Thread: Do you believe in demons? 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=029265
Posted by Tyler Durden (# 2996) on
:
I used to (having been a Pentecostal and then in an HTB type charismatic Anglican church) but now I'm not so sure...
I've become increasingly 'liberal' since going to theological college 13 years ago (no longer believe in hell, PSA, biblical inerrancy etc) but while I am definitely post (or even ex) evangelical I'm still basically charismatic in that I believe God speaks to and through people (ie in prophecy). And until recently I still believed in demons cos I'd experienced them (and deliverance from them) both in my life and in others.
However, a few years ago, I discovered I have dissociative identity disorder (formerly known as multiple personality disorder) and since then I've been clear that MOST of what I experienced (in myself at least) is better explained by that than by the idea of literal demons/fallen angels.
I've also read stuff by Nigel Wright (baptist theologian) who argues for non-ontological realism vis a vis the demonic (!) That is, there is a reality that corresponds to the idea of the demonic but it's not personal. They aren't fallen angels. In which case, what are they?!
Well, maybe Walter Wink is onto something when he talks about 'the powers' being something that is generated by human beings such that if there were no people, there'd be no demons...
I don't know: that seems far more theologically satisfactory to me these days and yet you hear things that seem to go beyond that: i was reading something the other day about a minister who would address suspected demons in people silently in his head and they/the person would answer his questions out loud! If that's true, how can that be explained without recourse to 'the supernatural'?!
Interested to hear people's thoughts/experience?
Posted by Banner Lady (# 10505) on
:
Yes and yes. So many questions to ponder if we regard ourselves as spiritual beings. None of these questions can therefore ever be answered logically in this world unless you believe this world is all there is. It is a dead horse that surfaces regularly and always leads to more questions:
Are their demons under every bush?
Why do most ingenious tribes have totems that are attached to places?
Have you experienced things that make you believe there are evil spiritual entities (some would say 'thoughts') waiting for an opening to invade/ confuse/divert and ultimately destroy their victims?
Is evil predatory?
For me: Yes, and infectious IMHO. Otherwise we wouldn't have gang cultures where the most awful things imaginable are normalised. But then happiness/calmness is similarly infectious, which is why most of us would rather be around those people.
Posted by 3rdFooter (# 9751) on
:
In pastoral ministry, I come up against demons (however you understand them) quite a bit. There are a lot of people around here who have a very 'realist' view of demons from their own backgrounds.
I have people on the church doorstep, visibly shaking, because some git landlord is playing on cultural understanding to get people to move out and abandon their tenancy rights and deposits.
I have people who are clearly experiencing something, because they can describe it in great detail.
In either case, do the demons exist in any natural or tangible sense? Pretty much, no they don't. Are they real to the people living in fear? More challenging question but the fear is real enough.
My stance is that it doesn't much matter about ontology. The thing/concept has power over its victim in as much as it is allowed to have it. It gets its hooks in when you are weak due to stress, lack of sleep, brain chemistry or whatever.
My guidance goes like this:
Just like any sickness, medicine is part of God's blessing in creation. Use it to help you be strong in mind and body.
Remember that in Christ, you have authority over such things real or imagined. God came so that people could have life in abundance and not live in fear.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
[...I] no longer believe in hell, PSA, biblical inerrancy etc
You've raised an interesting question in my mind, here.
Does it make sense to believe in demons if you don't believe in hell? I mean, where do these demons live? Are they just homeless drifters on earth?
Unless the demons work on some sort of freelance basis are they under the direction of Satan himself? If so, where does he live, if there's no hell?
This is an evangelical commentary on Revelation 9, which talks about demons being sent to the furnace. If there's no furnace for them then I suppose they either have to be extinguished, or else accepted into heaven, just like the men and women of a hell-free Christian universe. This suggests that demons are pretty much like us!
I wonder, then, if it's acceptable for humans to preach to (invisible) demons, to pray for their souls, or otherwise seek to do good for them, as we must do for human beings? It's a strange idea that we must accept their company in heaven even though we're expected to despise them on earth....
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Banner Lady:
Yes and yes. So many questions to ponder if we regard ourselves as spiritual beings. None of these questions can therefore ever be answered logically in this world unless you believe this world is all there is. It is a dead horse that surfaces regularly and always leads to more questions:
Are their demons under every bush?
Why do most ingenious tribes have totems that are attached to places?
Have you experienced things that make you believe there are evil spiritual entities (some would say 'thoughts') waiting for an opening to invade/ confuse/divert and ultimately destroy their victims?
Is evil predatory?
For me: Yes, and infectious IMHO. Otherwise we wouldn't have gang cultures where the most awful things imaginable are normalised. But then happiness/calmness is similarly infectious, which is why most of us would rather be around those people.
For me, this is one of the problems with ascribing things to demonic influence - it absolves us of our responsibility, it feels like a cop out. I don't know about gang cultures where you live, but here they're caused by poverty, deprivation, racism, protection against gentrification in formerly working-class areas, and so on. To say that is caused by demons seems to me to be letting go of responsibility and not owning up to how society has failed the people that become gang members.
Even from a Biblical view of demonic forces, you don't really get them in communal settings. They seem to be rather individualistic things.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
[...I] no longer believe in hell, PSA, biblical inerrancy etc
You've raised an interesting question in my mind, here.
Does it make sense to believe in demons if you don't believe in hell? I mean, where do these demons live? Are they just homeless drifters on earth?
Unless the demons work on some sort of freelance basis are they under the direction of Satan himself? If so, where does he live, if there's no hell?
This is an evangelical commentary on Revelation 9, which talks about demons being sent to the furnace. If there's no furnace for them then I suppose they either have to be extinguished, or else accepted into heaven, just like the men and women of a hell-free Christian universe. This suggests that demons are pretty much like us!
I wonder, then, if it's acceptable for humans to preach to (invisible) demons, to pray for their souls, or otherwise seek to do good for them, as we must do for human beings? It's a strange idea that we must accept their company in heaven even though we're expected to despise them on earth....
Demons presumably could work with Annihilationism, which does not involve a belief in Hell.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
I do believe such creatures exist, but I also believe that human beings are pretty crap at telling the difference between real demons and real psychological phenomena.
This is why we take community reports of demons very cautiously--there might be something there, but there might also be just an ordinary physical or mental health problem, or even a mistake of some sort. If someone claims demon possession our first move would be to have a complete and thorough medical check-up, including psych. And under no circumstances would we carry out the so-called exorcisms that put people's health or life at risk. The most we will do is to pray and ask the Lord to cast out anything that needs it. Certainly he knows if something's there far better than us! And what to do about it.
I've not had anybody accuse a third party of possession, but if they did, I would look extremely closely at the conflicts and motivations in that relationship. It's so easy to point the finger at one person as the source of trouble, and so often wrong--and even dangerous.
Me, I believe that possession is impossible to a Christian (the Holy Spirit is in residence, and he doesn't share well!) though harassment from outside might be possible. Mental illness is certainly possible to a Christian, though. And cases of true possession are probably very, very rare in cultures that have been saturated with Christianity. I would expect to find them on the frontiers of Christianity, rather--that is, in places like Africa and some of Asia. (The West has other dominant forms of evil.)
There's more stuff in the book I wrote in 2013, linked to in my signature below. I try to pull from Scripture as the foundation, but I do also mention some common sense guidelines my family has used over the past 30 years in Asian mission.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
On the question of whether demons/Satan have a home, I think we're getting too anthropomorphic here. Most animals do not have a home--they have at best a temporary den or nest used during the baby-raising season, or possibly during extreme weather. The rest of the time they are wandering, which seems to suit them fine.
Why should not spiritual creatures, who raise no young, do the same?
As for hell, that has never been the devil/demons' "home" in any sense except in the mind of popular culture (cartoons, etc.) Orthodox Christianity and Scripture have always considered it to be their prison, not their home--a place they would wish to escape from, not to dwell in.
As for hell
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I've no objection to belief in demons, but I also think that people are perfectly capable of being thoroughly evil all by themselves and demons can be used to externalise the blame.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Banner Lady: For me: Yes, and infectious IMHO. Otherwise we wouldn't have gang cultures where the most awful things imaginable are normalised.
If there weren't any real demons, we wouldn't have gang culture? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I know a bit about gang culture in Latin America, but this seems very weird.
Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on
:
I believe demons exist but it's another thing to say that every ailment or bad thng that happens is due to them.
Posted by Sipech (# 16870) on
:
I think one might first need to ask the question: "What do you understand by the term 'demon'?"
Just as "Do you believe in God?" carries with it a whole heap of assumptions about the nature of God, so it is with demons
On this point I differ from the position of my church (which could be described as charismatic evangelical) who emphasise spiritual warfare and who like to see demons acting wherever they look. e.g. it was described as a "demonic attack" when a family who were planting a new church had a series of illnesses and accidents that tired them out.
Rather, the attribution of anything negative to an external (and "dark") agent is most probably a coping mechanism used to come to terms with the real world, often as a defence against the idea that anything in the natural world could do us harm.
It brings in all sorts of factors such as the goodness of God and creation. i.e. if God is good and creation very good then any harm, or natural evil, must be due to the Fall. Though the violence of geological history makes this tricky for anyone who isn't a young earth creationist.
If one rejects the idea of demons then dystheism becomes a possible alternative.
It's a can of worms, I tell ya!
Posted by Tyler Durden (# 2996) on
:
Thanks, all. Perhaps I should have asked 'do you believe in literal/personal demons' because Wink, Wright (and I?) would say that demons (or the demonic) exist(s) but that they're the product of some natural process not supernatural beings.
So the gang culture one is a great example. Or imagine the proverbial 'mob spirit': it's not a literal genie hovering over a crowd whipping them into a frenzy; it's what happens when lots of people with a particular attitude come to together at the same time and place. Similarly, Nazi Germany. Clearly what happened there was demonic and evil but for me it was sociological/natural not demonic in a supernatural sense...
This also addresses the idea of what happens to demons in the future. If they were fallen angels, then my understanding of God's ultimate victory would require their reconciliation to him. If they are, effectively, the result of negative human behaviour, they can be and are destroyed as those people and systems change.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
On the question of whether demons/Satan have a home, I think we're getting too anthropomorphic here. Most animals do not have a home--they have at best a temporary den or nest used during the baby-raising season, or possibly during extreme weather. The rest of the time they are wandering, which seems to suit them fine.
Why should not spiritual creatures, who raise no young, do the same?
As for hell, that has never been the devil/demons' "home" in any sense except in the mind of popular culture (cartoons, etc.) Orthodox Christianity and Scripture have always considered it to be their prison, not their home--a place they would wish to escape from, not to dwell in.
So, hell, if it exists, is more or less empty.
It might as well be non-existent, in that case!
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
No.
Just as an expression 'she's dealing with her demons'. Not as any kind of creature/entity/anything.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I'm with Walter Wink on 'demons'who exist in large structures like countriesd or companies - bigger than the sum total of the people involved.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
So, hell, if it exists, is more or less empty.
It might as well be non-existent, in that case!
That would work for me. Seriously.
I suspect it would work just fine for God, too. It's not like he WANTS anybody in hell. Any more than I want to have anybody in a Supermax prison.
Realistically, though, you now need to ask "What is hell?" You seem to consider it a constructed place similar to a city or prison. But the NT just as often refers to it as "outer darkness" or "the pit" or a place of flames similar to the garbage heap of Jerusalem.
This implies that hell is not so much a place-in-itself as it is a state of being cast out, rejected, discarded.
If you prefer a more modern analogy, try Sayers:
quote:
Faust: What art thou, Mephistopheles?
Meph.: I am the price that all things pay for being,
The shadow on the world, thrown by the world
Standing in its own light, which light God is.
Hell is the shadow one faces when one voluntarily turns one's back on the light of God. It exists because our rejection exists. It is a natural consequence of that rejection, and not something optional that God bodged up in his spare time because he hates people.
[ 14. August 2015, 14:27: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
3rdFooter
And, if Jesus is to be believed not as mistaken in multiple ways or misunderstood, despite all of our postmodern ways - and evil is 99.99..% us and our synergies - there is a realm of fallen angels: reality is very ... unreal.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Wink and Wright (Nigel, that is) seem to have it about right. Demons are real, objective, supernatural entitites, but their existence is parasitic on the (collective?) human psyche. Scripture seems very clear that the demonic "realm" is real, but, despite the odd hint here and there, gives us no specific account of their origin - there is nothing approaching a Biblical "demonology".
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I've no objection to belief in demons, but I also think that people are perfectly capable of being thoroughly evil all by themselves and demons can be used to externalise the blame.
True.
On the other hand, demons are supposed to be tempters, aren't they, rather than things that can override my free will. Thus, if Beelzebub tempts me to steal pensioners' life savings, I am still morally culpable for listening to him.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
Yes I believe there are negative energies.
A tribe of self willed spiritual creatures who take orders from their boss Satan? No. The cause of all human pain and grief? No.
But I've (rarely) run into situations that resolved when (to no human's knowledge) I told "anyone not of God" to leave. People spontaneously stop calling a specific room "creepy," for example, where previously people (lots of different people) disliked being in that room.
I think the whole theology thing gets way overdone when we start wanting to know where they live, what are their goals, how did they come to exist. Irrelevant. There are some such, most problems are human caused but on occasion what you are dealing with isn't human, and yet God is so much bigger.
Whether your problems are tangible or intangible, human or nature or spiritual, God is so much bigger. That needs to be the focus.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
Some years ago I worked with two psychologists--phd's. They both had worked with rather primitive societies both of which did believe in the spirit world and demons.
What they learned was if you believe demons are out there, you will see them often.
If a post modern person, though, believes there is a rational explanation for everything, such phenomenon can be explained away or often ignored because it does not fit into our world view.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm with Jolly Jape.
If I read Nigel Wright correctly, he isn't saying that demons don't 'exist' so much as they don't have an ontology in the way that, say, a lemur, a bat, a horse, a mole or you and I do ...
In a sense, they are a form of parasitic, spiritual anti-matter ... if that doesn't sound too sci-fi.
I think it's possible to hold such a view and be thoroughly orthodox and Orthodox (small o / Big O) in terms of one's theology.
If my understanding of both RC and Orthodox views of hell is correct, then it's not seen in the kind of 'medieval' way that SvitlanaV2 has described it here.
If God is 'present everywhere and fills all things' then heaven and hell are flip-sides of the same reality - the eternal presence of Almighty God will be heaven to some people, hell to others ... 'our God is a consuming fire'.
Whether the demons have personality or are a form or anti-personality they will be burnt up and will not be able to withstand the Uncreated Light of God's eternal presence.
So, I'm afraid, for me it's one of these both/and not either/or things ... as far as demons go it's a case of the old Star Trek thing, 'It's life Jim, but not as we know it ...'
We aren't talking about 'creatures' in the sense that we'd talk about a hamster or a mouse, a lizard or a moth ... but neither are we talking about psychological projections in a poltergeist like sense or forces of malign electricity ...
I don't know whether I'm making any sense - but however we cut it, our language and depictions can only be metaphorical.
The same thing applies to benign and unfallen angels too, of course.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If I read Nigel Wright correctly, he isn't saying that demons don't 'exist' so much as they don't have an ontology in the way that, say, a lemur, a bat, a horse, a mole or you and I do ...
Huh? This seems a distinction without a difference. Indeed, what the hell does it mean to "have an ontology" over and above, well, existing?
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I don't give much thought to hell (medieval or otherwise), to be fair. The churches I attend treat it as an uninteresting concept. As a state of mind it's probably more relevant to psychiatrists than to the clergy.
As for demons, they don't seem to have much of a place in contemporary western Christianity either, except as an awkward import from other less secular cultures. I don't know how useful they are in a symbolic sense. They serve for art and poetry (and psychiatry, I suppose) but who needs them in theology, or in the ordinary life of the church?
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If I read Nigel Wright correctly, he isn't saying that demons don't 'exist' so much as they don't have an ontology in the way that, say, a lemur, a bat, a horse, a mole or you and I do ...
Huh? This seems a distinction without a difference. Indeed, what the hell does it mean to "have an ontology" over and above, well, existing?
I suspect the turn of phrase comes from (?)CS Lewis, describing ?sin/?demons as having a negative ontology, thus a "demon" cannot be described as having a "personality", because personhood is a gift of God, it can only be described by reference to that which it is not. It is an "un-personal" entity.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
On the Orthodox POV concerning demons.
There is a belief (really a whole edifice of beliefs) concerning demons sometimes referred to as the "Toll House Theory."
The THT holds that after death the soul passes through a series of "toll houses" on its way to Heaven (or Pittsburgh, or wherever this particular soul is bound). At each toll house, demons accuse the deceased of a particular sin (each toll house has its own assigned sin), while the person's guardian angel(s) defend him/her. If the demons at a particular toll house "win" then the soul descends to Hell. If not, then it passes to the next toll house to be judged for the next sin.
This is far from being universally accepted. (I am one of its detractors and argue against it in public.)
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
Sounds somewhat like the descent of Innana/Ishtar...
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Tyler Durden:
Thanks, all. Perhaps I should have asked 'do you believe in literal/personal demons' because Wink, Wright (and I?) would say that demons (or the demonic) exist(s) but that they're the product of some natural process not supernatural beings.
So the gang culture one is a great example. Or imagine the proverbial 'mob spirit': it's not a literal genie hovering over a crowd whipping them into a frenzy; it's what happens when lots of people with a particular attitude come to together at the same time and place. Similarly, Nazi Germany. Clearly what happened there was demonic and evil but for me it was sociological/natural not demonic in a supernatural sense...
This also addresses the idea of what happens to demons in the future. If they were fallen angels, then my understanding of God's ultimate victory would require their reconciliation to him. If they are, effectively, the result of negative human behaviour, they can be and are destroyed as those people and systems change.
How is it 'clearly' demonic presence that lead to Nazi Germany? I would say it didn't, for the same reason it doesn't lead to gang culture - there are clear socioeconomic causes for both without any need to blame it on supernatural causes.
Again, in the Bible it seems to be individuals with some kind of demonic influence, not groups.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I don't give much thought to hell (medieval or otherwise), to be fair. The churches I attend treat it as an uninteresting concept. As a state of mind it's probably more relevant to psychiatrists than to the clergy.
As for demons, they don't seem to have much of a place in contemporary western Christianity either, except as an awkward import from other less secular cultures. I don't know how useful they are in a symbolic sense. They serve for art and poetry (and psychiatry, I suppose) but who needs them in theology, or in the ordinary life of the church?
All CoE dioceses have priests in charge of exorcism for that diocese. I also know a priest who exorcises things like nuclear weapons and arms fairs as he sees them as Satanic in origin.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
At each toll house, demons accuse the deceased of a particular sin (each toll house has its own assigned sin), while the person's guardian angel(s) defend him/her. If the demons at a particular toll house "win" then the soul descends to Hell. If not, then it passes to the next toll house to be judged for the next sin.
Yikes, if we are talking about each individual incidence of sin in deed or thought, that would take forever! I prefer the "we are made new in Jesus" and "your sins are forgiven" theory.
But I can see a valuable concept in the image that any sin "we" feel unforgiveable is brought up for clear specific accusation and clear specific forgiveness, so that particular sin doesn't continue to haunt us forever.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Sounds somewhat like the descent of Innana/Ishtar...
Interesting. I went and looked it up. There are similarities, the multiple doors she passes through, and also different, in that she is giving away jewelry, etc., at each door, rather than fending off demonic accusations. Thanks for bringing this up -- you have expanded my knowledge of the world! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
Pomona
And that's quite strange really, when you consider how intellectual and rational the CofE's clergy often appear to be (although I can't claim to have met the full range of clergy 'types', I admit).
Yet I suppose it's a job that someone has to do. I wonder if the need has increased as churchgoing has declined.
[ 14. August 2015, 19:15: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I'm sorry Mousethief. I didn't express myself properly. Jolly Jape quoting C S Lewis has done it better than me.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Yikes, if we are talking about each individual incidence of sin in deed or thought, that would take forever! I prefer the "we are made new in Jesus" and "your sins are forgiven" theory.
But I can see a valuable concept in the image that any sin "we" feel unforgiveable is brought up for clear specific accusation and clear specific forgiveness, so that particular sin doesn't continue to haunt us forever.
Very much so. Part of my argument against the theory is that we are told that sins we have confessed will not be held against us. "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness." (1 John 1:9) (In the O. Church this is taken to mean primarily in the sacrament of confession and absolution but of course ymmv if you're not Orfie.) If we confess our sins, what will the demons have to talk about? "Hey, Wormtongue, how's the wife and kids?"
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Pomona
And that's quite strange really, when you consider how intellectual and rational the CofE's clergy often appear to be (although I can't claim to have met the full range of clergy 'types', I admit).
Yet I suppose it's a job that someone has to do. I wonder if the need has increased as churchgoing has declined.
Clearly your experience of CoE clergy is different to mine!
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If we confess our sins, what will the demons have to talk about? "Hey, Wormtongue, how's the wife and kids?"
"Delicious," purred Wormtongue.
Also, I'm very disappointed that the Toll House Theory doesn't in any way involve chocolate chip cookies. What a missed opportunity.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Also, I'm very disappointed that the Toll House Theory doesn't in any way involve chocolate chip cookies. What a missed opportunity.
This is a very common joke among the Orthodoxen, particularly among those who do not believe the THT. Not that I mind; it never grows old, and there are many clever variants.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If I read Nigel Wright correctly, he isn't saying that demons don't 'exist' so much as they don't have an ontology in the way that, say, a lemur, a bat, a horse, a mole or you and I do ...
Huh? This seems a distinction without a difference. Indeed, what the hell does it mean to "have an ontology" over and above, well, existing?
I suspect the turn of phrase comes from (?)CS Lewis, describing ?sin/?demons as having a negative ontology, thus a "demon" cannot be described as having a "personality", because personhood is a gift of God, it can only be described by reference to that which it is not. It is an "un-personal" entity.
I suspect this is somebody else you're remembering--I have a pretty encyclopedic knowledge of Lewis, and cannot remember anywhere he says this, plus he never denies that demons still possess certain gifts from God. In fact, he makes a point of saying that Satan himself would not exist if he were purely bad, as existence is in itself a good gift from God, though he is misusing it.
If you find the attribution, would you let me know?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Must we personify evil and locate it within the supernatural? Isn't it more likely that we project bits of ourselves and the reify them? It has been only humans that have been demonic. No sense of this away from them in wilderness.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If I read Nigel Wright correctly, he isn't saying that demons don't 'exist' so much as they don't have an ontology in the way that, say, a lemur, a bat, a horse, a mole or you and I do ...
Huh? This seems a distinction without a difference. Indeed, what the hell does it mean to "have an ontology" over and above, well, existing?
I suspect the turn of phrase comes from (?)CS Lewis, describing ?sin/?demons as having a negative ontology, thus a "demon" cannot be described as having a "personality", because personhood is a gift of God, it can only be described by reference to that which it is not. It is an "un-personal" entity.
I suspect this is somebody else you're remembering--I have a pretty encyclopedic knowledge of Lewis, and cannot remember anywhere he says this, plus he never denies that demons still possess certain gifts from God. In fact, he makes a point of saying that Satan himself would not exist if he were purely bad, as existence is in itself a good gift from God, though he is misusing it.
If you find the attribution, would you let me know?
It's eminently possible that I am misremembering. I know I've read it somewhere, but googling all the appropriate permutations hasn't come up with any citations. I'll check my Wright, (though I may have lent it out) to see if he gives any attributions.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Must we personify evil and locate it within the supernatural? Isn't it more likely that we project bits of ourselves and the reify them? It has been only humans that have been demonic. No sense of this away from them in wilderness.
It depends what you mean by supernatural, I suppose. I'm not sure Wink would accept the word, as I suspect he believes that the demonic is some not understood working of the collective human psyche.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If I read Nigel Wright correctly, he isn't saying that demons don't 'exist' so much as they don't have an ontology in the way that, say, a lemur, a bat, a horse, a mole or you and I do ...
Huh? This seems a distinction without a difference. Indeed, what the hell does it mean to "have an ontology" over and above, well, existing?
I suspect the turn of phrase comes from (?)CS Lewis, describing ?sin/?demons as having a negative ontology, thus a "demon" cannot be described as having a "personality", because personhood is a gift of God, it can only be described by reference to that which it is not. It is an "un-personal" entity.
I suspect this is somebody else you're remembering--I have a pretty encyclopedic knowledge of Lewis, and cannot remember anywhere he says this, plus he never denies that demons still possess certain gifts from God. In fact, he makes a point of saying that Satan himself would not exist if he were purely bad, as existence is in itself a good gift from God, though he is misusing it.
If you find the attribution, would you let me know?
This is a reasonable summary, Particularly Chapter 3. Barth appears to be the main mover, though Wink and Moltmann get a mention.
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
And that's quite strange really, when you consider how intellectual and rational the CofE's clergy often appear to be (although I can't claim to have met the full range of clergy 'types', I admit).
I think your experience differs a lot from a reality - possibly as a result of having mostly dealt with it from outside.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
I've been regularly attending worship at a CofE church for several years now. Prior to that I was the secretary for a Churches Together network.
However, if your point is that merely sitting in a pew is not enough to 'belong' to the CofE then I'm sure you're right. It does seem to require some sort of special alchemy to become an insider!
As I said, I make no claim to know every variety of CofE clergy types. I simply find it hard to imagine the intellectual liberal catholic type - very committed to pastoral work, true - that I've met feeling comfortable with exorcisms. But I've never asked them.
Posted by Tyler Durden (# 2996) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
How is it 'clearly' demonic presence that lead to Nazi Germany? I would say it didn't, for the same reason it doesn't lead to gang culture - there are clear socioeconomic causes for both without any need to blame it on supernatural causes.
Sorry, Pomona, I wasn't clear: what I meant was, if anything deserves to be called demonic, satanic or just plain evil, it's nazism. However, like you and Wink et al, I think it can be explained in purely human terms without needing to posit a 'supernatural' cause.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I suspect this is somebody else you're remembering--I have a pretty encyclopedic knowledge of Lewis, and cannot remember anywhere he says this, plus he never denies that demons still possess certain gifts from God. In fact, he makes a point of saying that Satan himself would not exist if he were purely bad, as existence is in itself a good gift from God, though he is misusing it.
If you find the attribution, would you let me know?
This is a reasonable summary, Particularly Chapter 3. Barth appears to be the main mover, though Wink and Moltmann get a mention.
I beg your pardon, I meant the primary Lewis reference. Your link mentioned Lewis in passing, only with regard to his theory of evil as a parasite (which rather supports my position instead of a "negative ontology").
[code]
[ 15. August 2015, 13:41: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
As I've pondered here before, what do angels, fallen and not, bring to the party? They ALL seem, like their Creator and ours, to be playing Keyser Söze ... and in saying that I find myself going round a different loop for the first time.
I cannot doubt God. Even to say the existence of God is far less an expression. He IS. And He thinks ALL autonomous. But I do not and cannot know God, experience God, sense God in any way. Just like everyone else. I have a God story. I reify God. There is NO proof of God, I have no rational hope of life after death: I cannot imagine how that could be in the face of the possibly, probably, in fact rationally simpler certainly eternal ineffable material reality of which I am a meaningless evanescence.
But God IS. And so creation CAN be as unbelievable as He. In a Godless eternal multiverse we're average. All that can be within the laws of physics has been expressed infinitely from eternity. In 'n' dimensions. In a physical creation being thought autonomous by God, what else can He be thinking? The field, the base of possibilities has to be larger. n+1 dimensions at least.
So: Angels. I've gone from WHY angels to why NOT? Based on our indirect, invoked, made-up apprehension of God. And as with Him, the direct is so incredibly rare, experienced first hand by ten thousand humans out MILLIONS of times that, two thousand years ago, that the parallel spirit realm interacts similarly.
Meaning EVERYTHING is 99.9997% us. With 1 exception. That includes the Bible, the Church.
I CANNOT rationalize away Jesus' human witness.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I suspect this is somebody else you're remembering--I have a pretty encyclopedic knowledge of Lewis, and cannot remember anywhere he says this, plus he never denies that demons still possess certain gifts from God. In fact, he makes a point of saying that Satan himself would not exist if he were purely bad, as existence is in itself a good gift from God, though he is misusing it.
If you find the attribution, would you let me know?
This is a reasonable summary, Particularly Chapter 3. Barth appears to be the main mover, though Wink and Moltmann get a mention.
I beg your pardon, I meant the primary Lewis reference. Your link mentioned Lewis in passing, only with regard to his theory of evil as a parasite (which rather supports my position instead of a "negative ontology").
[code]
Sorry, yes, it was my bad. I was working from memory, and, indeed, was wrong about Lewis as the source. I wouldn't, personally, reject evil as being parasitic, though I think that a negative ontology argument has got some legs. It helps me, anyway, and I think it doesn't violate traditional theological understandings, whilst helping us not to inadvertantly "giving glory to the devil", by ascribing to him (or to continue with the negative ontology thing, "it") characteristics which really can only be said to exist through some kind of relationship with God, even when that relationship is but a shadow of what should have.been.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
They do indeed come through that relationship (and HOW annoyed the devil must be!).
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0