|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Why Aren't You A Muslim?
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Posted to add that, no, I don't think all Muslim culture is inhumane. Most people everywhere just do their best to live within the social contract, live productively, raise kids, and make friends and do some thinking about spirituality and/or the meaning of life.
I just hope that you are right, AA, and the strict mullahs don't get total ascendency, just as I hope we in the US kick war-mongers and officials like VP Cheney who want to leave the door open to torture as a tool of policy out of office soon. Talk about "inhumane". ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Birdseye
I can see my house from here!
# 5280
|
Posted
quote:
Do you mean to say then that "Love" ( whatever that means) is / could be / should be illogical.
This is tautology.
If logic is not required to support any assertion, I could as well believe that the world, as we know it, was manufactured by little green popsicles from Alpha Taurus. The world is and in argument simply has to be logically consistent. I appreciate and respect your faith but not your arguments. I too have forgiven many who transgressed against me and I have nowhere to go to seek repentance for acts of transgression I have committed against other humans, despite the many years and the rivers of tears I have shed since. But I cannot concieve of this method to "explain " the "reason" behind everything I know. We need peace on this earth and yet more of "Faith" will not I fear, bring it.
Azzy, do you know what the word 'tautology' means?
It is when one overstates something- repeats the meaning or sense, if, for example, I were to say that something was 'unthinkable and incomprehensible' that would be somewhat tautological -but I did not say that, I said that sometimes, when we act out of love, it goes against apparent 'logic'. To follow logic, is not to adopt any kind of code of ethics, or moral behaviour, it is simply to act like a machine... 'if 'a' is true, then 'b' is such and such' .
Logic CAN be used to support an assertion, but sooner or later, it falls down, that is why mathematicians struggle to map the world using logical formulae -because the world does not act entirely according to logic, there are random and illogical aspects to the world that one must consider -most of which stem from the human brain.
Allow me to neatly demonstrate this using logic...
statement a).Illogical action exists in the world therefore the world cannot be expressed using logic alone.
statement b)Nothing illogical exists in the world, therefore everything in the world can be expressed using logic.
statement c)I believe in God.
Taking statement c) as the only incontrovertible truth as I know it to be so, we can therefore conclude that either my belief in God is illogical and therefore statement a) is true as I am acting illogically;
Or my belief in God is logical, and therefore your non-belief in God is illogical and therefore statement a) is true.
Since I have proven that statement a) is true in both opposite cases, I have proven that not everything in the world can be expressed using logic alone.
As I have also just shown- I am amply capable of using logic to back up my arguements -however finding logic inadequate and misleading, I choose generally speaking to use example .
Re: your guess, I am NOT a preacher.
--------------------
Life is what happens whilst you're busy making other plans.
a birdseye view
Posts: 1615 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
adamant azzy
Shipmate
# 10636
|
Posted
quote:
Azzy, do you know what the word 'tautology' means?
Oh dearie me. Have I been caught using bombastic words to impress shipmates? ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
I thought I knew the meaning of tautology. Now maybe I don't?
It certainly means a sort of repetition of something already implied in the statement. Like my saying " all at once I suddenly remembered that... etc"
In logic there is probably a differant shade of meaning and possibly I was using the word in that way. I,m not too sure, after all my 'mother tongue' is not Q.E.'s English. ( I passed it by copying my neighbours answer sheets) And then us Pakis like to take revenge for being cruelly ruled by the farangi for 200Ys. And what better than to punish the Queens English.
The other sense I could explain by an example that maybe you can relate to. Lets say, for instance, it is charged that natural selection is a tautologous concept since the "fittest" are those who survive, who in turn are labelled the "fittest." So like wise to "prove" the veracity of a concept you rely upon logic that uses the truth of the concept as a basic fact/support.
Any way maybe I stand corrected/admonished for bombast. Sorry will use simpler language in the future. Like ga ga ma ma Duh Duh, Hmmm. many more shipmates can 'read me' that way.
quote:
Logic CAN be used to support an assertion, but sooner or later, it falls down, that is why mathematicians struggle to map the world using logical formulae -because the world does not act entirely according to logic, there are random and illogical aspects to the world that one must consider -most of which stem from the human brain , there are random and illogical aspects to the world that one must consider -most of which stem from the human brain
Emphasis is mine.
Apart from that I couldnt see the logic in the example you have provided. There are no illogical and random aspects to this world. Except in the imagination of some individuals.
Any way my apologies for using terms of which I have no idea of the meaning.
promise not to repeat.
A.A.
--------------------
....and I came back empty handed
Posts: 84 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Birdseye
I can see my house from here!
# 5280
|
Posted
quote:
Apart from that I couldnt see the logic in the example you have provided. There are no illogical and random aspects to this world. Except in the imagination of some individuals. A.A.
Well the fact that you qualify that statement with an exception means that there's really no need for me to explain further... Quod Erat Demonstrandum as they say! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I will just add though, that the world is shaped by the human imagination-without it there would be no buildings, no bridges, no vehicles, no artwork... in short, nothing that required any creative thought.
So to dimiss the human imagination from your understanding of the world is -well it's not possible.
However -no need to limit your language to babytalk as you suggested (rather irritably) -but it's probably a good idea to use the most concise words possible...
Otherwise we could spend all day discussing the potential misinterpretations of certain words, rather than the subject at hand.
--------------------
Life is what happens whilst you're busy making other plans.
a birdseye view
Posts: 1615 | From: West Yorkshire | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
If we believe that our God is the only deity who exists, then how can we claim that anyone else praying to the only deity who exists is praying to a different god?
Because there *are* different "gods" - the Bible talks about "little 'g' gods" quite a lot; it is very much Christian and Judaic tradition to recognize the reality of the spiritual, that the God we worship created all that exists (including the space-time continuum) and some of those non-human creatures are 1. very powerful and 2. fell (developed their own agenda).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that the God of the Qu'ran is some kind of demon or pagan figure (but real), while the God of the Bible is the Creator of the World.
The Qu'ran clearly describes its God as being the creator of the world, the God of Abraham, Ishamael, Joseph, Moses, John the Baptist and Jesus. Now it says different things about their relationship to that God from what the Bible says. But does that necessarily mean that it depicts some other creature than God, rather than simply being a depiction of God with which you, Lynn, disagree?
Is the God of the Book of Mormon a different being from the God of the Bible? How about the Jehovah's Witnesses' version of God, where Jehovah is the creator as described above, but Jesus is a lesser divine being of the sort you seem to think Allah must be?
Your views remind me of the Gnostics who believed that the vengeful God of the Old Testament was the erring creation (called Yaldabaoth or Sammael) of the creator spirit Sophia.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
whitelaughter
Shipmate
# 10611
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by adamant azzy:
Then also the very complicated matter of Trinity. I could not understand the Trinity of God, nor could for the life of me understand the matter of God dying to save us all or to redeem our sins or coming down to earth etc etc. In all of the rather tautological arguments I see all over this blessed ship I can clearly sense that the typical Xtian simply does not understand how bizzare all this complex business appears to those who do not believe.
A.A.
Well spoken, and ouch. Christianity is brain bending, and our habit of taking our beliefs for granted is crazy. My personal apology for not putting more time and care into my own posts.
Part of the problem is that we don't fully understand ourselves. We've been given orders to heal the sick, feed the hungry, and preach the gospel - and given how badly we've ballsed up over the centuries it's not surprising God didn't give us any theory, we haven't mastered the pract test yet!
There are various arguments on the Trinity, which I gather the priests have already given you. However, something that helps me personally (canon alert - this has no theological grounding, is merely a pesonal observation) is that we are made in the image of God - and the psychs tell us that we have a triune nature: Inner Parent (or Superego), Inner Adult (or Ego), and Inner Child (or Id).
If we have a triple nature, and are made in the image of God, he must as well! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
God Bless!
Posts: 114 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
adamant azzy
Shipmate
# 10636
|
Posted
quote:
OP'd by Birdseye....nothing that required any creative thought.
Creative thought and human imagination is one thing and is not the same as "random and illogical aspects"
I was on several discussion groups ( other ships that is) designed for the enjoymentof atheists and such but jumped ship. I couldnt stand
1. Every body agreeing.
2. Blasphemy just for the heck of it.
Nr 2 is what I really really despice.
quote:
By Birdseye.... limit your language to babytalk as you suggested (rather irritably)
After I posted my "deep thoughts I realized that the word I used were uncivil, but don't know how to go back and edit my own posting. Sorry. On the other hand a bit of disagreement is what we need else might just sleep it out....This is one of the best groups. The people are more intelligent and have better arguments. And assuredly therefore harder to ruffle.
Any way. sorry
A.A.
--------------------
....and I came back empty handed
Posts: 84 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
adamant azzy
Shipmate
# 10636
|
Posted
quote:
But I am also convinced it is objective truth, which is why I believe it. If you don't believe it, despite having been correctly taught, then I must assume you are not one of "the elect" and it *won't* make sense to you (--sorry--).
By the same token I can argue that you lack the intersynaptic connections that enable one person to realize the truth of the nature of the world around us. Whilst another without the same nerve structure cannot. (Alteast in the case of my reasoning I do not rely upon any unproven conjectures.) Therefore you are not chosen and can never achieve the understanding I have of this cosmos. (--sorry--)
On a more sensible note though. Jesus taught us to be humble not arrogant. How sad that much of the logic used by the devout ones is so less the former and so much the latter......
.....I was thinking of this post by
quote:
OP'd by....lynnmagdalencollege but I also suspect some religions are inherently demonic, from their inception on, that their "inspiration" was not Divine but demonic
She has no notion how badly such a claim can hurt a follower of a differant faith. Calling some ones "God" a "demon". If any religion is divine... which I dont believe...All religions are divine. If Jesus was on this earth today I would wash his feet with mine own tears then ask ask him to tell me why he left this world in such a sorry state!
A.A.
--------------------
....and I came back empty handed
Posts: 84 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
adamant azzy
Shipmate
# 10636
|
Posted
Reading through this thread it appears to me that there are two ways to strengthen ones own faith in what one believes in. Strengthening at a personal level being needed the face of extensive and open hostility to religion/spirituality etc.
One way is to strengthen ones faith in what one believes to be true. Read, meditate, discuss with other believers, align ones deeds to the rightly etc.
The other way is to malign opposing belief systems. And the greater one fears another belief system the greater the need to malign.
That is, to strengthen by negatives.
Intellectually an unsound position to take as in the long run it weakens ones own position.
This religious exclusivity in my opinion is uncivil and illogical. Having faith is an act of faith not of logic. In the world of today the believers must get together and support each other regardless of religion or denomination. They need it. Knocking others beliefs will divide them and serve to weaken them in the fight against irrelegiosity.
Pax vobiscum.
--------------------
....and I came back empty handed
Posts: 84 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by adamant azzy:
quote:
OP'd by....lynnmagdalencollege but I also suspect some religions are inherently demonic, from their inception on, that their "inspiration" was not Divine but demonic
She has no notion how badly such a claim can hurt a follower of a differant faith. Calling some ones "God" a "demon".
Thank you! I'm glad someone here understands the moral point in my protestations about Islam. Somewhere, the false idea has crept into the system that non-Christian religions are automatically idolatrous or pagan. People proclaim this as though it were the self-evident truth of Christianity.
Thank you, azzy.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
adamant azzy
Shipmate
# 10636
|
Posted
quote:
OP'd by whitelaughter.... the psychs tell us that we have a triune nature: Inner Parent (or Superego), Inner Adult (or Ego), and Inner Child (or Id)....
Indeed, A'la "Im OK, You are OK" pulp fiction fame. Good foundation for faith. And goes well with trinity.
pax vobiscum.
--------------------
....and I came back empty handed
Posts: 84 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
whitelaughter
Shipmate
# 10611
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by adamant azzy:
I was on several discussion groups ( other ships that is) designed for the enjoyment of atheists and such but jumped ship. I couldnt stand
1. Every body agreeing.
2. Blasphemy just for the heck of it.
Nr 2 is what I really really despise.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) Thank You, just for your being alive!
Posts: 114 | From: Australia | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
My dear liberal friends,
Don't assume that all religions would be offended for being identified as demonic. Voodoo, for example, has a long tradition of calling on dark powers to achieve ignoble ends. Many Christians see themselves as engaged in spiritual warfare against such influences.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Though, as I understand it, Voodoo has both positive and negative paths.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Voudun, IIRC, is slightly complicated because it is essentially African polytheism, originally cunningly disguised under Roman Catholic forms in order to persuade French slave owners (who according to MLR James made the English variety look positively philanthropic) that said African polytheists were really good Catholics.
Something similar happened in the old Soviet Union where Siberian shamans renamed their deities after the French Communards in order to keep the Stalinists off their back.
[ 10. November 2005, 17:23: Message edited by: Callan ]
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Here's background info on Vodun and similar faiths, from the Religious Tolerance site.
From the "Evil Sorcery" section, about 2/3 of the way down the page:
quote:
The houngan and mambos confine their activities to "white" magic which is used to bring good fortune and healing. However caplatas (also known as bokors) perform acts of evil sorcery or black magic, sometimes called "left-handed Vodun". Rarely, a houngan will engage in such sorcery; a few alternate between white and dark magic.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that the God of the Qu'ran is some kind of demon or pagan figure (but real), while the God of the Bible is the Creator of the World.
The Qu'ran clearly describes its God as being the creator of the world, the God of Abraham, Ishamael, Joseph, Moses, John the Baptist and Jesus. Now it says different things about their relationship to that God from what the Bible says. But does that necessarily mean that it depicts some other creature than God, rather than simply being a depiction of God with which you, Lynn, disagree?
Is the God of the Book of Mormon a different being from the God of the Bible? How about the Jehovah's Witnesses' version of God, where Jehovah is the creator as described above, but Jesus is a lesser divine being of the sort you seem to think Allah must be?
Your views remind me of the Gnostics who believed that the vengeful God of the Old Testament was the erring creation (called Yaldabaoth or Sammael) of the creator spirit Sophia.
T.
Yeah, actually, I *do* believe that both the Mormons & Muslims are working with scriptures which are inspired, at least in part, by the demonic. I am fully aware that this is VERY politically incorrect (which I don't really care about) and that it may shock or offend some people (for which I am sorry - but it's an Ezekiel 33 thing, so I can do no other).
I see both religions as ostensibly building on Judeo-Christian positions but both are in conflict, in different ways, with the clear teaching of the NT - *if* these were inspired scriptures by the same "God," why the conflicts? For example, there is no clear teaching about salvation in the Qu'ran (sort of a "do the best you can and rely on the mercy of Allah" position) - but there's explicit and clear teaching about salvation in the NT. Jesus tells us that the unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, but the Qu'ran says the unforgivable sin is blasphemy against Mohammed (thus elevating him to the position formerly occupied by the Holy Spirit, while demoting Jesus to "just another prophet/good guy" position which involves no sacrifice, no crucifixion, and no resurrection).
Likewise, the Mormons teach that Jesus and Lucifer are brothers, that God the Father was once a man and that men who live sufficiently righteous lives will become "gods" themselves and have their own solar systems to rule over. This is clearly in conflict with orthodox Christianity, and if the Mormons are right, two millennia of Christians have been fatally wrong.
These are (A) = (NOT A) type conflicts which simply don't resolve without one position being right and the other wrong - they cannot both be correct (in terms of logic, they could all be wrong, but I don't believe that's the case!). As to to the Jehovah's Witness position, I can't really speak to it, in that I've not studied it in the same depth. I do think their doctrines unorthodox and their translation seriously flawed, but that's all I'm comfortable saying at this time.
Naturally, I don't equate my views with old Gnostic views at all (!), because they read the OT selectively, seeing only the wrath and not the patience and mercy of Yahweh; they also didn't like the vengeful aspects of God which appear in the NT, either. In *this* case, there are explicit conflicts between the positions, ones which require that not all of them can be correct. I am convinced of the truth of the Bible, just as I'm sure faithful Muslims and Mormons are convinced of the truth of their scriptures (I have a girlfriend who was Mormon, went to BYU and everything, and we got to chatting one day and I mentioned something from the Bible which conflicted with her scriptures - she was shocked, didn't know there were conflicts. When I asked how that could be, she admitted that they were strongly discouraged from actually reading the Bible... about a year later, she left LDS and joined orthodox Christianity).
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by adamant azzy:
quote:
But I am also convinced it is objective truth, which is why I believe it. If you don't believe it, despite having been correctly taught, then I must assume you are not one of "the elect" and it *won't* make sense to you (--sorry--).
By the same token I can argue that you lack the intersynaptic connections that enable one person to realize the truth of the nature of the world around us. Whilst another without the same nerve structure cannot. (Alteast in the case of my reasoning I do not rely upon any unproven conjectures.) Therefore you are not chosen and can never achieve the understanding I have of this cosmos. (--sorry--)
On a more sensible note though. Jesus taught us to be humble not arrogant. How sad that much of the logic used by the devout ones is so less the former and so much the latter......
.....I was thinking of this post by
quote:
OP'd by....lynnmagdalencollege but I also suspect some religions are inherently demonic, from their inception on, that their "inspiration" was not Divine but demonic
She has no notion how badly such a claim can hurt a follower of a differant faith. Calling some ones "God" a "demon". If any religion is divine... which I dont believe...All religions are divine. If Jesus was on this earth today I would wash his feet with mine own tears then ask ask him to tell me why he left this world in such a sorry state!
A.A.
Last things first: yeah, actually I DO have an idea of how much my position can hurt and offend someone of another faith (after all, I've had people call my God a "demon" and, *if they are correct and I am wrong*, that would be true). But while my intention is *not* to offend, neither will I pull back from hard truths because of a sentimental fear of offending. In other words, I meant no offense but a reader may choose to be offended, and over that I have no control.
I see no logical reason why ALL religions must be divine if any of them are divine. That's rather like saying, "all humans must be male if any humans are male" - it just doesn't follow. And Jesus said some *very* hard things (the Jewish leadership spent a good long time plotting to kill Him, after all - there was a *reason* for their position).
As for intersynaptic connections, hey, there may be bio-chemical brain differences between us which either account for our difference in positions or are a result of our difference in position - but that's neither here nor there. I mean, if it is, it is. I am sorry you read my tone as arrogant - that's not how I'm speaking/writing and I have limited control over how you perceive it. You may either take me at my word that I'm not being arrogant or you may choose to tar me with that brush - and so it goes.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
My dear liberal friends,
Don't assume that all religions would be offended for being identified as demonic. Voodoo, for example, has a long tradition of calling on dark powers to achieve ignoble ends. Many Christians see themselves as engaged in spiritual warfare against such influences.
Not to mention Satanism, which is alive and kicking.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
My dear liberal friends,
Don't assume that all religions would be offended for being identified as demonic. Voodoo, for example, has a long tradition of calling on dark powers to achieve ignoble ends. Many Christians see themselves as engaged in spiritual warfare against such influences.
Not to mention Satanism, which is alive and kicking.
Barely.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
Yeah, actually, I *do* believe that both the Mormons & Muslims are working with scriptures which are inspired, at least in part, by the demonic. I am fully aware that this is VERY politically incorrect (which I don't really care about) and that it may shock or offend some people (for which I am sorry - but it's an Ezekiel 33 thing, so I can do no other).
Does it really follow that if a religious position is not authentically divine, it is the product of demonic agency? Aren't people allowed to be good-old-fashioned wrong sometimes? A Christian should not be expected to think the Qu'ran or the Book of Mormon are divinely inspired, but why does that make them demonic? Or do you, Lynn, have access to special knowledge that lets you know which religions are demonic and which simply mistaken?
How can you tell, empirically, which works are divinely inspired and which are demonic?
Is 'Paradise Lost' demonic, since it also has the 'Jesus and Lucifer as brothers' narrative?
If non-Christian religions have demonic backing, why didn't Baal respond to his prophets when challenged by Elijah? I feel that that story shows fairly bluntly that there is but one true power in the universe.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
MaudLynn
Arrogance is in the blind eye of the beholder.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Does it really follow that if a religious position is not authentically divine, it is the product of demonic agency? Aren't people allowed to be good-old-fashioned wrong sometimes? A Christian should not be expected to think the Qu'ran or the Book of Mormon are divinely inspired, but why does that make them demonic? Or do you, Lynn, have access to special knowledge that lets you know which religions are demonic and which simply mistaken?
T.
Yeah, I think lots of things are simply wrong - but those two, in particular, imho, do have a component of demonic inspiration to them. My reasons for believing this are two-fold, and the first would take a looonng time to work through but involves the manner of twisting and corrupting the Bible and doctrines of Christianity and I'm not going there: it would take too much time and energy and I'm here for recreation and not labor. The second has to do with the witness of the Holy Spirit within me - something which is available to all Christians (one cannot be a Christian without the Holy Spirit) although we do not all exercise the gift and not all have worked to develop that listening relationship. So I don't know if that falls into the "special knowledge" category for you - doesn't for me, but YMMV.
As to why the Baals didn't respond to their priest's invocation, consider the account in this light: God is the Big Guy, the one in charge, and these little guys are in rebellion to Him and have been kicked out (which is scriptural) - they have the freedom to run amuck on earth because, basically, WE (humanity) gave them the authority to do so with the fall (consider the book of Job). But today there's a showdown on Mt. Carmel and God's presence is just sitting there, waiting. This inhibits the demonic big-time; they're hovering in the wings, wanting to respond, but cannot because God is present.
This is why the armies of Israel went out with the musicians and singers at the front - the very presence of God is uncomfortable to the demonic and the best thing Christians can do is operate in the presence of God. How is it that an omnipresent being is *more* present at one time & place than another? I don't know - that's part of the mystery of God which is beyond me - but it's certainly true. God, Creator and King of the Universe is the one "true" power in the universe, in that He created and allows all the rest to exist, and He does limit how far they can go and when (consider the particular class of fallen angels, or perhaps even particular *individual* angels, who have been chained up in Tartarus waiting for the time of their release before the judgement).
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
MaudLynn
Arrogance is in the blind eye of the beholder.
So you think I'm operating out of arrogance? Perhaps we have different understandings of that word. I am not being arrogant (I know when I am and it's ugly) but you may perceive it that way - and it may be ugly to you - I can only speak to where I'm coming from, and it isn't a place of arrogance.
Does thinking my beliefs are correct make me arrogant? If so, then arrogance is one of the defining traits of all humanity! We ALL believe what we believe is right - that goes without saying. Not all of us are going to be right, but we all believe we are. I mean, what kind of a fool holds onto a position he doesn't believe?
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Lynn, Lynn ... you could take it the diametrically opposite way 't' won't I'm sure!
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Lynn, Lynn ... you could take it the diametrically opposite way 't' won't I'm sure!
That's why I was asking - I couldn't tell how I was meant to take the comment - didn't know if I was being called arrogant or not (perhaps my question didn't read as a straightforward question). But the other stuff is true, in either case - we all believe our beliefs are true; otherwise what's the point? I mean, I understand taking a "devil's advocate" position in an argument, to work through it, but I don't think anybody here is doing that (or, if so, they haven't identified as that position).
Digging myself in deeper (THAT's my nature! *sigh*)
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Lynn baby, REE-LAX. All us con-evo-fundies is arrogant by definition.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
adamant azzy
Shipmate
# 10636
|
Posted
quote:
OP'd by lymmmagdalencollege....So you think I'm operating out of arrogance? Perhaps we have different understandings of that word. I am not being arrogant (I know when I am and it's ugly) but you may perceive it that way - and it may be ugly to you - I can only speak to where I'm coming from, and it isn't a place of arrogance.
Dear Dear Lynmagdalencollege,
Please do relax. I can understand and appreciate your position. That you have strong opinions, makes you, at least at a personal level a great human. This matter about Demons and Gods is not and IMHO should not become a matter to fry and be fried.
There could be no one so diametrically opposite to your opinions as yours truly. I am a card carrying, banner waving evangelical atheist. Yet if you were so to say in a verbal tussle with some one Id rather come side with you than any atheist who became one because he heard rumours that such and such famous persons had said they were so. If you want to spread the good word. Do it with love. Harsh words shall win no converts. NEVER. As my dad used to make me write a hundred times every time I played hookey from good behaviour, "A spoonful of honey will catch more flies than a barrel of vineger". As for my fate. I don't believe in any God what ever or religion or supernatural world. I have kept the position that, If I turn out to be wrong, he will judge me by my actions/choices in life. I have great trust in that. If I turn out to be wrong....I even started a thread somewhere on the ship that goes.." what if it turns out that there is a God indeed what happens to the atheist? etc. etc. All I ever hope for is that I may just for one moment lay my eyes upon his beutiful face. He can thereafter consign me to hell if he wants. I will be satisfied. It will be his wish after all.
Yes Lynn, Do learn the true meaning of LOVE from Him. did he ever break a heart when he was amongst us?
Pax vobiscum.
--------------------
....and I came back empty handed
Posts: 84 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
adamant azzy
Shipmate
# 10636
|
Posted
quote:
OP'd bby LynnMagdalencollege..... Does thinking my beliefs are correct make me arrogant?......
Not so. You may not be arrogant and probably aren't. But. You could be accused of using harsh words. And you could say the same in a polite way, like many others have. And to much more avail. And I dont think civility is opposed to the Christian faith?
--------------------
....and I came back empty handed
Posts: 84 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
Yeah, I think lots of things are simply wrong - but those two, in particular, imho, do have a component of demonic inspiration to them. My reasons for believing this are two-fold, and the first would take a looonng time to work through but involves the manner of twisting and corrupting the Bible and doctrines of Christianity and I'm not going there: it would take too much time and energy and I'm here for recreation and not labor.
So you're prepared to assert the opinion that major world religions are demonically inspired, but not to explain or defend that view? Lynn, you are this close to receiving my first call to Hell. i don't care that you're a newbie. I think your views are, as far as you've thus stated them, offensive (to me and to others), unbiblical (as I'll discuss a little in this post), and highly damaging to any evangelistic aspirations you may have.
quote:
The second has to do with the witness of the Holy Spirit within me - something which is available to all Christians (one cannot be a Christian without the Holy Spirit) although we do not all exercise the gift and not all have worked to develop that listening relationship. So I don't know if that falls into the "special knowledge" category for you - doesn't for me, but YMMV.
So since I disagree with you so vigorously, the Spirit can't be moving in me, or else I'm rejecting it? You've stepped into the 'personal relationship' thread with something similar, I think. Living the Christian life through the power of the spirit isn't 'special knowledge', but claiming to know that certain books are the work of demons rather than of humans certainly does. If you want to tell me I'm not a good Christian for denying that Islam is demonic, fine, but that will definitely get you called to Hell.
quote:
As to why the Baals didn't respond to their priest's invocation, consider the account in this light:
Pedant point: Baal in this context ( 1 Kings 18 ) is singular, and his prophets (450 of them) are plural.
quote:
God is the Big Guy, the one in charge, and these little guys are in rebellion to Him and have been kicked out (which is scriptural)- they have the freedom to run amuck on earth because, basically, WE (humanity) gave them the authority to do so with the fall (consider the book of Job).
First major objection. In Revelation, when Satan is cast down from Heaven, he has 'but a short time' - this seems to be a part of the End Times. In Job chapter 1, Satan is with 'the sons of God' coming before the Lord. So I'm not sure what your authority is that a devil or devils had been cast out of Heaven at this point.
My reference to Paradise Lost before was not an idle one - Milton, rather than scripture, seems to be your source. So do you think Paradise Lost is demonically inspired because it has God creating the Son at a time after the creation of Lucifer and the other angels?
Oh, and Job 1 also gives us God, not Man, putting Job into Satan's power, to be tested.
quote:
But today there's a showdown on Mt. Carmel and God's presence is just sitting there, waiting. This inhibits the demonic big-time; they're hovering in the wings, wanting to respond, but cannot because God is present.
When, exactly, was God absent? The whole heavens tell the glory of his work. The psalmist tells us that wherever we go, God is there before us. (Ps 139:8-10)
And on Mt Carmel, Baal does not answer because Baal has no external existence whatever. Elijah's mockery of the prophets of Baal points up the absurdity of a god who might be answering a call of nature when he's needed. Psalm 96, verse 5 says: For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.
quote:
This is why the armies of Israel went out with the musicians and singers at the front - the very presence of God is uncomfortable to the demonic and the best thing Christians can do is operate in the presence of God.
When did the armies of Israel fight demons? Chapter and verse, please.
quote:
How is it that an omnipresent being is *more* present at one time & place than another? I don't know - that's part of the mystery of God which is beyond me - but it's certainly true.
I don't see the necessity of this at all. In fact, I think it is directly at odds with the passage from the Psalms quoted before.
quote:
God, Creator and King of the Universe is the one "true" power in the universe, in that He created and allows all the rest to exist, and He does limit how far they can go and when (consider the particular class of fallen angels, or perhaps even particular *individual* angels, who have been chained up in Tartarus waiting for the time of their release before the judgement).
And where, in the Bible, is Tartarus mentioned at all? The story of the Titans being chained up there is from Greek mythology.
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and assert that the only biblical reference to people worshipping demons or devils is the cult of the Beast in the End Times in Revelation. (Satan tempts Jesus to worship him, but is quite naturally refused. (Matthew 4:9, for example.)) If anyone can give me chapter and verse for any other instance, I'll be grateful. But I must insist that it specify demons, devils, or unclean spirits as objects of worship. References to Rimmon, Moloch, and other pagan gods alone won't do.
In fact, as in the story of Legion, the unclean spirits recognise Jesus as God, and worship him.
In short, your grotesque characterisation of other faiths as demonic is unbiblical. It's also uncharitable, and I am going to accuse you of arrogance, for presuming that the Holy Spirit entitles you to judge the faith of billions.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
You'll have to call me too 't'. I'll be her advocate there. The religions of this world are ALL of the god of this world who even perverted and perverts the true Church from the Wilderness on.
And Tartarus is the abode of Titans = Shaitans = Satans. Where Christ visited them during the Flood.
So, friend, call us.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
My reference to Paradise Lost before was not an idle one - Milton, rather than scripture, seems to be your source. So do you think Paradise Lost is demonically inspired because it has God creating the Son at a time after the creation of Lucifer and the other angels?
I've read Paradise Lost a number of times, but I must have missed this part every time, as I have no recollection of God creating the Son, and I have a hard time reconciling the notion with what I know of Milton's theology. In which book does it take place? And while we're at it, at what point does Milton refer to Jesus and Lucifer as brothers?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
I can't respond tonight (!!) but I will Monday if not tomorrow - quickly, though, Tartarus is the word that Peter uses for "hell" in 2 Peter 2:4 ("For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment...") - I believe it's the only appearance of that word in the Bible.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
The identical concept is also used in Jude 6.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
My reference to Paradise Lost before was not an idle one - Milton, rather than scripture, seems to be your source. So do you think Paradise Lost is demonically inspired because it has God creating the Son at a time after the creation of Lucifer and the other angels?
I've read Paradise Lost a number of times, but I must have missed this part every time, as I have no recollection of God creating the Son, and I have a hard time reconciling the notion with what I know of Milton's theology. In which book does it take place? And while we're at it, at what point does Milton refer to Jesus and Lucifer as brothers?
OK, it is quite a while since I read Paradise Lost, and I've had to go back and check to see where I gained this impression. I had thought that somewhere in Book 3 the creation of the Son was mentioned, but I'm wrong. Searching through that book, I think I developed the idea from a number of points. Firstly, God and his Son appear to have contrary wills in the dialogue about the fate of mankind. Secondly, in the passage beginning ' Thee Father first they sung Omnipotent, Immutable, Immortal, Infinite', the Son is referred to as being 'of all Creation first', in apparent distinction to the Father's nature.
By my 'brothers' remark, I simply meant that the Son, if not co-eternal with the Father before Creation, would be on an equal footing with the angels.
So my recollection was not quite right, and I think I've probably dragged Milton into this needlessly. Thanks for pulling me up on this one. Please consider my that ham-fisted bit of my argument to be discarded.
T. (humbled)
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
Apologies for the double post, especially as I've just had to eat my words.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
You'll have to call me too 't'. I'll be her advocate there. The religions of this world are ALL of the god of this world who even perverted and perverts the true Church from the Wilderness on.
You won't find me arguing with the idea that all earthly religions are flawed and in that sense ungodly, Martin. I fully believe that. I was taking issue with Lynn's specific claim that Mormonism and Islam owe their origins in part to the action of individual demons. If you want to help her defend that position, I'll be interested to see it. However, the call has not gone out yet. I'm waiting for her response to my earlier post. We may be able to resolve this amicably.
quote:
And Tartarus is the abode of Titans = Shaitans = Satans. Where Christ visited them during the Flood.
That's one of the most ingenious folk etymologies I've ever seen. The word 'Titan' is Greek, and Greek also has a word 'Satan', from the Hebrew for 'to oppose'. The two concepts are unrelated. Where does it say that Jesus visited the demons in Tartarus during the Flood?
I apologise for my sometimes rather strident tone in this and related discussions. I don't bear any malice to people on account of the views expressed, but I do find the claims involved troubling, and at odds with my own faith.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Thanks for pulling me up on this one.
It's hardly a central point of your argument. I was momentarily a bit freaked out; I know Paradise Lost pretty well and could not for the life of me recall a description of the creation of the Son, but you seemed very sure about it.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Thanks for pulling me up on this one.
It's hardly a central point of your argument. I was momentarily a bit freaked out; I know Paradise Lost pretty well and could not for the life of me recall a description of the creation of the Son, but you seemed very sure about it.
I was very sure about it, and wrong.
A related point, though: Milton more generally makes great use of the device of conflating pagan figures with those in the Judaeo-Christian narrative. I do still wonder if he's not the conceptual source for some of the ideas in use in this thread.
Ruth, thanks again for the correction. Let's see how the rest of this debate pans out.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
't' - you humble me with your humility. Thank you. I'll respond stridently shortly! Have to get me feist back tho'. Shouldn't be long! Humility is VERY transient in me ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
't' I'm impressed that you're impressed and that you can possibly make the statement that the coincidences of the myths and the terms have NOTHING to do with each other based on one observation of two Greek terms, neither of which originated in Greece.
As for Jesus' trip to hell, play with the translations of 1 Peter 3:19
[ 14. November 2005, 13:19: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And if what Joseph Smith and Mohammed reported is accurate and the explanation isn't materialistic, what is it?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
I thought this was a discussion about not being Muslim.
A few pages back someone was upset about tautologies. These were the good ol' days. On this page (5) we have mentioned "Islam" 3x, "Muslim" 2x, "Mohammed" 1x, "Qu'ran" (an variations) 3x, and normally in conjunction with other religions "and". "Morman" and "Voodoo" (vaudun) have each been mentioned in 3 posts.
Using this simple frequency-analysis method, I would surmise we have drifted off-topic.
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
Molopata, the digression is about Lynn's contention that Islam (and other non-Christian religions) are the product of demonic influence. If this claim were true, it would provide an excellent answer to the question in the topic. I'm contesting that it's not. So I don't think we've wandered too far off topic.
I'm still trying to decide whether the digression is acrimonious enough that it merits a call to Hell - something I've never done before. If so, you'll soon be rid of it. But if not, I feel it's still on topic.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
Apologies again for the double post.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
't' I'm impressed that you're impressed and that you can possibly make the statement that the coincidences of the myths and the terms have NOTHING to do with each other based on one observation of two Greek terms, neither of which originated in Greece.
And unless you can show that 'Titan' has its etymological roots in the Jewish word for 'adversary' or 'oppose', I'm going to say this is nonsense. It may help to realise that the 'i' in 'Titan' is only pronounced long like the 'ai' in 'Shaitan' in English - in Latin or Greek it would be pronounced more like 'teat'.
Can someone with more knowledge of Greek and Hebrew than me back me up, please?
Incidentally, if you're claiming scriptural authority for Hesiod's Theogony (the origin of the Tartarus story), why not for the Qu'ran?
quote:
As for Jesus' trip to hell, play with the translations of 1 Peter 3:19
The first five translations I picked at random say that Jesus went and preached to spirits in prison, by the {power of} the Spirit. The reference to the time of Noah in the next verse contextualises the disobedience of some of those spirits, rather than giving a time for the visit. You'd have to 'play with' these texts rather more freely than I'm willing to in order to get your interpretation out.
quote:
And if what Joseph Smith and Mohammed reported is accurate and the explanation isn't materialistic, what is it?
I never claimed it was accurate. I simply claimed it wasn't of demonic origin. People can, either devoutly and sincerely or otherwise, make stuff up. And although I'm using quite a few biblical arguments here, I'm not a literalist myself. I don't require that the Bible be of purely divine origin for me to find it useful and to make it a key part of my faith. So you're asking me to approach other books in a way I don't approach the Bible itself.
The burden of proof rests with you and Lynn to explain your position. I do not believe the views you have expressed can be justified from the Bible, and I think their expression is a positive obstacle to making our own faith understandable and approachable to others.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
So you're prepared to assert the opinion that major world religions are demonically inspired, but not to explain or defend that view? Lynn, you are this close to receiving my first call to Hell. i don't care that you're a newbie. I think your views are, as far as you've thus stated them, offensive (to me and to others), unbiblical (as I'll discuss a little in this post), and highly damaging to any evangelistic aspirations you may have.
I am sorry to have agitated you so - in reading back through, I am somewhat puzzled; the response seems very out of proportion to me - the question is "why are you not a Muslim?" and in the course of answering that and responding to the ongoing discussion I shared what is a personal opinion (not a certainty, and not anything I'm attempting to convnice anyone else of) - and you are very bothered by my having such an opinion. In explaining a little further I admitted my grounds are partially personal grounds and I don't expect anybody else to be convinced by that - and that apparently agitates you even more. If I think I had the sense from the Holy Spirit that something has a demonic element to it, what bearing does that have on you? I do not expect it to have bearing on your opinion or anybody else's - I share it as part of the discussion. I am NOT standing up and saying, "Thus saith the Lord!!!" - please do not misunderstand me that way or attribute the role of OT prophet to my post (or think that I take it upon myself). Yes, I believe all Christians have the Holy Spirit living within them and we can be directed and informed by Him, to varying degrees - but I'm not implying that EVERYBODY with the Holy Spirit in them is going to agree with me on this. At the same time, if I believe that there is a degree of demonic inspiration to certain writings, what is that to you? I'm not being sarcastic, I'm quite serious and I'd like to understand this apparent hostility.
If someone says to me that they believe Christianity is a wicked religion with a hideous and violent history and that Jesus has deluded men and women through the myth of grace, causing them to be judged even more harshly than they might have been, I will of course disagree with the person - but I do not question their right to such a belief, or their right to speak it or share it on a bulletin board.
quote:
So since I disagree with you so vigorously, the Spirit can't be moving in me, or else I'm rejecting it?
This is a big leap from what I said, requiring some pretty big assumptions. It was not my meaning and I am sorry that I expressed myself in such a way that I could be so misunderstood. I'll try to communicate with more clarity in the future, but the problem is that, since I know what I mean, I don't see all the ways it could be read with a different meaning.
quote:
You've stepped into the 'personal relationship' thread with something similar, I think. Living the Christian life through the power of the spirit isn't 'special knowledge', but claiming to know that certain books are the work of demons rather than of humans certainly does. If you want to tell me I'm not a good Christian for denying that Islam is demonic, fine, but that will definitely get you called to Hell.
Again, I'm not calling anybody bad Christians and I'm not asking anybody to agree with my opinion (which you misrepresent, above) - you are perfectly free to believe whatever you like, whatever makes sense to you. I have no problem with that and I'm perplexed why you have a problem with the reverse.
quote:
Pedant point: Baal in this context is singular, and his prophets (450 of them) are plural.
yes, a badly placed apostrophe - my apologies for that, too. "...priests' invocation..."
quote:
First major objection. In Revelation, when Satan is cast down from Heaven, he has 'but a short time' - this seems to be a part of the End Times. In Job chapter 1, Satan is with 'the sons of God' coming before the Lord. So I'm not sure what your authority is that a devil or devils had been cast out of Heaven at this point.
Lucifer had "fallen" and taken a third of the angelic realm with him as allies. HOW the time lines work, between Heaven and earth, are mysterious in the extreme. There certainly is a future point when the devil is cast into the lake of fire (which happens after being bound for a thousand years, which *clearly* hasn't happened yet because he's still making plenty of hay; either that or it's a VERY long chain!) - my understanding of the time line is that Lucifer has "fallen" (in the same sense that humanity has "fallen" - both chose treason against God rather than continuing obedience) at least positionally and is no longer the annointed cherub that covers (Ez.28) but he still has access to heaven (in fact, we're told he makes accusation against the brethren day and night, which implies continuing access to God). But I think the fact that he has access to God doesn't mean that he's limited, locationally, to heaven - and there was certainly a great deal of demonic activity on the earth during the Incarnation (and I see a lot of it in my environment, but I have a weird environment).
I have never read "Paradise Lost" so Milton is assuredly not my reference and I made NO statement as to its inspiration; not quite sure why you assume I think it's demonic. I have no argument with you about God giving Satan authority to do as he will to Job (within certain constraints, on both occasions) - it's the earth *in general* that we gave over to Satan in the fall (God gave us authority and we gave it away, sad to say).
quote:
When, exactly, was God absent? The whole heavens tell the glory of his work. The psalmist tells us that wherever we go, God is there before us. (Ps 139:8-10)
Very true - and later you cannot see the necessity of God being "more" and "less" present -but consider Sinai and Horeb and God's special presence there. There are assuredly things in scripture which exist in tension with each other; Jesus is God Incarnate but in Mark 6 we're told He could not do any great works in His home town due to their unbelief. As I said, I cannot explain it but I see the evidence of it. Yes, there is an over-the-top mocking on Elijah's part when he accuses their "god" of answering a call of nature - but I think you are wrong, however, to conclude that "idols" are only statues and figures made by the hands of man. The fact that scripture dismisses idols as without power does not mean that scripture dismisses the idea of beings which we call "gods" (consider Ex.18, Ps.82 and Ps.86).
quote:
When did the armies of Israel fight demons? Chapter and verse, please.
I didn't say they fought demons - I said they fought the demonic. There are straightforward battles with simple humans and there are battles which are fought in the heavenlies as well as on the earth.
quote:
I'm going to go out on a limb here, and assert that the only biblical reference to people worshipping demons or devils is the cult of the Beast in the End Times in Revelation. (Satan tempts Jesus to worship him, but is quite naturally refused. (Matthew 4:9, for example.)) If anyone can give me chapter and verse for any other instance, I'll be grateful. But I must insist that it specify demons, devils, or unclean spirits as objects of worship. References to Rimmon, Moloch, and other pagan gods alone won't do.
And they won't do because you refuse to recognize them as devils or demons, principalities or powers, thrones or dominions? An interesting position but one I don't personally buy.
quote:
In fact, as in the story of Legion, the unclean spirits recognise Jesus as God, and worship him.
well, they certainly recognize Him - but I don't think I'd use the word "worship" for what the demons did, not in the sense that we use the word - the man is referenced as worshiping Jesus but the word means to fall on the ground, to prostrate oneself, to kiss the hand like a dog. It's an appropriate acknowledgement of higher rank, yes - but it doesn't indicate a grateful or loving heart toward God, celebrating the goodness of God.
quote:
In short, your grotesque characterisation of other faiths as demonic is unbiblical. It's also uncharitable, and I am going to accuse you of arrogance, for presuming that the Holy Spirit entitles you to judge the faith of billions.
You may accuse me of whatever you like. I do not "presume the Holy Spirit entitles me to judge the faith of billions" and I do not judge the faith of billions - I have no judgment to make of these people whatsoever. SOME of them may be truly worshiping Yahweh, under another name and guise (shades of the beautiful young warrior in CSL's "The Last Battle" whose worship of Tash was received by Aslan) - that is not my place and I have never presumed to take it. I reiterate, my simple statement is that I personally believe the scripture they follow has some demonic influence and part of why I believe that is from my experience of the Holy Spirit. I am not saying the Qu'ran is wholly demonic (very few things are wholly demonic, also imho) - please try to not make my statements more broad than they actually are.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
I don't think a call to Hell will serve any purpose at this point. Lynn, I wasn't challenging your right to say any of that stuff. I felt that our disagreement over it should be taken to a more appropriate forum. See the FAQs for this site for more details on Hell.
I suggest you get to know some Muslims. That's all.
We now return you to your scheduled thread. Next caller - why aren't you a Muslim?
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
And if what Joseph Smith and Mohammed reported is accurate and the explanation isn't materialistic, what is it?
I never claimed it was accurate. I simply claimed it wasn't of demonic origin. People can, either devoutly and sincerely or otherwise, make stuff up. And although I'm using quite a few biblical arguments here, I'm not a literalist myself. I don't require that the Bible be of purely divine origin for me to find it useful and to make it a key part of my faith. So you're asking me to approach other books in a way I don't approach the Bible itself.
But it seems you're bothered by those who do take it as a book of consistently divine origin, or do I misread you? Yes, people can make innocent mistakes - but Mohammed claimed to be speaking the words of God, so if he's just making stuff up, he's misrepresenting somebody on a pretty serious scale. Likewise, Joseph Smith and the gold tablets and the special glasses - either he's making things up (which is Not Good) or he thinks he's experiencing this stuff but isn't really (delusional) or he really is experiencing some stuff which is not of God because it conflicts with God's established word. Smith's claim was that, in fact, God's word hadn't been rightly understood and he was called to correct it. None of his historical claims have ever been verified archaeologically (and many concretely disproved) - so what is his authority for writing what he wrote? That is part of the rational argument, considering his writings and their inspiration. I am NOT arguing that Smith knew he was being inspired in part by the demonic; he may well have believed everything he wrote - in fact, I expect he did believe it. But his good-faith belief does not eliminate the possibility that he was deceived. And if it was not a demonic deception, who deceived him? How do you deceive yourself into special glasses and golden plates?
Mohammed first believed he was being possessed by a demon when he would go into his fits and 'prophesy' - but his wife (his first wife, the older, wealthy one) said, "no, it's not a demon, it's God!" This is a place where I believe his first impression was correct, but we would all prefer to hear from God rather than a devil - this is part of why we are exhorted to "test the spirits, to make sure they are of God," because we can hear from other sources.
quote:
The burden of proof rests with you and Lynn to explain your position. I do not believe the views you have expressed can be justified from the Bible, and I think their expression is a positive obstacle to making our own faith understandable and approachable to others.
I'm trying to understand this - simply expressing, in a private forum, that part of why I am not a Muslim is because I think the Qu'ran is inspired in part by the demonic is a positive obstacle? That's a remarkable argument. How do you think the folks in Thyatira felt when Paul delivered the young woman of the spirit of divination? We know her owners were angry because they made a lot of money off her fortune-telling; we know the crowd got riled up and the authorities beat them and put them in prison. It seems to me that, by your argument, Paul shouldn't have cast the foul spirit out of the girl because it would be a positive obstacle to making the gospel understandable and acceptable to others.
Why didn't he just let her speak? She was speaking the truth, the demon was saying, "These men are the servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to us the way of salvation." Personally, I think it's because demons don't belong in people, even when they speak some truth, and he if he left her in that state she would only be used as a mouthpiece for lies later. I am NOT equating myself with Paul (!!) - but I think it punctures the argument that we must be politically correct in order for our faith to be understood or spread.
May I ask, do you believe that demons exist? Do you believe that we wrestle not against flesh and blood but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world and wickedness in high places? The answer has a major bearing on the kind of proof you require.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Due you accept Jewish authorities on Titanic / Satanic equivalence?
etymology 1
= 2
Chucking in TITAN, HE{C|K}ATONCH(E)IRES who were imprisoned by Ouranus - the sky blue God of 'Heaven' - to Wikipedia etc gives interesting background, rich pickings for somewhat blatanttly obvious parallels.
Hesiod's theogony is used by Peter and Jude.
Mere plagiarists I'm sure.
Did you try the Greek of I Peter 3:19? Or the New King James?
I Peter 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit, 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited[f] in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared
Any commas in Greek are there?
Your faithful clinging to a single hermeneutic and a proliferation of philosophical entities is impressive.
If a little contradictory for one so liberal.
So, regardless of our intellectual resources, as usual we are divided until the resurrection only hopefully by disposition.
I am not proposing to evangelize Moslems by claiming they follow a demonically influenced leader any more than civilized, fundamentalist Moslems try and evangelize me by claiming that I'm following Iblis = Diabolos = The Devil. But BOTH of us believe that of the other.
These are our truths. Yours is different altogether. The burden of proof has ALWAYS rested with liberals in Christianity and it's one they refuse to take. Liberalism is a burden isn't it? More is always less. More rationalization, less faith.
[ 15. November 2005, 10:06: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
molopata
The Ship's jack
# 9933
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
I don't think a call to Hell will serve any purpose at this point. Lynn, I wasn't challenging your right to say any of that stuff. I felt that our disagreement over it should be taken to a more appropriate forum. See the FAQs for this site for more details on Hell.
I suggest you get to know some Muslims. That's all.
We now return you to your scheduled thread. Next caller - why aren't you a Muslim?
T.
Well that was a thoroughly exhausting excursion. Thanks T. I'm glad we're back on track. I would propose that we stick a little more to the descriptive than the critical. Although it can have some interesting ramifications, I've seen us go down bunny holes a few times so far. If you feel I'm totally opinionated, just ignore me - I don't intend to have this post evolve into a new discussion, so...
Next caller - why aren't you a Muslim?
--------------------
... The Respectable
Posts: 1718 | From: the abode of my w@ndering mind | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
