Thread: Define "demonic" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029199
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
Bumped into this article about responding to an entire country infested with demons by exorcism. I'm intrigued at the reasoning for thinking "demons" - "High levels of violence, as well as drug cartels and abortion."
Skipping the dead horse, are violence and drug cartels evidence of demonic involvement, or is the demonic influence (if any) more likely indicated by the values underlying such as pursuit of money and power?
Or, what activities and cultural values would suggest to you an entire area was demon infested and needing exorcism?
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
The underlying values, istm.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
"Demon infestation" is in the same category as "flat earth" and "literal Adam and Eve" - these are things that people once believed but now should be seen as unhelpful superstitions.
Blaming Mexico's problems on demons is like blaming the Greek financial fiasco on left-handed people.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
Don't be so quick, Oscar. I can tell by looking in the eyes if someone's gettin' a bad case of demonism. Not being a hypocrite, I do check my own eyes in the mirror from time to time.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
And I bet you're left-handed, too...
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Walter Wink describes the demonic as something akin to "the myth of redemptive violence"-- a way of thinking of the world that is zero-sum, "get them before they get you", etc. It is a way that perpetuates poverty, violence, and suffering. It is found in every culture, every place, it just goes by different names. So in the West it might manifest itself in rampant consumerism and individualism that ultimately leads to isolation, selfishness, and predatory systems, whereas in the developing world it would take different forms. Yet it is the same demonic spirit underlying each, and the same need for redemption to break the cycles of oppression and violence.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Don't be so quick, Oscar. I can tell by looking in the eyes if someone's gettin' a bad case of demonism. Not being a hypocrite, I do check my own eyes in the mirror from time to time.
What is it you see in a person's eyes which enables you to tell that they're getting "a bad case of demonism", what do you mean by that phrase, and what do you do if you see it?
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Don't be so quick, Oscar. I can tell by looking in the eyes if someone's gettin' a bad case of demonism. Not being a hypocrite, I do check my own eyes in the mirror from time to time.
What is it you see in a person's eyes which enables you to tell that they're getting "a bad case of demonism", what do you mean by that phrase, and what do you do if you see it?
I'd have to check your eyes first before I can tell you to make sure I'm not actually helping the sinister forces of demonism. I'm sure you'll understand, providing you're one of the good guys.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
"Demon infestation" is in the same category as "flat earth" and "literal Adam and Eve" - these are things that people once believed but now should be seen as unhelpful superstitions.
Blaming Mexico's problems on demons is like blaming the Greek financial fiasco on left-handed people.
If it were any old web page muttering about demons and ET aliens among us, I might agree; what caught my attention was high level Catholic church involvement.
quote:
Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íńiguez, the archbishop emeritus of Guadalajara, presided at the closed doors ceremony...
Also participating were Archbishop Jesús Carlos Cabrero of San Luis Potosí....
But I know nothing of the reputation of these men.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Don't be so quick, Oscar. I can tell by looking in the eyes if someone's gettin' a bad case of demonism. Not being a hypocrite, I do check my own eyes in the mirror from time to time.
What is it you see in a person's eyes which enables you to tell that they're getting "a bad case of demonism", what do you mean by that phrase, and what do you do if you see it?
I'd have to check your eyes first before I can tell you to make sure I'm not actually helping the sinister forces of demonism. I'm sure you'll understand, providing you're one of the good guys.
Yep, you've got me. My secret is out. Fortunately, I've evaded detection so far by wearing beautiful blue contact lenses. As I said to a demonic friend at a recent cultic sacrifice who got picked up by a local demon detection group, "You should've gone to Spec Savers."
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Just a quick point: even though we may think there is no such thing as demon infestation, it does not mean it is not true.
It is a matter of perception.
Many people in the third world actually believe in demons.
A number in the second world also believe in them.
A few in the first world (secretly) believe they are there.
Just because you don't think demons exist does not mean they aren't there.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Just because you don't think demons exist does not mean they aren't there.
That's a silly thing to say.
"Just because you don't believe unicorns* exist does not mean they aren't there."
*Insert mythical creature of choice.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Just a quick point: even though we may think there is no such thing as demon infestation, it does not mean it is not true.
It is a matter of perception.
Many people in the third world actually believe in demons.
A number in the second world also believe in them.
A few in the first world (secretly) believe they are there.
Just because you don't think demons exist does not mean they aren't there.
In seriousness, for a change, I think you're right and if they are up to stuff they are sneaky enough to where we can't really tell what they are up to. It is also handy to blame them for the great evil we can concoct on our own and we really don't like to admit that about ourselves.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Just because you don't think demons exist does not mean they aren't there.
That's a silly thing to say.
"Just because you don't believe unicorns* exist does not mean they aren't there."
*Insert mythical creature of choice.
Now who is being silly? Everyone except ignorant wretches know the unicorns died in the flood.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Just because you don't think demons exist does not mean they aren't there.
That's a silly thing to say.
"Just because you don't believe unicorns* exist does not mean they aren't there."
*Insert mythical creature of choice.
Now who is being silly? Everyone except ignorant wretches know the unicorns died in the flood.
Well actually, before they did, they swam around for a bit, had sex with dolphins which is why we have Narwhales.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
exactly
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on
:
In situations like the one described in the OP, it seems more of a cop-out--a way to dodge actual changes in behavior, laws, or culture to resolve social ills (such as crime) and just blame demons and decide a prayer will fix it.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
I didn't see it as a cop-out, but a way of asking God to counteract any negative effects of the identified culture of satanism and witchcraft. If evil is being invited in, those doing so are corrupt and will influence others, so that evil will spread, whether or not there are evil spirits at work. God, the power of goodness, will overpower this evil if people invite him to, as here.
Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on
:
quote:
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.
From the Preface to "The Screwtape Letters" by C.S. Lewis
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
If it were any old web page muttering about demons and ET aliens among us, I might agree; what caught my attention was high level Catholic church involvement.
quote:
Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íńiguez, the archbishop emeritus of Guadalajara, presided at the closed doors ceremony...
Also participating were Archbishop Jesús Carlos Cabrero of San Luis Potosí....
But I know nothing of the reputation of these men.
The tone of the article is cautious, "Some in the church think so," is hardly a ringing endorsement of what is happening.
The human condition is such that if people think they can get away with something there are enough who will try, which could explain a lot of things like the cartels. The traditional word for this is sin. Demons are not required to explain this, even to those who believe in them.
(Mere Nick, better get rid of all your pins, we don't want to give these demons anywhere to dance, do we.)
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Mere Nick, better get rid of all your pins, we don't want to give these demons anywhere to dance, do we.)
No, for they would no doubt dance in an exceedingly vulgar manner.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
You see, I would argue that the demonic is real. What that doesn't mean is that all of the stuff taught about it is true.
In the same way that I believe in ghosts. I just don't believe they are the restless spirits of dead people returned to haunt us. They are more like our way of interpreting the "thin places".
Demons - maybe they are ways of interpreting the connection of people to the spiritual in a negative way. Maybe something else. And yes, the institutional problems can also be the connection of people to the negative spiritual.
I don't think we need to dismiss the idea just because there are a whole lot of crazy people who also believe. Otherwise, we would chuck in Christianity.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
In situations like the one described in the OP, it seems more of a cop-out--a way to dodge actual changes in behavior, laws, or culture to resolve social ills (such as crime) and just blame demons and decide a prayer will fix it.
You could say that about any form of intercessory prayer whatsoever.
I am not sure that a sincere appeal for the exorcism of demons is necessarily worse than the sort of halfhearted appeal for deliverance from negative-sounding unquantifiable abstract nouns preferred by Anglicans such as myself.
[ 17. June 2015, 21:08: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Raving neo-liberal pomo that I am, I do not understand the need for the angelic-demonic realm in explaining anything any of us experience.
But.
Jesus, Son of Man, was completely matter of fact about it. As was His mother. And Paul.
Was Jesus mistaken?
I have never encountered a demoniac and don't wish to. I've encountered many very broken people and have been very broken - and fearful - myself. And I have no evidence ... apart from a couple ... or three situations, one quite mundane and utterly spine tingling, for supernatural intervention in my circumstances, or any of theirs. I have never encountered a suspension of the laws of physics. Just ... coincidence.
I've never seen a healing of any kind and never expect to, try never to ask. Yet I have been healed around and even within my thinking and feeling.
If demons exist, they've changed their modus operandi since Jesus' milieu. Just as God has.
Evil definitely exists as a synergy of our collective individual evil, in our institutions. Emergent evil. Nothing spooky about it.
But.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
I'm the same, Martin.
These days I work with people who have committed all sorts of crimes against others, including the worst things you'd be likely to think of. I don't come across anything I would call demonic.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
If demons exist, they've changed their modus operandi since Jesus' milieu.
In the West. In other parts of the world, they still seem to operate in much the way as they did in Jesus' time.
The question of why that might be is intriguing.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I have certainly experienced something quasi-demonic in my work (therapy), that is, seeing something utterly self-destructive or other-destructive in people, which seemed to speak like the voice in The Exorcist. I have not taken a supernatural view of it, however; apart from anything else, that would be grossly unprofessional.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
What I think is -very- easy to do is just to label a person, situation (or country? Really?) as demonic. Look what this then gets you out of! You don't have to know them, spend time, money or resources on them, or do anything to help them in any way. It's all the demon's fault! I can't do anything about it! (Assuming your attempts at exorcism fail.)
How easy it is then to use this label a lot. So I think it should be rare -- the absolute last resort, after all resources and efforts are made.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
What I think is -very- easy to do is just to label a person, situation (or country? Really?) as demonic. Look what this then gets you out of! You don't have to know them, spend time, money or resources on them, or do anything to help them in any way. It's all the demon's fault! I can't do anything about it! (Assuming your attempts at exorcism fail.)
How easy it is then to use this label a lot. So I think it should be rare -- the absolute last resort, after all resources and efforts are made.
If we really believe what Jesus said when he said "the gates of hell will not prevail against you", perhaps it's our response to the demonic that needs to change. Jesus seems to suggest it's the demons on the defensive, not us. Perhaps, in the power of the Spirit, rather than minimizing the demonic or responding to it with passivity, the key is to confront the demonic, to work proactively to overturn systemic injustice, oppression, and violence. Walter Wink has a few suggestions along those lines.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
In thinking about what I've seen posted here by you folks you have caused me to think of a friend of mine who died from esophageal cancer back in the fall of 2011. One of my memories is when he would pray for God to protect us from Satan and his demonic forces.
One of our Wednesday night classes over the past few weeks has been about the sermon on the mount. We were looking at Matthew 7 tonight and verses 9-12 caused me to think about this thread. Peter describes the devil as prowling around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Too strong for me. If I know how to give good gifts to my children despite my own evilness, then my only hope is to pray to God for protection and I trust that he will protect since he is most powerful and always good.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I don't rule out the existence of demons. But claiming they've infested a whole country seems a bit much.
Affecting a whole country, maybe.
I'd say much of what is hurting Mexico is plain old greed and corruption.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have certainly experienced something quasi-demonic in my work (therapy), that is, seeing something utterly self-destructive or other-destructive in people, which seemed to speak like the voice in The Exorcist. I have not taken a supernatural view of it, however; apart from anything else, that would be grossly unprofessional.
That would depend on your profession, obviously...
The assumption that the spiritual warfare between (guardian) angles and demons also happens at a national level derives from
quote:
Daniel 10:5-7,12-14,20-21,11:1,12:1:
I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with gold of Uphaz. His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the noise of a multitude. And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me did not see the vision, but a great trembling fell upon them, and they fled to hide themselves. ... Then he said to me, "Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your mind to understand and humbled yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words. The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, so I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia and came to make you understand what is to befall your people in the latter days. For the vision is for days yet to come." ... Then he said, "Do you know why I have come to you? But now I will return to fight against the prince of Persia; and when I am through with him, lo, the prince of Greece will come. But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your prince. And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him. ... "At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book.
So we find here among others the Archangel Michael, Prince of the Seraphim, fighting with the "prince of Persia", presumably some kind of archdemon.
The traditional picture considers human beings as the lowest of "foot soldiers" in a much larger spiritual war that rages across the world. Entities like countries / kingdoms / nations are organising units for this spiritual infantry, turning for example the Brits into a particular spiritual army, and hence higher spirits associate to this at an appropriate hierarchical level. The "national spirits" are both "generals" (commanders over the lower ranks locked in battle, all the way down to our personal guardian angels vs. individual demons) and "big guns" (possessing major force themselves, equivalent to say an aircraft carrier).
As for the attempts to explain this away as "just a way of talking psychology" - well, that cuts both ways. We might as well say that psychology to a considerable extent is "just a way of talking demonology". The difference between psychology and demonology can be really subtle. In particular, it does no good to start talking about "brain chemistry". Quite apart from the fact that the "neuroscience" behind this is often more magically assumed than scientifically present, humans as embodied beings would be expected to show bodily signatures when under spiritual attack. It is at best Cartesian dualism to assume that spiritual battle would be restricted to the immaterial (and hence unobservable) realm. Other conceptions, including other dualist ideas, exist and would in contrast expect to see telltale signs in the body. And this does not have to be revolving heads as in "The Exorcist", it could as well be some neurotransmitter depletion etc.
The real difference between demonology and psychology concerns the question whether what diminishes the human actor is something personal or impersonal. Short of revelation (either Divine, or possibly a self-revelation of the demon), such judgements are difficult, and for the most part, impossible. We mostly project our prejudices into this. Modern people assume "impersonal unless proven personal". However, nobody and nothing, in particular also no existing science, guarantees this particular assumption.
[ 18. June 2015, 09:44: Message edited by: IngoB ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, there are schools of therapy which would see such a quasi-demonic force as an autonomous entity, for which there are many terms, e.g. sub-personality, internal object, demon lover, internal saboteur, and so on.
In fact, there is a considerable literature in psychoanalysis on this subject, since the 'internal negative voice' plagues so many people. The idea that it is autonomous is quite disturbing, but the evidence is there, for example, if you try to resist it, it may well redouble its efforts to sabotage your life.
It's certainly unnerving to see such a force emerge, and speak with a blinding hatred towards that person, and seek their downfall. Then you have to start the struggle to neutralize it and integrate it. For example, there may be an element of split-off hatred going on, but where does that come from?
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
And yet, you feel compelled to qualify these psychoanalytical descriptions - or perhaps your field does, and you are now merely reporting on its terms. It is a quasi-demonic sub-personality, rather than a demonic personality. Hence its true autonomy is in question, is actually derived. It is in the end self-destruction, not other-destruction, that worries you there.
This is a kind of Turing test, really. Just what can a demon do to a person, or make a person do, that would reveal itself and its influences? The problem is that we "Turing-test" on embodiment, i.e., we instinctively attribute one actor per body. Thus no matter what a particular body does, we attribute its actions all to one "person" as its possessor - and if this becomes incoherent, we attribute madness to that person.
Not that I have a solution. I also have no idea how to objectively distinguish craziness from possession.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Someone I know a bit was talking about a bible study he had been involved with talking about Matthew 17: 14-21.
He says some at the bible study objected to the idea that an epileptic was possessed by a demon.
Someone else said maybe the possession which needed exorcising was in the crowd not the boy.
And that neatly sums up my thoughts on demon possession.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And yet, you feel compelled to qualify these psychoanalytical descriptions - or perhaps your field does, and you are now merely reporting on its terms. It is a quasi-demonic sub-personality, rather than a demonic personality. Hence its true autonomy is in question, is actually derived. It is in the end self-destruction, not other-destruction, that worries you there.
This is a kind of Turing test, really. Just what can a demon do to a person, or make a person do, that would reveal itself and its influences? The problem is that we "Turing-test" on embodiment, i.e., we instinctively attribute one actor per body. Thus no matter what a particular body does, we attribute its actions all to one "person" as its possessor - and if this becomes incoherent, we attribute madness to that person.
Not that I have a solution. I also have no idea how to objectively distinguish craziness from possession.
Well, incoherence is assumed in psychoanalysis. The idea of a unitary personality is seen as a fantasy, although one might be able to 'integrate' different bits.
I suppose popular sentiment sees incoherence as crazy - voices in the head, and so on - but of course, many people have voices in the head, and they are often warring forces.
Even the 'internal critical voice' is very common, and becomes more of a problem when it becomes self-destructive, or a voice of hatred.
I suppose the idea of the unconscious was an attack on the notion of coherence and unity, and for that reason, has often been bitterly opposed. Here be dragons.
But Freud did state that the aim of analysis was, 'where id was, there shall be ego', so he was not in favour of psychological chaos.
Cynically, one might recommend the presentation of a unified personality to others, even if behind that, lies a raging torrent. Where id was, there shall be persona.
Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd say much of what is hurting Mexico is plain old greed and corruption.
But then, based on the temptations of Jesus, it seems that the lies the Devil wants us to believe are indeed the plain and old ones: that it is good to do whatever is necessary feed our "natural" appetites, that wealth can compensate for the subjugation of the soul and that power vests in those who are able to make a big show of it.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Saying that we don't see the need fora demonic-angelic realm in the context of anything we experience is a little akin to a mayfly saying they don't see the need to believe in a human realm...
What is it about the human race that we feel the need to be first, superior, the prime-cause of all things and the ones to whom everything should be explained?
Are there demons? I don't see why not.
Why should the tangible created world be the only created world there is?
Now, as far as demons are concerned, we should be cautious about their influence and not overplay tjheir activity. I certainly don't see infestation - except, however in the sense that they don't need to be evident in a society where sin has the upper hand anyway. It's almost as if we give them free reign and do half their work for them. Let's not forget that our struggle is against the world, the flesh and the devil.
What about the influence of the devil? Well it seems to me that most of the 'demonic activity' in this world is actually conducted by people. if Satan is the father of lies, then it is quite evident that people are simply believing them!
The suicide bomber who believes his death will gain him a place in paradise - it's a lie.
The young girl who thinks abortion is the easiest or only way - she's believing a lie.
The person who believes that life must only be about making money - believing a lie.
Someone who believes that sincerity is better than truth - again, a lie.
And what we have is a confused world because these people and countless other examples are victims! They have been sold lies by people above them, people they trust. They are enticed, deceived, led, encouraged to believe stuff that in a normal situation they would not believe.
They believe a lie spoken into their life; they go with it and it often ruins them.
That's what 'demonic' is - where his malign influence is seen to be attractive, productive, a solution or a gain.
It's all a lie from hell.
That's why Jesus said, 'the truth shall set you free.'
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
Preach on, mudfrog. I'm listening.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Preach on, mudfrog. I'm listening.
Sorry, I didn't mean to preach
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I have certainly experienced something quasi-demonic in my work (therapy), that is, seeing something utterly self-destructive or other-destructive in people, which seemed to speak like the voice in The Exorcist. I have not taken a supernatural view of it, however; apart from anything else, that would be grossly unprofessional.
That would depend on your profession, obviously...
The assumption that the spiritual warfare between (guardian) angles and demons also happens at a national level derives from
quote:
Daniel 10:5-7,12-14,20-21,11:1,12:1:
I lifted up my eyes and looked, and behold, a man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with gold of Uphaz. His body was like beryl, his face like the appearance of lightning, his eyes like flaming torches, his arms and legs like the gleam of burnished bronze, and the sound of his words like the noise of a multitude. And I, Daniel, alone saw the vision, for the men who were with me did not see the vision, but a great trembling fell upon them, and they fled to hide themselves. ... Then he said to me, "Fear not, Daniel, for from the first day that you set your mind to understand and humbled yourself before your God, your words have been heard, and I have come because of your words. The prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; but Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, so I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia and came to make you understand what is to befall your people in the latter days. For the vision is for days yet to come." ... Then he said, "Do you know why I have come to you? But now I will return to fight against the prince of Persia; and when I am through with him, lo, the prince of Greece will come. But I will tell you what is inscribed in the book of truth: there is none who contends by my side against these except Michael, your prince. And as for me, in the first year of Darius the Mede, I stood up to confirm and strengthen him. ... "At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book.
So we find here among others the Archangel Michael, Prince of the Seraphim, fighting with the "prince of Persia", presumably some kind of archdemon.
The traditional picture considers human beings as the lowest of "foot soldiers" in a much larger spiritual war that rages across the world. Entities like countries / kingdoms / nations are organising units for this spiritual infantry, turning for example the Brits into a particular spiritual army, and hence higher spirits associate to this at an appropriate hierarchical level. The "national spirits" are both "generals" (commanders over the lower ranks locked in battle, all the way down to our personal guardian angels vs. individual demons) and "big guns" (possessing major force themselves, equivalent to say an aircraft carrier).
As for the attempts to explain this away as "just a way of talking psychology" - well, that cuts both ways. We might as well say that psychology to a considerable extent is "just a way of talking demonology". The difference between psychology and demonology can be really subtle. In particular, it does no good to start talking about "brain chemistry". Quite apart from the fact that the "neuroscience" behind this is often more magically assumed than scientifically present, humans as embodied beings would be expected to show bodily signatures when under spiritual attack. It is at best Cartesian dualism to assume that spiritual battle would be restricted to the immaterial (and hence unobservable) realm. Other conceptions, including other dualist ideas, exist and would in contrast expect to see telltale signs in the body. And this does not have to be revolving heads as in "The Exorcist", it could as well be some neurotransmitter depletion etc.
The real difference between demonology and psychology concerns the question whether what diminishes the human actor is something personal or impersonal. Short of revelation (either Divine, or possibly a self-revelation of the demon), such judgements are difficult, and for the most part, impossible. We mostly project our prejudices into this. Modern people assume "impersonal unless proven personal". However, nobody and nothing, in particular also no existing science, guarantees this particular assumption.
This.
Posted by Mere Nick (# 11827) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Preach on, mudfrog. I'm listening.
Sorry, I didn't mean to preach
Not meaning to must have helped it sound like good preaching, then.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, cliffdweller, just saying 'This' is rather enigmatic, but suggests that you think that psychology should not attempt to deal with the dark forces in the psyche. Obviously, I don't agree.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
"Just because you don't believe unicorns* exist does not mean they aren't there."
*Insert mythical creature of choice.
Smurfs?
Anybody says Smurfs don't exist and I'm out of here ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Better back to OP.
Jesus had direct dealings with demons so to deny them would be to deny quite a lot of what Jesus was on about. What they are and how they operate in our lives is somewhat harder to pin down. It does though seem that whenever demons manage to get get persons, or peoples calling each other evil then the only winner is evil itself, IE wars etc.
I'm not sure exorcisms and the casting out of demons by mere people is always such a good idea. That isn't to say some may find benefit from it.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
While we're waiting for miracles of healing and deliverance we have to get on with things.
The demons and their prince that Jesus encountered had supernatural insight and abilities. I have a paranoid schizophrene friend (not the first or only or worst by a fair way, like Staffies, never met a nasty one) who sees apparitions of small glowing people and experiences erotic tickling. Never when he's with me. Certainly not BY me! Only at home, alone. He's a big, tough, vulnerably housed former heavy drinker with pancreatitis. He never loses his temper, never effs and blinds around church people, including on the two three day treks in Derbyshire we've taken him on, once in my car. He's always polite, affable, steady, likes a cigar.
I remember him sobbing in prayer six years ago, heart breaking to see, choking over saying that he knew there was a good man inside him.
He's convinced his tickler apparitions are demons as is everyone else from the char evo church. But he takes all the meds prescribed. The vicar does exorcisms before breakfast and I have to confess I submitted to his ministry when plagued with intrusive thoughts. As no frog voiced thing erupted from my stomach - where they live in his experience - he agreed that my problems were entirely psychological brought about by being an abused child who went on abuse himself and others. And fell in to abusive religion.
Where were the demons?
As is my rambling sub-Izzard wont I digress. No mention of our friend being exorcized. Funny that.
I'd pray over him if I thought it would make him even momentarily feel encouraged, but I've not got a postmodern formula yet. I need to pray about that! I just engage with him at his level. I want to fully embrace his reality. And mine.
(Oooh, and when I'm diagnosed with cholecystocarcinoma, please only pray that I suffer and die well, NOT for healing. Please.)
What intrigues me is that demons never show their hand. Which is incredibly disciplined of them and those Jesus encountered weren't. Or they are incredibly leashed since Jesus. They can't reveal their hand by accident or intent. Or there would be a significant number of wealthy gamblers.
What do they have to offer? More rebellion? More hate? More lust?
What difference do they make?
Daniel's story is utterly spellbinding. Utterly compelling. Like Abraham's under the terebinth trees of Mamre. The latter didn't happen of course. Even if it did. It didn't. But Daniel! Whoever wrote that, like Jonah, if it ISN'T true, is also a sublime, inspired genius. If it IS true, it has NOTHING to do with us, like God the Killer. It's less accessible than Jonah, the literal truth of which is obviously irrelevant.
So if demons are real, until they show their hand, we need to get on with things. Including embracing, comforting, encouraging the afflicted regardless. Ringing bells, closing books and blowing out candles isn't going to stop the tickling. Quetiapine is.
Which in ONE case I must admit I find extremely difficult. Getting on with things. Not because he's nasty and frightening, but because he's a pain in the arse. I wish there WERE obvious demons to cast out. How do you cast out hard-wired extroverted helplessness?
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
"Just because you don't believe unicorns* exist does not mean they aren't there."
*Insert mythical creature of choice.
Smurfs?
Anybody says Smurfs don't exist and I'm out of here
Better back to OP.
Jesus had direct dealings with demons so to deny them would be to deny quite a lot of what Jesus was on about. What they are and how they operate in our lives is somewhat harder to pin down. It does though seem that whenever demons manage to get get persons, or peoples calling each other evil then the only winner is evil itself, IE wars etc.
I'm not sure exorcisms and the casting out of demons by mere people is always such a good idea. That isn't to say some may find benefit from it.
Yes Jesus did deal with demons, but on the other hand he called Peter Satan because he was acting according to human nature: Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns."
To say everything bad is down to demons is a making a big mistake, but to say they do not exist is another.
It looks like people are fitting demons into their world view. Either they believe in them, and everything is caused by them, or you believe that they don't exist and this colours your thinking.
I can find neither in Jesus.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, cliffdweller, just saying 'This' is rather enigmatic, but suggests that you think that psychology should not attempt to deal with the dark forces in the psyche. Obviously, I don't agree.
Sorry-- I should avoid posting when I've got to rush off to work (otoh, when I post at leisure I tend to be too long-winded...)
What I meant was to carve out a midway position, perhaps because as a charismatic who has been a practicing Marriage & Family therapist in the past, I've got a bit of a foot in both worlds.
I believe in the demonic-- both in the generalized sense that Wink uses it ("a force for evil") and perhaps also in the personalized sense as used by many charismatics. I also believe there is mental illness, and that past attempts to dismiss mental illness as demon possession have often led to abuse and tragedies.
But, having seen mental illness, I'm left believing it is demonic-- not in the old sense of give-them-exorcisms-rather-than-meds, but in the Wink-ian sense of this is evidence that all is not right with the world (as is cancer and substance abuse and racism and genocide and famine). That is no excuse for not giving the full medical standard of care-- in fact, it is all the more reason to do so. As I said before, Jesus' words "the gates of hell shall not prevail against you" suggest that rather than shrinking back from the demonic, we ought to be moving in-- taking back territory from the enemy. One of those territories of the enemy is mental illness, and one of the ways we "take back territory" is by giving those so afflicted the best possible treatment and care, including meds as appropriate.
[ 18. June 2015, 21:48: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
What intrigues me is that demons never show their hand. Which is incredibly disciplined of them and those Jesus encountered weren't. Or they are incredibly leashed since Jesus.
Again, this is a very Western-centric pov. For whatever reasons, once you get out of North America & Europe, you find demons acting (or reporting to act) very similarly to what we see in the gospels. Again, why that might be is an intriguing question.
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So if demons are real, until they show their hand, we need to get on with things. Including embracing, comforting, encouraging the afflicted regardless. Ringing bells, closing books and blowing out candles isn't going to stop the tickling. Quetiapine is.
Which in ONE case I must admit I find extremely difficult. Getting on with things. Not because he's nasty and frightening, but because he's a pain in the arse. I wish there WERE obvious demons to cast out. How do you cast out hard-wired extroverted helplessness?
Very much agree with both these sentiments.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Glad.
But you personally haven't encountered anything incontrovertibly, utterly demonic, i.e. a contravention of the laws of physics that you would swear by. Like me. Anywhere. Ever. With anyone. No demon has shown their hand to you or any two witnesses you would trust with your bank account, even in Uganda.
[ 18. June 2015, 22:03: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Mental illness doesn't emerge in the Wink sense as a synergy of our individual brokenness. It's organic, wired, natured, developed, conditioned, nurtured under that aegis.
Mine is.
I wish it were due to possession, then I could be rid of it. But I must learn to suffer it. Redeem it.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Glad.
But you personally haven't encountered anything incontrovertibly, utterly demonic, i.e. a contravention of the laws of physics that you would swear by. Like me. Anywhere. Ever. With anyone. No demon has shown their hand to you or any two witnesses you would trust with your bank account, even in Uganda.
Don't be so sure, Martin.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd say much of what is hurting Mexico is plain old greed and corruption.
But then, based on the temptations of Jesus, it seems that the lies the Devil wants us to believe are indeed the plain and old ones: that it is good to do whatever is necessary feed our "natural" appetites, that wealth can compensate for the subjugation of the soul and that power vests in those who are able to make a big show of it.
Well yes, but to me there's a fundamental difference between "the Devil might tell you these things" and "every time you think these things, it's because of the Devil".
Demons might be a sufficient cause for lots of things, but that doesn't mean they're a necessary cause.
EDIT: Similarly, Mudfrog in his post goes from saying certain things are lies to saying they are lies from hell. Well, personally I think there are plenty of lies that come from right here on earth.
It's rather reminiscent, actually of the desire to paint terrorists as "monsters" rather than human beings. I think there's a general desire sometimes to externalise bad things and distance them from ourselves. We're human, so anything that we can label as inhuman, we're saying it isn't us.
Whereas I think plenty of it is us.
[ 19. June 2015, 03:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
It seems to me that there are two, related and yet separate, topics here.
a) The general idea of the reality (or not) of demons. There is no doubt that Jesus believed in such things, although we might easily discuss whether that is definitive proof.
b) The question of whether a country or region can be "demon infested". This, I would suggest, is far more problematic. And you can believe a) without believing b).
This thread seems to be about b), although some people seem to think that addressing a) will prove b) as well.
Whilst I will admit to being very sceptical about a), I have seen nothing on this thread (nor any where else) which would suggest that b) is nothing more than rampant superstition. Good luck with trying to prove b) from a biblical standpoint.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oscar the Grouch:
It seems to me that there are two, related and yet separate, topics here.
a) The general idea of the reality (or not) of demons. There is no doubt that Jesus believed in such things, although we might easily discuss whether that is definitive proof.
b) The question of whether a country or region can be "demon infested". This, I would suggest, is far more problematic. And you can believe a) without believing b).
This thread seems to be about b), although some people seem to think that addressing a) will prove b) as well.
Whilst I will admit to being very sceptical about a), I have seen nothing on this thread (nor any where else) which would suggest that b) is nothing more than rampant superstition. Good luck with trying to prove b) from a biblical standpoint.
The reference to an angel being detained by "the prince of Persia" in Dan. 10:13 fits, although of course one would want more than a single passage to build an entire theology upon.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Similarly, Mudfrog in his post goes from saying certain things are lies to saying they are lies from hell. Well, personally I think there are plenty of lies that come from right here on earth.
Well, lies come from the world (society's false opinions), the flesh (the things that I tell myself are OK because I want them to be), and the devil (the father of lies).
Ultimately, wherever a lie comes from, the Devil is responsible - even if he hasn't personally told the lie.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Similarly, Mudfrog in his post goes from saying certain things are lies to saying they are lies from hell. Well, personally I think there are plenty of lies that come from right here on earth.
Well, lies come from the world (society's false opinions), the flesh (the things that I tell myself are OK because I want them to be), and the devil (the father of lies).
Ultimately, wherever a lie comes from, the Devil is responsible - even if he hasn't personally told the lie.
Hmm. I'm put in mind of the story of Satan wandering into a bar and finding God nursing what is clearly merely the latest in a line of Scotches.
"What's up?" asks Old Nick
"Earth. They blame me for everything down there."
The Devil sits down and says "I know exactly how you feel..."
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Why does the chain of responsibility, whatever that is, end with Satan?
And I couldn't be more certain cliffdweller.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And I couldn't be more certain cliffdweller.
Wow. You're totally certain you know my life, my experience, w/o question? That's either unbelievably arrogant, or terrifyingly creepy. Do you work for the NSA?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
If you must get personal, take it to Hell. As you well know.
/hosting
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And I couldn't be more certain cliffdweller.
Wow. You're totally certain you know my life, my experience, w/o question? That's either unbelievably arrogant, or terrifyingly creepy. Do you work for the NSA?
I interpreted Martin60's certainty to refer to his own rather than anyone else's experience.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
No Sir. Nobody here or in Uganda has experienced a malevolent suspension of the laws of physics. I wish they and I had.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
Fair enough. I stand corrected.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Does this world have an outside, like a novel has an outside where the author makes her decisions? Someone mentioned mayflies, which live for many months in rivers or lakes, then cross the water's silver surface for a few hours of reproductive glory in the air before, disappointingly, dying; they have no mouths as adults.
That's one form of transcendence and it can give you a heavenly realm and, if you wish, a demonic one, too.
But I think you can also have the form of transcendence that art (including some novelists) produces. Then there is no need for an outside. This is enough, when seen as an artist helps us see it, by painting pictures or spinning parables.
Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The reference to an angel being detained by "the prince of Persia" in Dan. 10:13 fits, although of course one would want more than a single passage to build an entire theology upon.
And if your main biblical support is a fragment of a notoriously obscure and misunderstood piece of apocalyptic writing, you're on really dodgy grounds. Experience shows that most beliefs inspired by such writings can be safely placed in the category of "Batshit Crazy".
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
cliffdweller. I know nothing about you, virtually, apart from one singular belief which spoils everything else. You're female and from San Fransisco or Lowestoft. And the fact that neither you nor anyone else here or in Uganda has experienced a malevolent suspension of the laws of physics. Or a benevolent one.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
I don't think I can respond to that here w/o falling afoul of the admonition of our host. If you want to discuss it further, we'll have to go elsewhere.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I await your summons where you can refute the irrefutable truth of what I say in any terms you like.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
The Devil made me do it.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
Martin60, perhaps he did, but if you continue goading cliffdweller in Purgatory he (i.e. the devil) and you will have the admins to deal with.
/hosting
[ 20. June 2015, 06:17: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Sir.
Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on
:
Regarding demons, I think my head was done in when God possessed Saul with an evil spirit so that he would require David's harp playing to calm down - 1 Samuel 16:14.
It suggests to me that inspiring good is far more complex that shouting, "I cast thee out!"
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
And the fact that neither you nor anyone else here or in Uganda has experienced a malevolent suspension of the laws of physics. Or a benevolent one.
The traditional view is that no creature can work proper supernatural miracles, only God can. God can work miracles through creatures, including the incorporeal spirits as much as human beings, but it is not in their own power to do so.
Consequently, it is plain nonsense to claim that the absence of any "malevolent suspension of the laws of physics" suggests the non-existence of demons (as traditionally understood). Whereas it is simply heresy, bordering on apostasy, to deny the presence of any "benevolent suspension of the laws of physics". Divine miracles are an integral and essential part of Christian belief, and those who throw them out have thrown out the Son of Man with the bathwater...
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Category errors alert.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
OKaaayyyy. Not finding the demonic meaningful doesn't invalidate the Incarnation in the slightest. Any more than evolution does.
That's one category error dealt with. Or non sequitur.
Neither does it invalidate the demonic, whatever that might be. No one here or in Uganda knows what it is through any valid experience.
Finding Bronze and Iron Age accounts of supernatural experience, including Jesus', open to full, open, inquiry don't touch Him either.
He was a man of His culture. Human. Therefore weak. Ignorant. And I don't doubt His encounters for a moment. He spoke with demons including their Prince. Even though the latter interaction is easy to see as projected. A totally internal dialogue. No less valid for that, as an experience of the fully Divine in the fully human.
That's the same non-sequitur being dealt with I realise.
Can demons read minds? If so, they don't seem very good at it. Or demonstrating it. How do they sense the material? Can they not see a hand of cards? Even if they can, they cannot indicate what they are seeing to willing card players.
So how do they make us lie or lust or murder?
How do they take over a tiny few of the massive number of very broken human beings and rarely do things that are impossible (breaking any restraint) but that are mainly incoherent? By God's permission?
That they are even madder than we would follow a minimal literal narrative. The more coherent ones don't seem to waste their time on throwing children in the fire. What are they doing? Influencing Iranian politicians? How?
None of their interactions with Jesus or Paul require mind reading, either through the senses of the rare people they possess or through their own supernatural senses they could see and hear Jesus' ministry. Were they at Bethlehem? Why couldn't they tell Herod?
They seem incredibly weak. And NO I don't want to find out how strong. And yes I would fast and pray until they were weak again.
Are they all concertedly playing Baudelaire's Joueur Généreux recycled as Keyser Söze, or George Spiggott? Even the craziest of them?
To what end? Whilst doing what to our detriment? Elegantly matched by the angels of Lourdes how?
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0