27 Christians Murdered In Texas Church...

[Thoughtful Monk]

They are planning on making memorial garden on the site of the old church - I talked to a Texas Ranger today who has actually been in the building, and I can understand why they don't want to "repair" it - and maybe build a new church building at a different location. I'll know more on Monday.

Thanks. By the way, my wife just mentioned she heard some anonymous person has stepped forward saying they will pay for building a new church.

[Adrift]

I think humans can easily be evil enough to do that sort of stuff without being demonized or "insane."

I'm sorry. I just don't agree. You don't do something like this without some sort of spiritual influence involved. Whether he was possessed, or demonized/oppressed, or whatever, there was more going on. Even his ex-wife recently stated that "he had a lot of demons or hatred inside of him". Now that may have been a turn of phrase, but I think it offers insight into his mental and spiritual state. We are taught from scripture that we don't wrestle with flesh and blood, but that there is a battle among spiritual forces going on around us.

I think it's just as well that the guy's motivation isn't being widely speculated on. The evidence doesn't seem to demonstrate that he was for sure motivated by his atheism, so anything along those lines is speculation and rumor mongering. After the Columbine shooting, rank speculation about motivation lead us down many fruitless rabbit trails (people tried to blame everything from video games to Marilyn Manson).

Compare this to the Dylann Roof incident, where he made very clear he was motivated by racism.

His rabid atheism as reported by people who knew him well was certainly a contributing factor. I don't think it was necessarily the sole motivating factor, or even the primary motivating factor, but someone who was known for aggressively evangelizing his atheist views to the point that people had to unfriend him on Facebook because of it, who just happened to target and shoot up a church, well... it's a little more than coincidence. It's not speculation or rumor mongering to look at that aspect of his worldview and say, "yeah, there's at least some connection here". And while I don't think the Columbine/Marilyn Manson parallel is quite comparable, in a similar vein, if you're constantly filling your head with hateful input, it definitely contributes to one's mental processes. What you put into your mind plays some part into what you put out.

At any rate, this sort of misses my point. My point is that the media is always quick to pick up on the religious worldview of mass shooters in every other instance, no matter how small the connection, especially if they're Islamic or Christian, but not so much here, and that's...curious...to say the least.

[rogue06]

The media generally says that he was targeting his ex in-laws who went to that church but if that was the case he could have gone to their house late at night and he sure seemed to be targeting a lot more than just them.

[rogue06]

Unfortunately, no one believes in evil as a reason someone does something.

I and several others here do.

[Jedidiah]

Unfortunately, no one believes in evil as a reason someone does something. That's because now all wrong behavior is just a disease and if we knew what disease he had, we could have cured it.

Sad but true.

[firstfloor]

I'm sorry. I just don't agree. You don't do something like this without some sort of spiritual influence involved. Whether he was possessed, or demonized/oppressed, or whatever, there was more going on.

[Adrift]

If I thought you were at all interested in the answers to these questions I'd answer them, but since I know you're not, I won't.

[Cow Poke]

If I thought you were at all interested in the answers to these questions I'd answer them, but since I know you're not, I won't.

Yeah, me too neither.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Having noted Adrift's response to the post, I am replying for others who see the question.

So who did the shooting; the guy or the evil spirit that possessed him? Is it fair to shoot him dead and let the evil spirit go unpunished?

This is like a man hiring a hitman to do his killing. In this case, the evil spirit "hired" the man to kill. Therefore both are legally liable. As the active agent, it is fair to shot the man dead. Since we don't have courts that can try evil spirits, the matter has to be referred to God for action.

Is the guy at fault for being possessed? What could he have done to avoid being possessed?

He is at fault. Since I don't know how he may have been possessed, I don't know exactly what he could have done to avoid it.

Probably no more prone than the general population.

[firstfloor]

Having noted Adrift's response to the post, I am replying for others who see the question.

Your response is appreciated, thank you.

[NorrinRadd]

I'm sorry. I just don't agree. You don't do something like this without some sort of spiritual influence involved. Whether he was possessed, or demonized/oppressed, or whatever, there was more going on. Even his ex-wife recently stated that "he had a lot of demons or hatred inside of him". Now that may have been a turn of phrase, but I think it offers insight into his mental and spiritual state. We are taught from scripture that we don't wrestle with flesh and blood, but that there is a battle among spiritual forces going on around us.

I hate the whole concept of "triggers," but the whole "Da debbil made me do it" thing is kind of one for me.

I think I'm in line with most Christians in believing in a literal "devil," satan, a spiritual being who is the slanderer and ancient adversary of God and His people, and who in some sense controls the whole unbelieving world. (I'm not much for identifying him with the supposed "Lucifer," and I think all the various back-stories about his past among the archangels can make for good entertainment, but should always be viewed by Christians as speculative fantasy.)

I think I'm in line with most Christians in believing in literal "demons," evil spirits that serve satan, be they fallen angels or whatever.

I think I'm in line with most Christians in believing that, in an ultimate sense, virtually if not literally all evil originates from satan.

But I deplore some of the detailed definitions and explanations some people tout as Biblical truth, when they have only the most tenuous connection to Scripture.

I've heard preachers give specific definitions of, and distinctions among, "possess," "oppress," and even "obsess." I've heard them talk about "demons of nicotine" and "spirits of homosexuality" as if such things were directly spelled out in Scripture. There is nothing even close. "Obsess" is not even found in Scripture. "Oppress" in the context of devils or demons occurs once, in Acts 10:38. It is not explicitly defined, but the context is generally anyone being harmed by the devil's power. A few different Greek expressions are translated with "possess" linked to "demons" or "devils." Three times it is the Greek "echo" (have, hold) plus "daimonion" (demon), and different translations show the grammar is ambiguous: Does the victim "have" the demon, in the way a person can "have" cancer, or does the demon "have" the victim, in the way that one "has" a pet or a slave? Thirteen times it is "daimonizomai." I kind of prefer to just kind of transliterate it as "demonize," in the sense of "afflicted in some way by demons." At least one of the instances of "echo + daimonion" shows it to overlap or even be synonymous with "daimonizomai." In some cases, victims are just said to be demonized or to have / be possessed by demons, with no explanation of the effects. Usually the effects are physical illness or seizures. The only Scriptural association I see with "behavior" is the case of the "legion" of demons in the Decapolis region. There the victim/s was/were one or two weirdos living in isolation from other people, and in a virtually constant state of violent, maniacal rage, featuring superhuman strength. Nothing directly precludes the idea that mass shooters are demonized, but I think it's notable that the only NT example of demon-induced violence shows a modus operandi virtually the opposite of a cold, calculating shooter.

[rogue06]

In certain cases, a distinction without a difference

[One Bad Pig]

If you'd like an inside perspective:

[Adrift]

I hate the whole concept of "triggers," but the whole "Da debbil made me do it" thing is kind of one for me.

I think I'm in line with most Christians in believing in a literal "devil," satan, a spiritual being who is the slanderer and ancient adversary of God and His people, and who in some sense controls the whole unbelieving world. (I'm not much for identifying him with the supposed "Lucifer," and I think all the various back-stories about his past among the archangels can make for good entertainment, but should always be viewed by Christians as speculative fantasy.)

I think I'm in line with most Christians in believing in literal "demons," evil spirits that serve satan, be they fallen angels or whatever.

I think I'm in line with most Christians in believing that, in an ultimate sense, virtually if not literally all evil originates from satan.

But I deplore some of the detailed definitions and explanations some people tout as Biblical truth, when they have only the most tenuous connection to Scripture.

I've heard preachers give specific definitions of, and distinctions among, "possess," "oppress," and even "obsess." I've heard them talk about "demons of nicotine" and "spirits of homosexuality" as if such things were directly spelled out in Scripture. There is nothing even close. "Obsess" is not even found in Scripture. "Oppress" in the context of devils or demons occurs once, in Acts 10:38. It is not explicitly defined, but the context is generally anyone being harmed by the devil's power. A few different Greek expressions are translated with "possess" linked to "demons" or "devils." Three times it is the Greek "echo" (have, hold) plus "daimonion" (demon), and different translations show the grammar is ambiguous: Does the victim "have" the demon, in the way a person can "have" cancer, or does the demon "have" the victim, in the way that one "has" a pet or a slave? Thirteen times it is "daimonizomai." I kind of prefer to just kind of transliterate it as "demonize," in the sense of "afflicted in some way by demons." At least one of the instances of "echo + daimonion" shows it to overlap or even be synonymous with "daimonizomai." In some cases, victims are just said to be demonized or to have / be possessed by demons, with no explanation of the effects. Usually the effects are physical illness or seizures. The only Scriptural association I see with "behavior" is the case of the "legion" of demons in the Decapolis region. There the victim/s was/were one or two weirdos living in isolation from other people, and in a virtually constant state of violent, maniacal rage, featuring superhuman strength. Nothing directly precludes the idea that mass shooters are demonized, but I think it's notable that the only NT example of demon-induced violence shows a modus operandi virtually the opposite of a cold, calculating shooter.

Eh, Saul experienced an evil spirit that tormented him, and he seemed rather cold and calculating. Judas was possessed, and he seemed pretty cold and calculating. The prophesying slave girl in Acts seemed relatively calculating in her attempt to mock the men of God.

The idea that belief in demonic possession and oppression can be boiled down to "Da debbil made me do it" is a little silly and simplistic. It's been my experience that too many thinking Christians find talk of satan and evil spirits embarrassing. Like, it's cool to believe in God, but you know, keep the whole demons thing under wraps. You don't want people to think you're a weirdo or anything. But, you know, the Bible discusses the spiritual realm quite a bit, and it's simply a fact that demons are part of the Christian worldview. The Adversary hates us, and wants nothing more than to throw a monkey wrench into God's plans for us. He and his agents aren't simply sitting around twiddling their thumbs all day. They're doing something, and scripture, while maybe not going into great detail, does paint a picture of that something. Scholars like Michael Heiser have been doing a great job pointing out how much scripture actually does discuss the nature and role of demons in the spiritual realm (I highly suggest his book The Unseen Realm). That said, of course I don't believe there's a demon in every bush. I ultimately agree with Lewis who said, "There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight."

[Cow Poke]

Eh, Saul experienced an evil spirit that tormented him, and he seemed rather cold and calculating. Judas was possessed, and he seemed pretty cold and calculating. The prophesying slave girl in Acts seemed relatively calculating in her attempt to mock the men of God.

The idea that belief in demonic possession and oppression can be boiled down to "Da debbil made me do it" is a little silly and simplistic. It's been my experience that too many thinking Christians find talk of satan and evil spirits embarrassing. Like, it's cool to believe in God, but you know, keep the whole demons thing under wraps. You don't want people to think you're a weirdo or anything. But, you know, the Bible discusses the spiritual realm quite a bit, and it's simply a fact that demons are part of the Christian worldview. The Adversary hates us, and wants nothing more than to throw a monkey wrench into God's plans for us. He and his agents aren't simply sitting around twiddling their thumbs all day. They're doing something, and scripture, while maybe not going into great detail, does paint a picture of that something. Scholars like Michael Heiser have been doing a great job pointing out how much scripture actually does discuss the nature and role of demons in the spiritual realm (I highly suggest his book The Unseen Realm). That said, of course I don't believe there's a demon in every bush. I ultimately agree with Lewis who said, "There are two equal and opposite errors into which our race can fall about the devils. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them. They themselves are equally pleased by both errors and hail a materialist or a magician with the same delight."

If we had Post of the Day, this would be my nomination.