief in supernatual evil spirits/demons/agents, but clear instruction on the singularlity of God in heaven.
Isaiah.45:21-22.
“….and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else”
Marg,
I am sorry that nothing has yet been said that has had the power to dispell your belief in demons.
You say that Jesus spoke and acted as if demons existed.
We have already seen that God spoke and acted as if the false gods of the Egyptians and Canaanites existed, yet we share the conclusion that they did not.
Why would it be okay for God to act this way, but not for Jesus?
We have looked at the example of the woman possessed with the spirit of python in Acts 16.
You have to ask yourself – did Luke really believe she had a spirit of python?
There are only two answers and you have to pick one: Yes or No?
YES! If Luke really believed she had a spirit of python then he also believed in the Greek gods and their mythology. This is an inescapable conclusion and obviously very troubling to have an apostle with the Holy Spirit propounding polytheism.
NO! If Luke did not believe she had a spirit of python then he was simply describing somone using the language of the time in the knowledge that his contemporary readers would understand what he meant. I propose that this is the truth and that this is what Jesus did.
Finally I think the root of the problem remains that you believe the Bible should have been written so that it was instantly understandable to someone living thousands of years later so as not to cause confusion.
Unfortunately if it was written that way it would have been unreadable to the people living at the time!
The New Testament was written two thousand years ago for people living two thousand years ago. If we therefore come across terminology that is difficult to understand, it is not because the Bible has been written wrongly. We just need to dig a little deeper than the surface to understand how people lived and what they believed and understood back at that time.
Anyway, I wish you all the best in your studies and I hope you find what you are looking for!
Robert,
Ezekiel 28 is yet another chapter from which you can only derive the existence of the evil angel satan by circular reasoning.
There is no corroborative evidence anywhere in the Bible to indicate that this verse is talking about anyone else other than the king of Tyre.
If you ask a believer in Satan to tell you where the Bible describes the fall of Satan they will point you to Ezekiel 28, but when you ask them how they know Ezekiel 28 describes the fall of Satan they smile and say “because it describes his fall”.
This is circular reasoning and is completely illogical.
If Ezekiel 28 is your best evidence of the fall of an evil angel and it doesn’t even refer to an evil angel or someone called Satan and there is no corroborative evidence anywhere else in scripture to make you even think these verses are talking about this character (especially when the verses ARE addressed to someone else who did literally exist) then you really are clutching at straws.
Let me see if I can help you understand by looking at the verses you mention (Ez 28:11-19). You may see a pattern develop here:
Nowhere in scripture are we told that an evil angel was called, “the king of Tyre”. (vs. 12)
Nowhere in scripture are we told that an evil angel was “full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty”. (vs. 12)
Nowhere in scripture are we told that an evil angel was in Eden, or covered in precious stones. (vs. 13)
Nowhere in scripture are we told that an evil angel had tabrets and pipes made inside of him. (vs. 13)
Nowhere in scripture are we told that an evil angel was a cherubim or that he was anointed or covered anything. (vs. 14) (the only anointed cherubims in scripture were on the Ark of the Covenant covering the mercy seat)
Nowhere in scripture are we told that an evil angel was on the “holy mountain of God” (Zion in Jerusalem). (vs. 14)
Nowhere in scripture are we told that an evil angel “walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire”. (vs. 14)
Nowhere in scripture are we told that an evil angel was perfect “till iniquity was found in [him]“. (vs. 15)
Nowhere in scripture are we told that an evil angel was “filled… with violence” because of “merchandise”. (vs. 16)
Nowhere in scripture are we told that an evil angel had his “heart… lifted up because of [his] beauty”. (vs. 17)
I hope you are starting to get the picture.
In conclusion, Ezekiel 28:
1. Doesn’t mention Satan
2. Doesn’t mention an evil angel
3. Makes no mention of any characteristics or activities of an evil angel that can be corroborated elsewhere in the Bible.
4. Is explicitly addressed to someone else completely.
The only way you can think Ezekiel 28 is about your Satan is if you approach it with preconceived ideas and stories about Satan and then twist the context completely to fit your own unscriptural ideas.
If this was
… then when Jesus gave permission to demons to enter a herd of pigs, the onlookers were not thinking of natural diseases. They were thinking of unclean spirits; and all of them (including the inspired authors) went away convinced that evil spirits (as THEY understood the term) had been cast out of the man.
The same can be said for other instances where Jesus was obviously dealing (or else pretending to deal) with living, supernatural spirits.
That Jesus would go so far in accommodating himself to their belief is inexplicable – unless he thought they were right.
Jesus knew the Old Testament better than any of us do. If the people’s belief was wrong, and if that belief would bar them from salvation, then he was in a position to warn them. Instead, his words and actions encouraged their belief.
Jesus would NOT have encouraged a belief that would bar his hearers from entering the kingdom of God. Instead, he would have CORRECTED it. After all, he did not hesitate to correct other errors that would keep people from God.
So what justification is there for erecting a barrier that did not exist when Jesus was on earth?
[The same thing goes for Trinitarians who tell me that I must believe God is tri-une or I cannot be a Christian.]
Abel, disciple
as i said I dont require the existence of satan,demons or evil angels in my belief if they dont exist it doesnt change a thing.
But i can not deny their existence because they are literally spoken of and beliefed in by the prophets, by Jesus himself and also the Apostles.
It wasnt till a discussion i was reading between a CD and christian that i seen the truth about them.It wasnt the christian in this discussion that convinced me, It was the lack of the truth in the explanation of the CD when i researched their explanation. I have read every explanation that a CD gives on this subject and was just baiting you into providing one of those illogical explanations. I have to say they are always interesting but I havent been much of a fiction reader lately.
As i said to Abel this is not a salvation issue so in no way do i claim your not saved.
what i wish though is the CD’s would quit claiming their belief must be followed to be a christian.
If this discussion was in a place where more people could see it i would want all your explanations in it cause it was the catalysis for me seeing the truth on this subject.
Robert,
You are right – we must ultimately rest on the mercy of God for our ultimate reward and not on the decision of one group of christians or another.
As to your beliefs on this subject, I do not believe they are Christian, I believe they are Greco/Roman/Pagan, but as you say you have no reason to worry about what my opinion is.
We each have to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling.
All the best.
Abel
I have 2 questions.
Are only true christians the ones that will receive salvation?
Does belief in satan,demons,evil angels or lessor gods disqualify a person as a christian?
Let’s not forget that Jesus is the Messiah. He knew the Old Testament a lot better than we do. And he was guided by the Spirit of God, as well. He would not be influenced by Greco/Roman/Pagan thought.
But let’s suppose everybody else (including the writers of the New Testament) believed that evil spirits existed, simply because they got that belief from the pagan world.
Surely the Messiah would be aware of that. He knew what they believed.
Therefore, Disciple, If Jesus endorsed their belief, he was NOT endorsing a belief in natural phenomena. He was endorsing their belief in supernatural spirits.
So I have to conclude that their belief was NOT a pagan belief, or he would not have endorsed it.
Marg,
You haven’t answered my questions from post #451.
1. Was God endorsing a belief in Egyptian and Canaanite gods when He spoke and acted as if they existed?
2. Did Luke think the woman in Acts 16 had a spirit of python?
3. Why do you think the New Testament should have been written 2000 years ago in another country in a language that would be instantly understandable to you and using customs you would be completely comfortable with?
I have answered the first question several times, Abel, but I will try again.
The one thing we agreed on was that the idols existed.
If the idols existed, then the gods existed, because THE GODS AND THE IDOLS WERE ONE AND THE SAME THING.
It was Dagon – the god of the Philistines – that had his head and hands broken off. The Philistines could SEE what had happened to their god. They could SEE his head and his hands. There was nothing imaginary about it.
Let me repeat: THE IDOLS WERE THE GODS. The two words are used synonymously – in much the same way that “demons” and “unclean spirits” are used synonymously in the gospels.
We have agreed that the idols existed. Therefore, the gods existed. The idols and the gods were one and the same thing.
In other words, God was not saying anything that was not true. And neither did Jesus.
God’s Word is infinite. There will always be something more to learn about our God.
But when someone tells me I shouldn’t expect to understand it until the right people explain it to me, I am not impressed.
That’s what the leaders of every exclusive denomination/sect/party tell their followers.
I have studied everything you and your fellows have written, and TESTED it, because that’s what Paul said to do. And I have learned some things I did not know before.
But I do NOT believe that God was talking about things that did not exist, and I do NOT believe that Jesus was misleading his followers by endorsing a pagan belief that would bar them from entering his kingdom.
What Power are these supposed Supernatural gods/devils/demons/spirits supposed to exert?
Here is God’s clear word on it. A statement that is in accord with everything he has revealed from the beginning.
Think carefully about what he says …
Isaiah.41:21-24
“….Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together. Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you”
They cannot do good or evil, they cannot predict the future, they cannot even light a fire, as Elijah mocked … they are nothing but the product of man’s imagination.
But you might say; in the NT things have changed. They are real, manifesting themselves as doing good & evil, making people deaf, dumb, epileptic, insane, lunatic and even predicting the future.
Maybe Yahweh in the OT was not telling us everything, or the whole truth. Maybe he was only speaking in degrees in that his power was so much greater than these lesser gods/spirits.
Were the NT spirits/demons real. Yes they were real things. Were they the product of the influence of supernatural agents. No they were not, as the OT clearly states.
Marg,
In Matt.12:22-30
Was Jesus being accommodating to the Pharisees & the people, or should he has stated plainly that Beelzebub didn’t exist. It would have been much simpler to argue, and truthful.
In Luke.16:19-31
Was Jesus being accommodation to the Pharisees when he uses clear detail from their own belief system (see Josephus). Why didn’t he just tell them plainly.
All,
Firstly thanks everyone for your contributions to this thread, which I’ve been following for a while now. Very thought provoking. Thanks to Dale too for providing a great forum for this kind of stuff.
_Which_Issue?_
I’ve been moved to post here because it’s clear to me that there are two questions / issues here, which (a) seem to end up intertwined and not dealt with separately; and (b) because of that they end up probably more emotive than they might perhaps need to be.
In no particular order, the first issue is the question “Do demons / evil spirits exist as supernatural beings”, which recently has spilled over a bit into “is there a supernatural being called Satan / Lucifer / Prince of Persia / etc. who is a fallen angel” Apologies if I have one or two details there not quite accurate there, but that’s basically one of the issues here, and *some have taken it to be the primary issue* at hand.
The second issue is something like this: *assuming* demons don’t really exist (as supernatural beings etc.), is this a matter for automatic excommunication / disfellowshipping / denial of the privilege of using the term “Christian”. I believe that for some in this discussion *this* has been seen as the primary issue of discussion.
For clarity, I feel that both are perfectly valid subjects for discussion, but I also believe they’re separate issues and should be treated as such. Now, I feel that the first issue above is being dealt with by people more capable than I, so I write this post for those in the second group (who see the fellowship issue as key).
_The_Issue_of_Fellowship_
Before I go further I should explain that I’m a Christadelphian, which means of course that I also consider myself a Christian (though I always feel uncomfortable saying that out loud I fear others may perceive I’m claiming some achievement or success on my own part!)
Anyway the key point I want to make is this: there simply is _no_such_thing_ in our community as a central dictat, authority, list, rulebook, or anything of the sort, which delineates exactly who should or shouldn’t be “allowed” to remain in fellowship, and under what circumstances. Honestly, it just doesn’t exist.
Indeed, the word “excommunicate” simply isn’t one I’ve ever heard in the context of Christadelphians’ dealings with one another. FWIW, it’s a term that was used by an entirely different group to signify removal (by earthly authorities) of a person’s relationship with the Church, and hence God, and a term which may well cause loss of livelihood or even life (just ask Tindale). This just couldn’t be farther from the way things work in the Christadelphian community.
“Disfellowship” is a word that is sometimes used, but I know I’m not alone in avoiding it as (a) it’s not a scriptural word; (b) fellowship is about giving not taking away – just have a look at how the Gk word is used in the NT, particularly for example in Philippians; (c) John tells us that Fellowship is something that exists between believers, their God, and His son. What arrogance to imagine our decisions could affect that status either way for another believer!
_Scriptural_Withdrawal_
That aside, “withdrawal” is clearly something that we are responsible to consider in certain circumstances, with the aim of “winning back” a brother / sister. I think this is evident from the NT, I imagine you’ll agree but do let me know if not.
Anyway, should we “withdraw” from one another on the basis of the question of demons and evil spirits? Well, it’s been said on here before “that depends”. I’d like to put a bit more flesh on those bones, and remind all of the principle: much shall be expected of those to whom much has been given.
I once met a faithful Christadelphian who in times of stress – in particular in cases where a series of unfortunate circumstances arise at a similar time – succumbed to a fear of the influence of evil spirits. Anyway, should she be withdrawn from because of this? Absolutely not. Why? Well for one thing, she had held for many decades before she had been convinced from the Bible that they don’t exist (I know this point is contentious here, but it’s not contentious in the story!), and such thought patterns don’t die easily (nor does “the old man” which we seek to put off!)
Likewise, should I be withdrawn from because I find walking through graveyards at night (not a habit I should add!) rather spooky? Does this mean I really believe in ghosts and evil spirits? Absolutely not!
If I start to teach false doctrine in the congregation, should I be asked not to? Should the invitation to teach be withdrawn until things are straightened out? Absolutely. I imagine this is not something anyone here will disagree with, but I’ve been wrong before! Should I be withdrawn from? Certainly not immediately. It might be a good opportunity for a chat with one or two elders – perhaps I didn’t articulate myself well and was misunderstood. Perhaps I do actually believe the false doctrine but can be persuaded otherwise. Perhaps it’s not that big a deal and we’ll decide together to live with the differences. Perhaps it is a big deal and we’ll decide together that I’d be better off meeting regularly with a different group of Christians (Muslims?) who share my views.
Specifically, how would a belief in evil spirits get dealt with? On an individual basis by a member’s own congregation. Honestly it’s difficult to make a universal statement that says more than that, except to say that most Christadelphians I speak to think it’s an important issue. But most I speak to also wouldn’t wish to deny the use of the term “Christian” to someone who believes that way. And hopefully all would agree that it’s simply not in their remit to judge someone’s status or salvation before God based on this or anything else.
_In_Summary_
Sorry, I’ve already written too much, but just to underline this, in the Christadelphian community matters of fellowship are considered on a local basis, by an individual congregation, prayerfully and with a careful consideration of scripture, and as they relate to an individual’s circumstances, and above all with the purpose in mind of restoring that person to the warmth of the congregation if at all possible, by God’s grace. Ok so everyone’s human and there are doubtless exceptions where things have not been done quite ideally – but there simply is no central dictat that defines that “if you believe in demons you will be excommunicated, no questions asked, and furthermore you jolly well shouldn’t be calling yourself a Christian.”
Marg: I for one have been enjoying your openness and honesty, and commend you for opening your scriptures, keeping a reasonably open mind, and discussing issues such as this frankly with other believers. There’s certainly an OT precedent for that: Mal 3:16-18.
To God be the Glory.
M
Marg,
When we come to the writings (letters) of the NT apostles, we again enter a field where supposed supernatural demon/spirit/agent possession is not mentioned. This is much like the OT writings.
Even the 9 gifts of the spirt mentioned in 1.Cor.12 omits ‘casting out of demons’ as a gift. I suggest it is included in ‘healings’, where it rightly belongs.
Why are we missing clear instruction in these mostly expositional & instructive writings.
Perhaps the reason is that the ‘disciples’ of the 1st century had been taught the truth on these matters.
Incidentally, Robert, I don’t know whether you know any Christadelphians personally. But I must say that the idea that Christadelphians commonly feel repressed under an expediency to “toe the doctrinal party line” for fear of authoritarian reprisals just isn’t something I recognise – partly because of what I wrote in my previous post.. partly because of the following.
I’ve been blessed to be in the position to spend time with Christadelphians in the UK, North America, Australia, Africa, Russia… and I must tell you that the one thing I see in all these places is a willingness to question, to discuss and debate openly (as openly as national culture allows), to seek the truth from God’s word. To be honest, without these characteristics few would feel the need to join the community in the first place – if we were more driven by the need to “fit in” we would simply accept what is taught by the more mainstream options, and get to be part of a really big group. In the UK I’d like to say the mainstream option is Anglicanism, but sadly it may more likely to be Agnosticism!
So I just don’t think your charge towards Disciple and Abel that “you would say that, you have to toe the party line” (wildly paraphrased, sorry) stacks up – unless I grossly misunderstood your point. It’s also “ad hominem” for what it’s worth.
BTW do you belong to a group who hold similar beliefs to yourself?
Cheers,
M
Matt,
I have no major dissagreement with the points you make, or the principle explained in your approach to fellowship matters.
There are no doubt levels of understanding that we are all encouraged to grow into, as we mature in faith. However, it is incumbent on each of us nevertheless to grow, as the scriptures say; Heb.5:12-6:3 & 1.Cor.3:1-3.
In the meeting I belong to, if someone started believing in supernatural demons, we would certainly want to know why, and would talk to them at length trying to get to the heart of the matter.
Instant withdrawal of fellowship is thankfully quite rare, from my experience. I can say that in the few cases I have seen, IMO it has been rather poorly handled.
Disciple,
Couldn’t agree more.
It was by no means my purpose to diminish the value of discussing & seeking the truth on this topic. I just wanted to seek to restore some balance to a rather odd view of the Christadelphian approach to fellowship that some posters seemed to have somehow developed (which is not to criticise them either!)
Thanks again for your hard work, enjoying the posts.
M
Matt – Thank you for correcting a misapprehension. I wish someone had explained all that a whole lot sooner.
Ever since this conversation began, I have been given the impression that anyone who believes that demons exist is not a Christian. That is why my question in so many posts has been: Why would Jesus endorse a belief that would bar them from the kingdom of God?
Thank you for clearing that up. Believing that demons exist has nothing whatever to do with whether or not a person is a Christian.
I believe the Bible teaches that demons exist. It is not something I wish, but something that the study of the Bible has convinced me of. My mind is open, but the evidence so far all points in that direction.
For that reason, I am happy to continue the discussion as long as anybody wants to offer further evidence. And if it is necessary to go over the same thing again (which seems to be the case), I can handle that.
Disciple – I am going to go back to the example which is easiest to deal with. And since it is recorded in all three gospels, it can’t be put down to a wrong idea on the part of one person.
First – as the story is told:
A man was demon-possessed. Jesus commanded the unclean spirits to go out of him. The unclean spirits asked not to be sent to the abyss, but into a herd of swine.
Jesus gave them permission. And the “spirits” entered a couple of thousand pigs.
Your explanation:
The man was not demon-possessed. He was insane. He had many mental diseases.
He (not the diseases) asked that “we” be allowed to enter the pigs, instead of being sent somewhere else. It was a delusion on the part of the man.
Jesus spoke to “them” (the diseases?) and gave them permission.
Then he
a) healed the man of his insanities, and
b) made all the pigs insane.
This action caused the man and the on-lookers to BELIEVE that unclean spirits had been cast out of the man and allowed to enter pigs, even though nothing of the kind happened.
Frankly, I do not believe that Jesus would deliberately do something so bizarre, knowing that it would confirm people in a wrong belief.
So I accept the story as it is told.
Marg,
Yes, I am familiar with the story.
There were two very sick fellows, not just one. Only one spoke.
Yes, who spoke. That is the question. Was it a legion of supernatural demons or was it a mentally sick man, who believed believed he had a legion of spirits in him.
I suggest the later. Why didn’t Jesus just tell him he was mentally sick, and be done with it. Here is the question!!
You’ll also note, that the record seems to suggest that the demons were sent into the pigs ‘after’ the man had been healed.
If so, then why did the man ask that the spirits be sent into the pigs. Now this is quite facinating.
You’ll read in Josephus, and contemporary sources, that some of the Jews of the 1st Century practiced casting out of spirits. One method was to place a bowl of water at a short distance from the ‘possessed’ person, and when the spirit was cast out, the bowl would tip over This demonstated to all & especially the affected person, that the spirit was driven out.
It appears to me that the man was asking for evidence that he had been healed, and that the ‘spirits’ were not going to come back and haunt him again.
When it says that they had bound him in chains in the past, this was most probably a method of restraining him while they could drive out the the spirits.
Anyway, why were their ‘pigs’ in the land. They were unclean & forbidden under the Jewish dietry law.
Thus in one action, Jesus shows to the man that the legion of ‘unclean spirits’ that had afflicted him in the past were gone forever, and secondly, the animals kept contrary to the law were removed.
And afterwards, the man was seen ‘in his right mind’.
That is how I read the record.
I will be off line for a few days, while travelling. I’m sure others could expand on this just as well as me.
Your explanation is interesting, Disciple, and you make some valid points. Let’s update the record as you understand it:
Two men believed they were demon-possessed. But they were not. They were insane. The “unclean spirits” were just the mental diseases that afflicted them.
When Jesus commanded those unclean spirits to come out of the men, one man asked that “we” be allowed to enter the pigs instead of being sent away.
[The pronouns tell me that they weren't healed yet. Why would "we" (two healed men) want to be sent into pigs?]
Jesus gave them (the men? the diseases?) permission. He then
a) healed the men and
b) made all the pigs insane.
He could have healed them with a word, as he did natural ailments. But he did something that was deliberately calculated to reinforce everybody’s belief that supernatural demons had been cast out of them and allowed to enter the pigs.
That needs to be emphasized. What he was endorsing was not a belief in natural phenomena. It was a belief in supernatural spirits.
I agree with you that:
That’s why I believe his action was based on the truth – not on pagan beliefs. The men actually DID have supernatural spirits cast out of them, and the spirits were then allowed to enter a herd of pigs, instead of being sent away.
In other words, the story makes sense, just as it is written. It doesn’t make sense if you try to make it mean what it doesn’t say.
Marg,
RE: The man with the Legion of Demons
I will now expand on my earlier comments, and apologise in advance for writing so much.
I’m sure we all agree that it is important to review all 3 gospel accounts (Matt.8:28-32, Mark.5:-15 & Luke.8:27-35) to gain the total picture. This is how I see the story.
Two well known, insane, unpredictable & exceedingly fierce men met Jesus. They lived in the tombs, and no man went near them for fear of them. These men were commonly believed, and believed it themselves, to be possessed by ‘supernatural’ demons/spirits.
One of these men (the spokesman) may have suffered from multiple personalities, which made him both violent & unpredictable, inasmuch as he howled & cut himself.
In the past, people had tried to tame him, binding him with fetters to both restrain & torment him. Chaining, tormenting & punishing such people was a method employed to drive out evil spirits.
When they met Jesus & his retinue, they ran toward him. The spokesman is singled out in the record, as he appears to have led the other fellow in words & actions. As they came close with the apparent threat of violence, Jesus commanded the ‘unclean spirit’ to come out of the man. Note that Jesus uses the singular, for it really was only one illness/spirit that afflicted him. This caused him to stop in his tracks, & the man was healed of his unclean spirit.
Jesus work & reputation was well known throughout the land, particularly his power to heal those with ‘unclean spirits/demons’. His claim to be the Son of God was also well known.
The man, now healed of the unclean spirit then asks Jesus, what have I to do with you, Jesus, Son of the most high. Are you also come to torment me/us too.
His knowledge of Jesus was sketchy & the effect of the healing was that he was now able to think and act rationally. However, he was still without experience of rationality and the new opportunity the healing provided, and he was still ignorant of much of the truth.
Jesus then asks him his name. He says Legion, for we are many (for he believed many demons/spirits, possessed him).
The man now speaking for all the spirits in him, and who had a long experience with them, then asks Jesus that these ‘demons/spirits’ be not sent into a far country, or away into the deep where the man could not be assured of their departure. But rather send them into the pigs nearby to evidence their total removal & non-return.
We must remember that the man actually believed he was possessed by supernatural demons/spirits, and spoke on their behalf. Although he had been healed, he still needed education & assurance.
Afterwards, the man was found clothed & in his right mind at Jesus feet, no doubt being taught the things of God more perfectly. Later, he was sent back as a witness to his family & friends.
I don’t believe Jesus is either endorsing or not endorsing a view on the existence of ‘supernatural’ demons/spirits here or elsewhere. The record in the gospels often records events as they appeared without comment on whether the common perception was correct or not. You will see the same when it speaks of ‘lunatics’, or of the record of healing the lame man at the pool of Siloam, where the scripture records the common belief without comment (John.5:4).
As I have said before, the interpretation of much of what is written depends upon where you place your foundations. I believe demons/spirits existed, and exist today. I just don’t see the scripture teaching that they are supernatural agents.
Marg,
Now a few questions for you to ponder, if you believe the legion who spoke was actually a supernatural agent.
How many demons were there, was it really 5,000-6,000 as a legion numbered, or 2,000 being the number of pigs?
Why didn’t the demons want to be sent into a far country, or into the deep.
Why did the demons want to be sent into the pigs.
I suggest that when Jesus asked the ‘man’ his name, and the man said his name was legion. It was the man who spoke here and all along, with all the history of his fears, doubts and ignorance.
Marg,
Forgive me for saying, but your answer in post #459 of the question I posed in #458 makes sense.
I asked if God was endorsing a belief in the Egyptian and Canaanite gods when He spoke and acted as if they existed.
Your answer was essentially this: “I, Marg, do not believe in the existence of those gods. I believe they were simply idols. Therefore God was not endorsing a belief in them.”
The problem is that you are only talking from your own current point of view.
The Egyptians and Canaanites (and lots of Israelites at times!) actually did believe that the gods existed as supernatural beings. They did not know they were only idols.
In fact until just a few days ago, even you were still questioning whether those gods existed!
Therefore when God spoke and acted as if those gods existed and people who believed those gods existed heard Him, you could level the same accusation at God that you level at Jesus when you say that they were both endorsing belief in something that did not exist.
I don’t believe that is the case though – I believe Fortigurn and Disciple have presented excellent cases to show that demons did not exist and to explain why such language was used.
My own view of the Gadarene incident is that it is a healing miracle similar in nature to the healing of the blind man in Mark 8:22-25.
You say that, “He could have healed them with a word, as he did natural ailments.” But sometimes even natural ailments required an extra step in the healing process.
In Mark 8 Jesus gives the blind man his sight back but the man complains that he can only see, “men as trees, walking”. Jesus then performs another miracle and the man can see “clearly”.
It appears the blind man was probably blind from birth and therefore while the first miracle returned his sight, having never seen he could not understand what he was seeing. The second miracle then gives him the perception to understand what he is seeing.
Personally I believe the reason the “demons” were cast into the herd of pigs was either to a.) Provide a strong mental confirmation in the sick mens minds that they were healed or b.) Confirm to the local people that the men were healed so that the men could be accepted fully back into society.
I see the two different incidents as similar because they could not be solved in one step. The blind man required his sight, and the mental capacity to understand what he saw. The Gadarene men required this extra step for the healing miracle to be complete – for them to be fully healed and restoed to society. It makes demons no more real than the OT gods.
P.S. You never got round to answering: Did Luke think the woman in Acts 16 had a spirit of python?
Oops – first line of post #474 should read “makes no sense”!!
Abel,
Thanks for the points you make.
I was going to reference Mark 8 later but I ran out of space, having already written too much. I fully agree with how you explain it.
What I personally found interesting many years ago, when I abandoned the view that supernatural devil/demons/spirits/agents exist, is how many scriptures now took on a totally different level of understanding.
To my view, it’s as if certain things are hidden behind doors and can only be seen when the door of understanding is opened.
But I do understand the struggle that many folks have on this issue, as it is contrary to everything that the majority hold & have always held.
I do not have time just now to read all the posts with care. However, Abel is still misquoting what I said about the gods of the Old Testament. So let me try just once more.
I DO believe in the existence of those gods. The idols WERE the gods. The gods had to be carried; the gods could be burned. Things that don’t exist don’t burn.
The gods were not like your imaginary banana. They were man-made idols. That’s why they could be burned. Read the Old Testament and see for yourself.
Dagon was not imaginary either. The Philistines knew that the head and the hands of their god had been broken off. They could see it.
For that reason, I do NOT believe God was talking about things that do not exist.
Nor do I believe that Jesus made pigs insane in order to fool people into thinking he was casting out demons.
Nevertheless, I will read all the posts carefully tomorrow, and see if there is anything that I can learn from them.
Marg,
Could we clear this up once & for all.
I’ve noticed for a while now, but haven’t commented, that in my opinion your defiinition for the ‘gods’ in the OT does not fully explain the situation, although it is correct in one sense.
The ‘gods’ were certainly idols, made by men. However, in the eyes of those who bowed down before them, they represented powers in heaven.
It was these supposed ‘gods’ in heaven that Elijah mocked on Mount Carmel, who are mocked in Isaiah.46:1-2 (Bel & Nebo), or Jesus’ enemies referred to in Matt.12:24 (Beelzebub).
The point made in the prophets by God is that there is no other / are no other ‘gods’ or powers beside him. All that existed of the ‘gods’ was the man made idol. There was no other power beyond the idol.
This is the point of 1.Cor.8:4-6
“….we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.
For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there are gods many, and lords many,)
But to us there is but one God, the Father…”
When we say that the ‘gods’ did not exist, we are referring to the supposed supernatural existance of the gods. No one denies that god=idols existed, as long as we agree that they too were ‘nothing’, but the works of mens hands. We assume you agree with this.
Now extending the point in Paul’s exposition, we note that he bases his reasoning upon the OT, when we read of his warning against fellowshipping with idol worshippers, their idols or gods.
1.Cor.10:19-21
“What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?
But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with demons.
Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of demons: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of demons:”
From this we see that the idols/gods of the nations are called demons. This is the same useage we saw of the word in the book of Acts.
Here is the important question.
Do the demons mentioned here refer to actual or imagined ‘supernatural’ beings. We suggest that the testimony is clear, that the demons referred to are imagined ‘supernatural’ beings, and not real.
If demons are real ‘supernatural’ beings, then they are supernatural ‘gods’, as Paul is using the words synonymously (demons=gods=idols). However, this conclusion would undermine the basis of Paul’s arguement, and all that God in the OT laboured to explain.
I believe that this is the key to the scriptural useage of the word demon?
I have now read Abel’s expanded version of “The man with the Legion of Demons”.
The introduction is clear enough. After that, fiction takes over. And although it’s a great story, it leaves the problem untouched. It does not explain why the Messiah would do something so bizarre as to make a herd of pigs insane, without giving even a hint as to why he did it.
The reason you give is that the man, though already healed of his insanity, continued to feel insane:
I’ve been trying to imagine what this teaching would sound like. How would Jesus explain that he couldn’t heal the man of all his insanities without tricking him?
There is certainly nothing in the text – here or anywhere else – to indicate that the man ever understood anything other than what the Bible records.
I don’t care for doctrines that ADD things to the Word of God. (That’s why I don’t like the doctrine of Tri-unity, either.)
However, one thing, at least, has been settled. Whether or not a person believes in the existence of demons has nothing whatever to do with his salvation.
I am leaving this morning for a week’s holiday, but I will keep reading what’s written.
Marg,
You say that I explained the episode of Jesus casting the demons into the pigs, “without giving even a hint as to why he did it.”
I didn’t just give a hint, I explained explicitly why I thought that happened.
Many people on this thread have done the same repeatedly.
I don’t care for doctrines that add to the word of God, which is why I don’t believe in demons.
If I can be of further help let me know, but I think we have got to a point where we are going round in circles covering the same ground again and again.
P.S. You still haven’t answered the question I first posed in post #368 and then repeated in posts #451, #458 and #474 – did Luke believe the woman in Acts 16 was possessed by a spirit of Python?
Contrary to popular opinion, there are no OT, NT or Jesus based teachings or expositions on ‘demons’.
What we have in the gospel accounts is a record of the healing events performed by Jesus. These relate details on the nature & type of illnesses that existed in the first century.
They are broken into 4 main categories in Matt.4:24. The gospel records show how Jesus healed people affected by each of these types of afflictions.
No matter how honestly we might think we read the events recorded, everyone interprets the events based upon some criteria.
I think we all agree that complete scriptural foundations are the preferable way to go, when interpreting events.
In my opinion, so far, no scriptural foundations to support the pro ‘supernatural demons’ case have been advanced.
I can’t agree that the explainations offered by the ‘non-supernatural demon’ group ‘add’ things to the word of God. Rather, I believe that they are an attemp to align the events with principles clearly taught in both the OT & NT.
Anyway, this is the last comment I will make in this series. I thank you all, and hope that God will assist each of us grow our understanding of his revealed will. (Rom.12:2)
One small correction, Abel. You misread the criticism of your story. It fails because
That is the point. The Messiah’s action would confirm everyone’s belief that supernatural demons were cast out of the men. The Messiah (who knew the Old Testament better than we do) gave no hint that the belief was wrong. Therefore, I can only conclude that it was NOT wrong.
That makes it unnecessary to explain away all the other passages which refer to demons. So I can accept James 2:19, just as it is written. It doesn’t refer to madmen who CAN believe and tremble, but to demons that DO believe and tremble.
To be honest, I am happy to leave the subject of demons. Nevertheless, I’m glad that the conversation did reach one worthwhile goal. It has been established that belief in the existence of supernatural spirits has nothing to do with whether or not a person is a Christian.
And now, I want to say “Amen” to Disciple’s last sentence: “
Marg,
To be honest, I don’t think your conclusion has been established at all. To be called a Christian has really little to do with it.
To believe in supernatural demons or not will have a huge impact on how you read the rest of scripture, on how you live, treat medical issues, interpret revelation, understand temptation & sin, and many other things.
This is hardly a small issue.
The point I did not make clear earlier was that early believers were accepted & baptized and probably included those who believed in supernatural demons. Much education was added later, as disciples grew from children to maturity in the faith.
Much as the Israelites were ‘saved’ from Egypt at the Red Sea, but needed education in the things of God, so also ‘christians’ of the first century.
I’m not sure I follow your line of thought, Disciple. I’ve been trying to understand what you mean by
The easiest item to deal with is how I treat medical issues – small and large.
If I have a cold, I have two objectives:
1) Avoid spreading it to others, if possible.
2) Give my immune system a chance to do its job.
I am grateful to have been free of serious illness all my life (I’m 81); but if I have a medical problem I can’t handle, I go to a doctor.
Is that different from the way you treat medical issues?
Jesus did not confuse demon-possession with sickness, so why should I?
The point remains: Jesus, the Messiah, gave his followers every reason to believe in the existence of supernatural spirits. Therefore, I believe such spirits exist.
But that belief has no impact (that I am aware of) on the way I live, nor on my understanding of sin, nor on any of the other things you mentioned.
Marg,
I’m sure if you really tried you could understand what I am saying.
Previously in this discussion, we have indentified that most (all) of those occassions where ‘demon’ possession is mentioned, it is related to either; mental illness, or illnesses associated with blockages of the senses (deaf & dumb etc).
As we have said before, this is in accord with the common understanding of these issues in the 1st century, which came from a Greek & pagan heritage, not from the OT scriptures.
Today, there is no such common or medical identification as ‘demon’ possession in society. It only exists among superstitious folk, of many belief systems. Modern medical practice deals with illness as either of a physical or mental origin, never ‘demon’ origin.
What does a believer do when confronted with illnesses today, that were commonly attributed to ‘demon’ possession in the first century, or in the NT.
Many well meaning folks, often in their ignorance, have turned their backs on modern medicine and chosen a course involving casting out demons as the solution. Sometimes with tragic consequences.
In my opinion, their supposed choise of ‘faith’ is the product of ignorance & superstition rather than real scriptural knowledge. There are many variants on this, but I will not elaborate at the moment.
On another issue, when we come to sections of Revelation, a book specifically written to the ‘servants’ of Jesus Christ, if one believes in supernatural demons, then in my opinion one has no chance of properly understanding whole slabs of the book/prophecy, and therefore receiving the blessing it promises. This I believe is the reason why most people are almost completely in the dark on the Apocalypse.
This same thing goes for many other sections of scripture. Even the subject of temptation and sin, which will critically affect how we understand the efficaciousness of the atoning work of Jesus Christ, is affected by how we understand the topics of ‘devil, satan & demons’.
For example, what does Heb.2:14 really mean & how was Jesus related to sin. What does ‘sin’ mean in 2.Cor.5:21 & Rom 7.
Also, how we read of temptation & sin in Genesis 3 will also be affected, and therefore everything else that springs from it. Foundational principles on this subject.
Belief or otherwise in the existance of supernatural ‘demons’ is really only the side issue here.
Are doctrines to be determined on the basis of what “many well-meaning folks, often in their ignorance” may do? Surely not.
I believe that supernatural spirits exist because the words and actions of Jesus compel me to believe it.
What’s more, I can see NO scriptural evidence which would contradict that conclusion.
Certainly, healing of diseases USUALLY comes through the natural means that God has given to our physical bodies for fighting such diseases. And modern medicine can help those natural defenses in that healing work.
But that does not rule out the possibility of supernatural healing, rare though it should be.
Jesus healed diseases supernaturally. He ALSO cast out evil spirits by the authority given to him. So did his disciples. They had no difficulty discerning the difference, and neither did the inspired writers – no matter how confused ignorant people may be.
Sorry Marg, once again you pick & choose what you respond to & ignore the context.
There is not much I can help you with, until you are able to perceive the scriptural method of establishing foundations. (see earlier posts)
Having foundations that are a mixture of truth & error is not a safe place to be. The serpent was the father of this form of thinking (Gen.3:4-5), and Jesus speaks of his contemporaries in the same light (see John.8).
To his contemporaries, Jesus said “Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannnot hear my word.” John.8:43.
So rare is ‘demon’ possession & it’s resultant influence today that it is only witnessed by the very superstitious or the very ignorant.
In NT times, ‘demon’ possessed folks were everywhere it seems, and yet we find Jesus healing no mentally ill folks.
The answer is very plain. The ‘Demons’ in the NT record are not supernatural manifestations, but natural manifestations, as the OT foundations establish. Today we call it mental illness and treat it accordingly.
I think you made a very good comment a few posts ago, Disciple, and I will once again say “Amen” to it:
Marg, I want to thank you for your patience and persistence with this discussion. I know it’s been difficult for both sides, at times.
God bless.
After 8 months from the last message, I found this post and spent about 40 hours in a marathon study of the whole thread, with my bible translations open.
Firstly, I have some comments to make, concerning most of the participants, based not on their opinions, but on the quality of their participation, of course related not to the subject of trinity, but to the subject of demons:
- Marg, on her 81, is an example of being both true herself and a seeker of truth, more than anyone in this list. After she was left the only believer of the existence of evil super-natural beings, she gradually got tired, and naturally fell in contradicting conclusions and repetitions, failing to pose a serious “defense” to the combined “attacks” of the rest, still she gets the title of the overall best participant.
- Fortigurn has access to and knowledge of bible related resources at a level the rest in this list should envy, but was totally unable to escape from an unfruitful debate and proceed to a productive discussion or at least communicable teaching, above all having close to zero sense of the concept of respect, treating everyone like a false argument, instead of human, being by far the worst performer and almost a time-waster, having some excuses for that behavior, still badly needing help from an elder. I want to think that, if they ever meet in person, Fortigurn will love Marg on first sight. Until this ever happens, love will remain just a lexicon entry.
- Cherylu was like an emerging Marg, but lost quickly her patience with Fortigurn, thus failing to offer anything.
- Dave Burke was the one who could hopefully bring Fortigurn back to dignity, but instead he got drift himself, fortunately not much. Some credit for considering Marg sincere.
- Jaco has the best knowledge of how an argument can get logically tested and it would be interesting if he had applied his skills, but he had not much more than that, not knowing how to apply them to Fortigurn’s far-from-normalized arguments. Probably lack of experience on Jaco’s part.
- Robert was the worst performer from Marg’s “camp”, but Fortigurn gets the shameful first prize overall. They both need a seminar on constructive interaction with differently minded persons. In Fortigurn’s case, this is relevant only after visiting the elder.
- Helez was like an emerging Robert, but wise enough to stop before causing more harm.
- Jame Dunkt was like Helez from Fortigurn’s side, but with credit for being the only one from that “camp” to publicly rebuke Fortigurn’s misbehavior.
- Andrew was the best performer from Fortigurn’s side, with extra credit for achieving this in his age. If he focus on truth more than football, his future is bright.
- Andrewneileen was like a shadow of Andrew, similar shape, but different all the rest.
- Abel was the most difficult to rate. A rare combination of bad attitude with really constructive messages, some of the best in the whole thread. So he has to visit the elder too, but he doesn’t need the essential seminar afterwards. He is almost like a living seminar, but his negative attitude broadly spoiled his positive contribution.
- Disciple tried to play the teacher, inadequate for that role, still managed a decent level of participation.
- Matt was an improved version of Disciple, although not enough to make a difference. He gets credit for properly addressing disfellowship.
That’s all for now. If anyone reads this, I may consider writing on the subject too. Thanks Dale for hosting all that.
I’m not sure why I’m considered responsible for moderating Fortigurn’s behaviour, but thanks anyway. If you visit the Kingdom Ready blog, you’ll see that Marg and I have enjoyed some lengthy and very positive exchanges in the past.
Dave, I’ve been aware of your interaction with Marg, as I came here after reading the respective thread in your blog, so I was expecting better from you. There is enough info online to prove that you have an impact on Fortigurn and you could at least try moderating his misbehaviour, if you wanted. You are the administrator of BTDF, where Fortigurn is a moderator of problematic (-1) reputation. But if you consider each other a brother, that alone should be enough for taking action, like it was enough for Jame Dunkt.
Joss,
I don’t have a blog, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
There’s also enough info online to prove that I do this occasionally, but I’m not his nanny and I believe people need to take responsibility for themselves.
Would you like to make a contribution to this thread, or did you only stop by to pass judgement on everyone?
Dave,
Thanks for pointing out my mistake considering the blog. The very inaccurate short possessive “your blog” should instead be the longer periphrastic “the blog you mentioned”. My bad. I apologize to the possessors of the Kingdom Ready blog too.
I would also like to clear up that you are not responsible for Fortigurn’s actions and your relationship with him is not that of a nanny. You and everyone are responsible only for their own actions, including their reactions, as well as the lack of them. If you have already tried to help Fortigurn and he failed to grow up, you should at least degrade him from any sensitive position, like that of moderator. Other measures would probably be more effective, but I don’t have the whole picture to get more specific, nor I intend to get more involved.
Ultimately, I didn’t come here to judge, but primarily to read (40 hours of reading just to judge would be unthinkable) and secondarily to contribute. My comments on the quality of the participation are exactly towards the latter, as I’m gonna explain right away (and thank you for asking me).
The thing is that, if I make a contribution and Fortigurn or anyone else reacts by systematically disrespecting me for any reason (even if I’m totally wrong and he’s totally right) and the moderator of the thread doesn’t remove his messages (let’s say because of lack of time), I expect you and the rest of the participants not to continue writing before publicly separating yourselves from the insulter’s stance, in order to isolate him (and, by doing so, to encourage me not to leave). You (and many others) didn’t do that in this thread and consequently most of the participants left (they are not expected to know what you have done in the past, no matter of the online available info). Nobody participates to have others disrespecting him and in this thread I had to stress that right from the beginning, thus the special nature of my first message (for the most part).
So, considering my contribution, are you interested in standing up (if needed) for my human right of respect (as I’m gonna do for yours) or did you only get back to defend yourself?