Demonic activity

[Manwë Súlimo]

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. Could you rephrase the question, please?

That feeling you felt - do you think it was because you picked up on some evil auora, or do you think it was just a natural reaction towards a place with bad things happening inside of it?

[Chaotic Void]

That feeling you felt - do you think it was because you picked up on some evil auora, or do you think it was just a natural reaction towards a place with bad things happening inside of it?

To be honest, I'm not really sure. It's my first time ever experiencing that sensation, and I'm sincerely hoping that was the only time I ever will. Though, if I had to say, it'd be a little bit of column A and a little bit of column B.

[franktalk]

Trouble is, ALL of your arguments/explainations can be either proven or disproven by logic, science, and reason. Too many people attribute "demons" to EVERY bad thing that happens to them or ever poor choice they make, or every failure of their own humanity.

The bible speaks a lot about demons, but science has yet to encounter on in the real world. Now if they are spirtual in nature, then they have no influence in the real world, they are not real. I'd just LOVE for once to have a demon captured and proven, instead of like a god, having to take them on faith. It just doesn't make sense.

This universe is a subset of a much bigger and more detailed creation. Our senses are made to observe what they were designed to do. To observe the spirit world requires a gift from God which few have. So you are right science has not verified the spirits. And of course they never will. God wants us to come to Him by faith. How can one do this if they are surrounded by evidence.

You have a lot of faith, it is faith in what you see and touch. It is faith in this world. Many feel as you do. In fact people of the world are so numerous that they have to take the wide road to their own end. You are in the company of many who share your views.

[ChemMJW]

Franktalk, I wanted to respond last Friday when you posted your first reply, but I had to catch a plane out of town for the weekend and am only just back home with access to the Internet. So, here goes.

You have experienced hundreds of interactions with demonic spirits. You just don't know how to see them. And by see them I don't mean see a manifestation. And I am sure that in your thinking process your have arguments with yourself sometimes. And occasionally some odd thought enters your head or you have a moment of clarity beyond normal. We all have these and chalk them up to our own mind, and of course sometimes that is true. Only when someone cleans house will you then realize just how crowded your mind was.

All in all, I found the above paragraph to be ludicrous nearly beyond belief. You believe that I, a normal average guy, have had "hundreds of interactions with demonic spirits"? Really? Really? If I understand you correctly, you're literally claiming that every errant or peculiar thought I have, whether negative or positive, is the result of the direct influence on my brain of a supernatural being such as a demon or angel or maybe even God himself? Did I interpret your statements correctly? If so, I am stunned. You have literally bypassed the first few hundred million possible explanations for them and jumped straight to possibly the most convoluted and roundabout explanation for anything that ever happens to a human being.

I've come up with the following situations, and I would honestly like to get your input on them so I can try to get a feel for the scope of your thinking.

1. (Mundane) I am debating (internally or with myself) whether to have grape jelly or strawberry jelly on my peanut butter sandwich for lunch. All of a sudden, it hits me like a bolt of lightning - strawberry is definitely the way to go. My question - have I just experienced a possible supernatural intervention? If so, how am I to determine whether God is nudging me toward Heavenly Strawberries or if the Devil is trying to trick me into eating a Forbidden Fruit?

2. (Moderate) My children ask me how Santa Claus delivers all those presents at Christmas without being caught. A roaring internal debate springs forth. What do I do? Tell them that Santa Claus is just a modern evolution of regional geographic traditions such as Sankt Nikolaus in the German-speaking countries, and thus ruin their childlike innocence and wonder at the beauty of the Christmas season? Or should I give in to temptation and tell them a lie, knowing full well that telling lies is, in general, wrong? I go for the lie. After all, I can't bring myself to extinguish the merriment I see in my kids' eyes. I know that God likes truth-telling. Did the Devil or his minions influence my thoughts and make me choose the lie?

3. (Serious) A Husband and Wife are drunk and high. They get into an argument over petty matters, but the argument quickly escalates to physical violence. Without warning, the woman grabs a knife and stabs her husband repeatedly. Did the Devil make her do it? Or, conversely, as she's going for the knife, she suddenly realizes the gravity of the situation and gives up her wrath, thus avoiding the act of murdering her husband. Was it unambiguously God or one of his agents who nudged her thoughts back toward even-keel?

What I find so ridiculous (and a little bit repulsive) about your thinking is that you, in the logical limit, completely absolve people of any personal responsibility. If I choose to commit a sin, it must be because the Devil or a demon made me do it. After all, they're influencing my thoughts by the hundreds. Or, if I do something noble or good, it's because angels are whispering into my ears. The logical consequence of your view is that we are all little automatons mechanically walking about responding to hidden and unperceivable and irresistible stimuli that we receive from the spiritual realm.

The most susceptible person to demonic influence is the Christian who does not believe in spirits. You might as well say that God does not exist.

Meh. This is a value judgment and nothing more. You have taken your own understanding and opinion on these matters and projected it onto a class of people who hold to views directly opposite to yours.

I, for example, believe that the person most susceptible to demonic influence would be the person who actually welcomes or seeks out such influence, i.e., a person who has summarily and completely rejected God and all He stands for and is looking for ways in his own life to live out or reinforce that rejection. Seems to me that the forces of evil could get way more "accomplished" when working with someone who welcomes their input, so to say.

This universe is a subset of a much bigger and more detailed creation.

Agreed. I have no doubt that there certainly is a lot more out there than what we routinely perceive.

Our senses are made to observe what they were designed to do. To observe the spirit world requires a gift from God which few have.

May I ask whether you are one of these few?


And finally:

God wants us to come to Him by faith. How can one do this if they are surrounded by evidence.

Houston, we have a problem. Franktalk, honestly, this is the single most absolutely, thoroughly, completely, utterly beyond belief claim I have ever read on TheologyWeb. Period. In two short sentences, you have managed to contradict two thousand years of Christian tradition and experience. Just a few highlights:

1. We shouldn't rely on pesky evidence? How do you explain the visible signs God provided his people in the OT, visible manifestations of his power and presence? How do you interpret Jesus' public miracles in the NT? The answer is that faith is difficult and also generally weak. Our weak faith is nearly always strengthened when we get hold of something we can really "sink our teeth into," i.e some evidence that we can see/touch/hear/feel and so forth. Furthermore, why did Jesus bother coming at all? If faith were truly all that was needed, couldn't God just have sent us a Divine Memo outlining the reasons humanity fell explaining in theoretical terms God's idea of how to fix it, and then asking us all to just have faith that it was all going to work out according to The Plan? Jesus' physical coming is itself "evidence!"

2. By denying the role of the intellect and the role of reasoning in the human condition, you explicitly reject one of the greatest gifts we have, for what is the source of the intellect if not God? By saying that we should ignore any pesky evidence and just focus on faith, you are saying that God has given us a wonderful, powerful gift (our mental faculties) but would prefer that we really not use it for anything substantial. As if he had said "Hey, I'm making you guys smart and giving you reasoning abilities far beyond the rest of creation, but, really, don't bother applying them to me. Be sure to have faith that everything is as I've said, but don't bother trying to get to know me better by using the very tools that I myself gave you." Ridiculous.

3. You appear to be scared by the common but artificial dichotomy between faith and reason. Lots of people believe that, if they flex that mental muscle God gave us too much, they might just encounter something about their faith that can't be explained away on a moment's notice, and that would shake their faith. My contention is that they don't have much faith to begin with anyway. Certainty or conviction of belief (i.e., faith) is only illusory when it only exists because it hasn't been exposed to challenge. After all, it's easy to say that I believe in flying zebras, just as long as I remain indoors all my life and never trouble myself to explore the animal kingdom to examine just how reasonable this claim is. Faith and reason (the intellect) are not the mortal enemies, as I can only assume from your above statement, that you hold them to be. My contention is that, not only are they fast friends, but they indeed must be fast friends.

[Michigan PhD]

Franktalk, I wanted to respond last Friday when you posted your first reply, but I had to catch a plane out of town for the weekend and am only just back home with access to the Internet. So, here goes.



All in all, I found the above paragraph to be ludicrous nearly beyond belief. You believe that I, a normal average guy, have had "hundreds of interactions with demonic spirits"? Really? Really? If I understand you correctly, you're literally claiming that every errant or peculiar thought I have, whether negative or positive, is the result of the direct influence on my brain of a supernatural being such as a demon or angel or maybe even God himself? Did I interpret your statements correctly? If so, I am stunned. You have literally bypassed the first few hundred million possible explanations for them and jumped straight to possibly the most convoluted and roundabout explanation for anything that ever happens to a human being.

I've come up with the following situations, and I would honestly like to get your input on them so I can try to get a feel for the scope of your thinking.

1. (Mundane) I am debating (internally or with myself) whether to have grape jelly or strawberry jelly on my peanut butter sandwich for lunch. All of a sudden, it hits me like a bolt of lightning - strawberry is definitely the way to go. My question - have I just experienced a possible supernatural intervention? If so, how am I to determine whether God is nudging me toward Heavenly Strawberries or if the Devil is trying to trick me into eating a Forbidden Fruit?

2. (Moderate) My children ask me how Santa Claus delivers all those presents at Christmas without being caught. A roaring internal debate springs forth. What do I do? Tell them that Santa Claus is just a modern evolution of regional geographic traditions such as Sankt Nikolaus in the German-speaking countries, and thus ruin their childlike innocence and wonder at the beauty of the Christmas season? Or should I give in to temptation and tell them a lie, knowing full well that telling lies is, in general, wrong? I go for the lie. After all, I can't bring myself to extinguish the merriment I see in my kids' eyes. I know that God likes truth-telling. Did the Devil or his minions influence my thoughts and make me choose the lie?

3. (Serious) A Husband and Wife are drunk and high. They get into an argument over petty matters, but the argument quickly escalates to physical violence. Without warning, the woman grabs a knife and stabs her husband repeatedly. Did the Devil make her do it? Or, conversely, as she's going for the knife, she suddenly realizes the gravity of the situation and gives up her wrath, thus avoiding the act of murdering her husband. Was it unambiguously God or one of his agents who nudged her thoughts back toward even-keel?

What I find so ridiculous (and a little bit repulsive) about your thinking is that you, in the logical limit, completely absolve people of any personal responsibility. If I choose to commit a sin, it must be because the Devil or a demon made me do it. After all, they're influencing my thoughts by the hundreds. Or, if I do something noble or good, it's because angels are whispering into my ears. The logical consequence of your view is that we are all little automatons mechanically walking about responding to hidden and unperceivable and irresistible stimuli that we receive from the spiritual realm.



Meh. This is a value judgment and nothing more. You have taken your own understanding and opinion on these matters and projected it onto a class of people who hold to views directly opposite to yours.

I, for example, believe that the person most susceptible to demonic influence would be the person who actually welcomes or seeks out such influence, i.e., a person who has summarily and completely rejected God and all He stands for and is looking for ways in his own life to live out or reinforce that rejection. Seems to me that the forces of evil could get way more "accomplished" when working with someone who welcomes their input, so to say.



Agreed. I have no doubt that there certainly is a lot more out there than what we routinely perceive.



May I ask whether you are one of these few?


And finally:



Houston, we have a problem. Franktalk, honestly, this is the single most absolutely, thoroughly, completely, utterly beyond belief claim I have ever read on TheologyWeb. Period. In two short sentences, you have managed to contradict two thousand years of Christian tradition and experience. Just a few highlights:

1. We shouldn't rely on pesky evidence? How do you explain the visible signs God provided his people in the OT, visible manifestations of his power and presence? How do you interpret Jesus' public miracles in the NT? The answer is that faith is difficult and also generally weak. Our weak faith is nearly always strengthened when we get hold of something we can really "sink our teeth into," i.e some evidence that we can see/touch/hear/feel and so forth. Furthermore, why did Jesus bother coming at all? If faith were truly all that was needed, couldn't God just have sent us a Divine Memo outlining the reasons humanity fell explaining in theoretical terms God's idea of how to fix it, and then asking us all to just have faith that it was all going to work out according to The Plan? Jesus' physical coming is itself "evidence!"

2. By denying the role of the intellect and the role of reasoning in the human condition, you explicitly reject one of the greatest gifts we have, for what is the source of the intellect if not God? By saying that we should ignore any pesky evidence and just focus on faith, you are saying that God has given us a wonderful, powerful gift (our mental faculties) but would prefer that we really not use it for anything substantial. As if he had said "Hey, I'm making you guys smart and giving you reasoning abilities far beyond the rest of creation, but, really, don't bother applying them to me. Be sure to have faith that everything is as I've said, but don't bother trying to get to know me better by using the very tools that I myself gave you." Ridiculous.

3. You appear to be scared by the common but artificial dichotomy between faith and reason. Lots of people believe that, if they flex that mental muscle God gave us too much, they might just encounter something about their faith that can't be explained away on a moment's notice, and that would shake their faith. My contention is that they don't have much faith to begin with anyway. Certainty or conviction of belief (i.e., faith) is only illusory when it only exists because it hasn't been exposed to challenge. After all, it's easy to say that I believe in flying zebras, just as long as I remain indoors all my life and never trouble myself to explore the animal kingdom to examine just how reasonable this claim is. Faith and reason (the intellect) are not the mortal enemies, as I can only assume from your above statement, that you hold them to be. My contention is that, not only are they fast friends, but they indeed must be fast friends.

While our basic belief systems are apparently different, I want to say that your argument is by far the best I've EVER read from a Christian. I could easily see myself in a conversation with you over a nice coffee, without either of us secretly wanting to strangle the other. Thank you for your reasonable and easily followed response to a very unreasonable post.

You remind me of my best friend from grad school, whom I still speak with weekly, he is a theologian and I am certainly not, but we agree to disagree and have a unique friendship. We take turns reading books that the other selects then we debate them online. We are respectful and often humorous, but so far neither has been able to convince the other; though we both do occasionally get the other to make concessions on points.

Anyway, thank you again for the post, I enjoyed your argument and your reason was sound.

[Michigan PhD]

This universe is a subset of a much bigger and more detailed creation. Our senses are made to observe what they were designed to do. To observe the spirit world requires a gift from God which few have. So you are right science has not verified the spirits. And of course they never will. God wants us to come to Him by faith. How can one do this if they are surrounded by evidence.

Then perhaps you can explain why your god gave mankind the ability to seek the truth, to look for the evidences all around us, to advance our sciences? Your explaination is nothing more than an appologetics' cop-out. IF we can't explain it the defacto reason falls directly to magic.

You have a lot of faith, it is faith in what you see and touch. It is faith in this world. Many feel as you do. In fact people of the world are so numerous that they have to take the wide road to their own end. You are in the company of many who share your views.

You are right, I do have a LOT of faith, faith in reason, faith in science, faith in mankind, faith in REAL truth, and faith in the verifiable; what I do not have faith in is magic, myth, and being that do not exist. Beings like Santa, Faeries, Gnomes, gods of any kind, and so on.

[franktalk]

ChemMJW ,

Well it seems you have some passion in your response. That is a good start. The difference between me and you is world view which means very little will be accomplished here. In a nut shell you have a strong attachment to this world and little appreciation for a spirit world.

To start with I am a firm believer in free will. This comes from the spirit that is inside of us. I also believe that God has given each of us a measure of moral code. This comes from the Holy Ghost and is our moral rudder. But we can choose to ignore it. Next we live in a fallen world that is in a state of decay. On top of this our spirit can receive spiritual communication from other spirits that do not have our best interest at heart. We of course can ignore them, we can also order them to stay away by the power of Christ. In the fallen world there are many who do the work of Satan. Knowing and unknowing they do his work. So in this cess pool we are to find the light and hold on. There are many tools to help us along the way. But they work on faith. Faith is like a key which opens a door in which we can find many things. The biggest one is spiritual strength to endure any thing thrown our way.

I will be happy to discuss this in more detail on this thread. But now I must be off to work.

Frank

[franktalk]

Then perhaps you can explain why your god gave mankind the ability to seek the truth, to look for the evidences all around us, to advance our sciences? Your explaination is nothing more than an appologetics' cop-out. IF we can't explain it the defacto reason falls directly to magic.

I see it all different than you do. When you see cause and effect in the world you see truth. I see a rule for this universe that is not universal. I see the rules as just a thing like a rock. The matter and the rules to me are all part of the creation. It was made and all the rules with it. So when I seek truth I am looking beyond this world to find it. For me one of the truths is that there is a God. But none of this means anything to you. You think the universe is not magic. You think the universe is very mechanistic. To show me that I just don't get it maybe you can tell me why we observe entangled photons.

http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_entangled.asp

It is always interesting when we find an odd behavior in nature. Just how odd does nature have to get before you see the rules as set by an outside force. One that does not have the limits of the speed of light.

You are right, I do have a LOT of faith, faith in reason, faith in science, faith in mankind, faith in REAL truth, and faith in the verifiable; what I do not have faith in is magic, myth, and being that do not exist. Beings like Santa, Faeries, Gnomes, gods of any kind, and so on.

Thank you for defining your faith. I thought you would if I said you have faith. But what does your faith rest on? Does it rest on solid bedrock or does it stand in a murky swamp and vapor?

Let us see just how far your understanding goes and where the unknown takes over. We know the mass of an electron. Now tell me why it is that mass and not another? We know there is a quantum moment. Now tell me why the universe is like a film projector with timed frames? Science believes that the universe has certain quantities and processes that don't change. We refer to this as uniformitarianism. Now tell me of an observation before 1500 AD that verifies that assumption? Or is it faith that science rest on? But faith in what? Faith in the assumption?

I don't wish to pick on you. I am only trying to show that much of what we think we know is based on many assumptions. I for one don't like assumptions. When I tossed mine it was very easy for me to see the universe as knowledge and observation but not truth. My study of the anthropic principle led me to study the first cause. Then I talked to God. Something inside of me told me I just found my first truth.

[franktalk]

All in all, I found the above paragraph to be ludicrous nearly beyond belief. You believe that I, a normal average guy, have had "hundreds of interactions with demonic spirits"? Really? Really? If I understand you correctly, you're literally claiming that every errant or peculiar thought I have, whether negative or positive, is the result of the direct influence on my brain of a supernatural being such as a demon or angel or maybe even God himself? Did I interpret your statements correctly? If so, I am stunned. You have literally bypassed the first few hundred million possible explanations for them and jumped straight to possibly the most convoluted and roundabout explanation for anything that ever happens to a human being.

Actually I do believe that. I wonder what you believe in? Let us take a walk down Christian lane. Do you believe that you have a spirit? Do you believe that your spirit is different than your body? Do you believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God? Do you believe that Satan walks the earth? Read Job if unsure. Do you believe that people react to the message from Satan? In Job Satan gets groups of people to destroy Job's family and property. He also uses the weather. According to the Book of Revelation there are more than 200 million nonfallen angels. This means that if there are 1/3 fallen then there is at least 100 million fallen angels. They walk the earth as well. And what about the offspring of the fallen angels, the Nephilim?
I suspect there are several billion of them. Do you believe in the Words spoken by Jesus? Do you remember when Jesus came acrossed a crazed man. The crazed man was possessed by many demons who called themself legion. The man was possessed but do you think that possession is all they can do? Remember when Peter talked to Christ and Christ told him that he was speaking for the devil? Peter was not possessed. How do you think that Peter got the message from Satan? An email? And what about Job's wife who talked to her husband and just happened to say the very thing that Satan wanted Job to say. I could go on and on. The Bible is filled with references to the spirit. Evil and good spirits are every where in scripture. So now the big question is do you believe in what it says? Or do you believe your own eyes and not the message. Do you believe that because you have not seen therefore it is not now, maybe then but not now. Do you need to see to believe? Do you wish to stick your fingers in the wounds of Jesus like Thomas before you will believe? So if demons stay in that small voice and don't manifest does this mean they don't exist? Does this mean they don't affect us? If they are gone why are we told to wear our spiritual armor?

What I find so ridiculous (and a little bit repulsive) about your thinking is that you, in the logical limit, completely absolve people of any personal responsibility. If I choose to commit a sin, it must be because the Devil or a demon made me do it. After all, they're influencing my thoughts by the hundreds. Or, if I do something noble or good, it's because angels are whispering into my ears. The logical consequence of your view is that we are all little automatons mechanically walking about responding to hidden and unperceivable and irresistible stimuli that we receive from the spiritual realm.

Temptation comes in all flavors. It is still our choice to follow temptation from what ever source it comes from.

Meh. This is a value judgment and nothing more. You have taken your own understanding and opinion on these matters and projected it onto a class of people who hold to views directly opposite to yours.

I, for example, believe that the person most susceptible to demonic influence would be the person who actually welcomes or seeks out such influence, i.e., a person who has summarily and completely rejected God and all He stands for and is looking for ways in his own life to live out or reinforce that rejection. Seems to me that the forces of evil could get way more "accomplished" when working with someone who welcomes their input, so to say.

Actually the Christian is the more likely to be influenced. Those not saved are not of any interest to Satan. If the whole world falls then there is no one to call on the Messiah for His return. Satan is very motivated. The followers of Satan enjoy power on this world. They are trading a good time today for all of their tomorrows.

Houston, we have a problem. Franktalk, honestly, this is the single most absolutely, thoroughly, completely, utterly beyond belief claim I have ever read on TheologyWeb. Period. In two short sentences, you have managed to contradict two thousand years of Christian tradition and experience. Just a few highlights:

1. We shouldn't rely on pesky evidence? How do you explain the visible signs God provided his people in the OT, visible manifestations of his power and presence? How do you interpret Jesus' public miracles in the NT? The answer is that faith is difficult and also generally weak. Our weak faith is nearly always strengthened when we get hold of something we can really "sink our teeth into," i.e some evidence that we can see/touch/hear/feel and so forth. Furthermore, why did Jesus bother coming at all? If faith were truly all that was needed, couldn't God just have sent us a Divine Memo outlining the reasons humanity fell explaining in theoretical terms God's idea of how to fix it, and then asking us all to just have faith that it was all going to work out according to The Plan? Jesus' physical coming is itself "evidence!"

2. By denying the role of the intellect and the role of reasoning in the human condition, you explicitly reject one of the greatest gifts we have, for what is the source of the intellect if not God? By saying that we should ignore any pesky evidence and just focus on faith, you are saying that God has given us a wonderful, powerful gift (our mental faculties) but would prefer that we really not use it for anything substantial. As if he had said "Hey, I'm making you guys smart and giving you reasoning abilities far beyond the rest of creation, but, really, don't bother applying them to me. Be sure to have faith that everything is as I've said, but don't bother trying to get to know me better by using the very tools that I myself gave you." Ridiculous.

3. You appear to be scared by the common but artificial dichotomy between faith and reason. Lots of people believe that, if they flex that mental muscle God gave us too much, they might just encounter something about their faith that can't be explained away on a moment's notice, and that would shake their faith. My contention is that they don't have much faith to begin with anyway. Certainty or conviction of belief (i.e., faith) is only illusory when it only exists because it hasn't been exposed to challenge. After all, it's easy to say that I believe in flying zebras, just as long as I remain indoors all my life and never trouble myself to explore the animal kingdom to examine just how reasonable this claim is. Faith and reason (the intellect) are not the mortal enemies, as I can only assume from your above statement, that you hold them to be. My contention is that, not only are they fast friends, but they indeed must be fast friends.

There are several billion people on this earth. Can you tell me of one person who has seen Christ? I suspect you believe Christ lives. Then why has no one seen Him? Now in the past before the church period just how many people saw God? Some saw fire, some heard a voice, some saw the action of miracles. So how many today have seen an obvious miracle? The parting of a sea, etc. I would say none. So we are left with the witness of scripture. And of course the Holy Ghost which we can't touch or see. So please tell me all about this evidence you think you have. A picture of Christ, a footprint, a cross that He died on, something. Let me touch or see your evidence. Yet you feel as though you have evidence. Just where do you think that feeling comes from?

I do not reject reason. I just don't allow it to rule me. If ones reason is based on what we see and can touch then we have gone the way of the world. There is so much more than the eye can see or the hand can touch. Don't get caught in a trap of the natural world. I enjoy the creation but I know I am just passing through. My home is elsewhere.

[jo7241974]

franktalk;3074886]This universe is a subset of a much bigger and more detailed creation. Our senses are made to observe what they were designed to do. To observe the spirit world requires a gift from God which few have. So you are right science has not verified the spirits. And of course they never will. God wants us to come to Him by faith. How can one do this if they are surrounded by evidence.

It sounds like you are speaking about the gift of the Holy Spirit. Perhaps more importantly, Jesus taught us that it is the Holy Spirit who will lead us to ALL Truth. Jesus told His own Apostles (some of them had witnessed His Transfiguration!!!) that He (Jesus) had NOT taught them everything. IOW, even when the Heavens opened at His Transfiguration, those who witnessed this event and heard Father's voice, still did not know all there was to know! As taught by Paul, He can only be discerned spiritually. Paul further teaches us that it is only through the Holy Spirit that we "know" Jesus is the Christ. Yet even this "knowing" is via something spiritual, and NOT something physical. Is the "existence" of God revealed through His Creation? Only if we believe in God. Those who do not believe in God see the Creation differently - they see no evidence of God there.

Whereas I think it is awesome that through the Creation, whether man believes in God or not, man has used his own intelligence to advance man's knowledge about his physical world, yet the spiritual world of God and His Kingdom, is still only discerned spiritually.

You have a lot of faith, it is faith in what you see and touch. It is faith in this world. Many feel as you do. In fact people of the world are so numerous that they have to take the wide road to their own end. You are in the company of many who share your views.

I agree.

Now, as for the OP, I think there is a good amount of healthy fear about satanic forces. As a result, there is not a whole lot of discussion that reaches into great depth; most is superficial. To address many of the comments made so far on this thread, there is something I have NOT seen. I believe that it is quite possible that those who pose a threat to satan himself are the very ones whom satan will try hardest to defeat. Whether this is through spiritual means only, or through the manifestation of "demonic" activity, or both, I cannot say because I simply don't know. Inasmuch as it is satan's desire to thwart God's Plan of Salvation, I think that those who can be the strongest assets for Jesus' cause, are likely to be victims of satan's efforts. I think these efforts can either be done directly by him and his own angels toward that person, or he/they will use their influence over others to achieve his/their efforts against the person he perceives as a threat. In this way, man may not be as aware that satanic or demonic activity is afoot.

When Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, they were then able to discern the difference between "good" and "evil". These are as opposing in concept as they can be in our reality - whether the "reality" we refer to is our physically being, or our spiritual being, or both.

I have every reason to believe that there are as many, if not more, good angels than there are bad angels who are able to watch over and/or influence us. Jesus' example of being tempted by satan teaches us that satan exists. His examples taught us that satan and demons OBEY Jesus whenever He gave them a direct command. Likewise, the Apostles used the authority and power of God to rid people of demons and they obeyed. Yet I do not see anywhere in the Bible where satan or demons were destroyed into non-existence; therefore, I believe they are still around. It won't be until the Millennium when satan will be bound in chains for 1000 years. At that point his final judgment, and our's too, will be meted and carried out.

God bless,

jo

[Michigan PhD]

I see it all different than you do. When you see cause and effect in the world you see truth. I see a rule for this universe that is not universal. I see the rules as just a thing like a rock. The matter and the rules to me are all part of the creation. It was made and all the rules with it. So when I seek truth I am looking beyond this world to find it. For me one of the truths is that there is a God. But none of this means anything to you. You think the universe is not magic. You think the universe is very mechanistic. To show me that I just don't get it maybe you can tell me why we observe entangled photons.

http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_entangled.asp

It is always interesting when we find an odd behavior in nature. Just how odd does nature have to get before you see the rules as set by an outside force. One that does not have the limits of the speed of light.



Thank you for defining your faith. I thought you would if I said you have faith. But what does your faith rest on? Does it rest on solid bedrock or does it stand in a murky swamp and vapor?

Let us see just how far your understanding goes and where the unknown takes over. We know the mass of an electron. Now tell me why it is that mass and not another? We know there is a quantum moment. Now tell me why the universe is like a film projector with timed frames? Science believes that the universe has certain quantities and processes that don't change. We refer to this as uniformitarianism. Now tell me of an observation before 1500 AD that verifies that assumption? Or is it faith that science rest on? But faith in what? Faith in the assumption?

I don't wish to pick on you. I am only trying to show that much of what we think we know is based on many assumptions. I for one don't like assumptions. When I tossed mine it was very easy for me to see the universe as knowledge and observation but not truth. My study of the anthropic principle led me to study the first cause. Then I talked to God. Something inside of me told me I just found my first truth.

You are not picking on me, I simply don't believe as you do. Your entire belief system is based on a belief in god, without that you have NOTHING. As for me without god, I have everything, because my reality does not depend on a magic man who controls everything.

Your life is based on faith, nothing more, and you can go on and on with apologetics, but the truth is your ENTIRE argument falls apart without god. I typically don't debate with men of such dogma, mainly because nothing I can say will dent your god armor or get through to you on an intellectual level, without god's interference. So, I wish you well, and hope you find what you seek, I have found mine, and the world I live in is peaceful and without fear, without the influence of a deity who has proven to be unreliable to his followers. My faith if you want to call it that, is based on what I know, what I understand, and I'll be quite happy to let the chips fall where they may. Peace.

[franktalk]

You are not picking on me, I simply don't believe as you do. Your entire belief system is based on a belief in god, without that you have NOTHING. As for me without god, I have everything, because my reality does not depend on a magic man who controls everything.

Your life is based on faith, nothing more, and you can go on and on with apologetics, but the truth is your ENTIRE argument falls apart without god. I typically don't debate with men of such dogma, mainly because nothing I can say will dent your god armor or get through to you on an intellectual level, without god's interference. So, I wish you well, and hope you find what you seek, I have found mine, and the world I live in is peaceful and without fear, without the influence of a deity who has proven to be unreliable to his followers. My faith if you want to call it that, is based on what I know, what I understand, and I'll be quite happy to let the chips fall where they may. Peace.

Your assessment of my world view is correct. But your assessment of my ability to discuss the world in scientific terms is completely wrong. Where you may talk about one conclusion after another in science I will talk about one assumption after another. We would share the raw data and direct observation but would differ on the meaning of that data. I am not blind to the world around me I actually see it in better light than most atheist. Where apparently you accept currently held assumptions in science I do not. I don't see where you and I could have a meaningful discussion about God but the natural world is a different matter. You seem to be attached to the touch and feel of things around you. That is fine many people are. But you and I have taken on faith completely different views of how it all happened. And like most people in science you feel that the pile of assumptions that science makes is somehow different than the assumptions that I hold. You feel that the assumptions of science because they were handed down by learned men over time that somehow they are true. Something solid to hang on to. But the history of science tells a different story. As each year passes some assumptions are overturned and replaced with others. One of the ground rules of science is that all theories can be overturned by the next experiment. If you accept this notion and still believe that your faith in science is on more firm ground than I then you are right, we could not have a meaningful discussion.

[Michigan PhD]

Your assessment of my world view is correct. But your assessment of my ability to discuss the world in scientific terms is completely wrong. Where you may talk about one conclusion after another in science I will talk about one assumption after another. We would share the raw data and direct observation but would differ on the meaning of that data. I am not blind to the world around me I actually see it in better light than most atheist. Where apparently you accept currently held assumptions in science I do not. I don't see where you and I could have a meaningful discussion about God but the natural world is a different matter. You seem to be attached to the touch and feel of things around you. That is fine many people are. But you and I have taken on faith completely different views of how it all happened. And like most people in science you feel that the pile of assumptions that science makes is somehow different than the assumptions that I hold. You feel that the assumptions of science because they were handed down by learned men over time that somehow they are true. Something solid to hang on to. But the history of science tells a different story. As each year passes some assumptions are overturned and replaced with others. One of the ground rules of science is that all theories can be overturned by the next experiment. If you accept this notion and still believe that your faith in science is on more firm ground than I then you are right, we could not have a meaningful discussion.

You make it too easy. One the one hand you admit that your entire world view is based on your faith in god, NOT in your belief in science. Then you say that scientific theory is constantly overturned by the next experiment, which is both accurate and inaccurate. Scientist seek to find fault with ALL theories, that is how they are either proven right or wrong, nothing wrong with that, it's how we learn as a species. You said something about science before 1500, of course science before 1500 was NOT what science is today, but then again language today is different than it was six thousand years ago, so what? Since 1500 we have learned a LOT about science, but VERY little has changed in what is believed by religion.

You do realise that NOTHING in Christianity has changed in 2000 years, same bible, same story, same theories, same notions, same faith, same belief in mythology, same magic; NOTHING changes. MY faith in science is that NOTHING is without question, NOTHING, EVEN religion, even god. I take NOTHING on soley on FAITH without empirical evidence and a peer reviewed system of challenging everything.

Anything else is is nothing more than FAITH, RELIGION, tom foolery, and the blinders are on. Nothing in religion has healed a single disease, built a single machine, proved a single thing about the cosmos, or presented us with a viable answer to any number of questions like how did we get here, and why are things the way they are. Your answers all rely on faith in a 2000 year old book, written mostly by uneducated men, with NO women writers, and passed down by mostly illiterates in an oral tradition. NOTHING from the bible has been preserved, there is no ark, no ark of the covenant, no holy grail, no single piece of evidence that Jesus existed beyond what is written in the bible. So, you are correct, we probably don't have much to discuss.

[Chaotic Void]

You make it too easy. One the one hand you admit that your entire world view is based on your faith in god, NOT in your belief in science. Then you say that scientific theory is constantly overturned by the next experiment, which is both accurate and inaccurate. Scientist seek to find fault with ALL theories, that is how they are either proven right or wrong, nothing wrong with that, it's how we learn as a species. You said something about science before 1500, of course science before 1500 was NOT what science is today, but then again language today is different than it was six thousand years ago, so what? Since 1500 we have learned a LOT about science, but VERY little has changed in what is believed by religion.

You do realise that NOTHING in Christianity has changed in 2000 years, same bible, same story, same theories, same notions, same faith, same belief in mythology, same magic; NOTHING changes. MY faith in science is that NOTHING is without question, NOTHING, EVEN religion, even god. I take NOTHING on soley on FAITH without empirical evidence and a peer reviewed system of challenging everything.

Anything else is is nothing more than FAITH, RELIGION, tom foolery, and the blinders are on. Nothing in religion has healed a single disease, built a single machine, proved a single thing about the cosmos, or presented us with a viable answer to any number of questions like how did we get here, and why are things the way they are. Your answers all rely on faith in a 2000 year old book, written mostly by uneducated men, with NO women writers, and passed down by mostly illiterates in an oral tradition. NOTHING from the bible has been preserved, there is no ark, no ark of the covenant, no holy grail, no single piece of evidence that Jesus existed beyond what is written in the bible. So, you are correct, we probably don't have much to discuss.

Yeah... you might want to take those statements over to Apologetics 301 so that the resident Christian apologists can rip them a new one scrutinize them.

[franktalk]

Michigan PhD,

I am sorry but I set you up. My comments were directed to provoke the response you gave.

I started this line of thought talking about truth. And how truth is outside of the creation. Truth does not change. Man's knowledge does over time. So you can hold onto your ever changing truth and I will stick to mine.