|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: 'Prayer Battle'?
|
ButchCassidy
Shipmate
# 11147
|
Posted
Tangent/
EtymologicalEvangelical: is that not an issue of progressive revelation? That David was obeying God's will as revealed to the ancient Israelites (just as he did when slaughtering Israel's enemies), due to man's 'hardness of heart'?
We live in New Covenant times - if David were alive now, as a 'man after God's heart' he would no more pray against enemies as slaughter them.
/Tangent
Posts: 104 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
I too find the terminology of losing or winning in prayer uncomfortable at the very least. There really isn't anything in scripture to encourage us to think and pray along those lines and in this day and age it is unhelpful a) for those outside the Christian faith to hear this and b) when so many wars and conflict are occurring.
However I do wonder how much of western culture blinds us to give serious thought about this other spiritual realm the NT speaks about. We are taught to pray and ask that the forces opposing God are "bound".
To ignore the challenges from the spiritual realms seems to me theological ignorance.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Its not the "prayer battle" issue that I take issue with. Frankly I believe it is all par5t of a terminology employed by sections of the Church which is misguided.
What interests me about these prayer warriors is how they manage to reconcile losing the battle with the words of Jesus "whatever you ask in my name I will give it you".
Undoubtedly they asked in Jesus' name. Frequently.
They lost.
How do they explain it?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
What interests me about these prayer warriors is how they manage to reconcile losing the battle with the words of Jesus "whatever you ask in my name I will give it you".
Undoubtedly they asked in Jesus' name. Frequently.
They lost.
How do they explain it?
The difficulty I have is with the language of "winning" and "losing" is neither a biblical one or helpful.
Prayer isn't about these things. It is primarily about our love relationship with the Creator God and seeking his agenda.
If what we pray doesn't go how we want it means we have not understood God's ways or he hasn't fully told us. I put this down to his ways not being our ways and so on (Isaiah 55).
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Thinking aloud a bit here, but if one grants the possibility of miraculous healing then there must be some reason why any particular person does not get healed.
I have to go off and lead a RL Bible study shortly. One of the verses we'll be reading is John 6:26-27
quote:
Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, you are looking for me, not because you saw the signs I performed but because you ate the loaves and had your fill. Do not work for food that spoils, but for food that endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give you."
When God does a miracle, we're supposed to ponder on what it points to, not work out how to get the next one.
When no miracle occurs, no amount of amateur trouble-shooting will help us. That line of reasoning takes us straight into the territory of Job's comforters. And whether you like it or not, the end of that road is essentially God turning up and saying "shut up, you guys are so far out in left field you don't even know where the ball park is any more. Repent quick."
I think you've aomething of a blind spot here Eutychus. When they failed to cast out the demon in the boy in Mk 9:28-29, the disciples asked Jesus what they needed to do different next time. In Acts 4:30-31 they prayed both for boldness and for God to increase his miraculous interventions. There's no passive reflection on what miracles were pointing to here - rather an active sense of miraculous intervention being integral to mission.
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Polly takes refuge in Isaiah 55 and (s)he is not the only one.
But it is the ultimate cop out. Heads God wins, tails we lose.
Just like those who say "God always answers prayer. Sometimes He says Yes. Sometimes No. Or else Wait."
What other options are there?
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
quote:
Obviously, faith is quantifiable and the more faith you have the greater things you can do. The Bible is a book of promises. We are who it says we are. We can be who it says we can be. We can do what it says we can do.
Really? Jesus was unsuccessful in healing some people and in persuading some people of his message. He was rather famously also unsuccessful in asking that the cup of suffering be taken away from him (although he added a qualifier that it be God's will, not his, that is done -- something I understand certain "victorious" Christians are loathe to do in their prayers because it's not "confident" and "faith-filled" enough).
Obviously many people of faith over the centuries have been equally unsuccessful in having prayers answered as hoped.
As far as the "new earth" promised in Revelation -- if it's the same as the old earth as far as being a finite hunk of planet with finite resources, how is it going to support the enfleshed redeemed (which, according to Paul, includes all creation, not just the human inhabitants thereof?
You either have to engage in some extremely creative extra-biblical speculation to make the text "come out right," or else conclude that whatever lies ahead for the redeemed is going to be a "new thing" outside a literal reading of the text that we can't comprehend, or conclude that the whole thing is just fuzzy wishful thinking.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
When they failed to cast out the demon in the boy in Mk 9:28-29, the disciples asked Jesus what they needed to do different next time. In Acts 4:30-31 they prayed both for boldness and for God to increase his miraculous interventions
I don't really have a problem with either passage as it stands. What I do have a problem with is people who think they can be as smart as Jesus in giving the right answers and those who ask for specific miracles that invariably don't show up. But again, we've been here before...
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Polly takes refuge in Isaiah 55 and (s)he is not the only one.
But it is the ultimate cop out. Heads God wins, tails we lose.
Just like those who say "God always answers prayer. Sometimes He says Yes. Sometimes No. Or else Wait."
What other options are there?
He never hears in the first instance.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polly
Shipmate
# 1107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Polly takes refuge in Isaiah 55 and (s)he is not the only one.
But it is the ultimate cop out. Heads God wins, tails we lose.
Just like those who say "God always answers prayer. Sometimes He says Yes. Sometimes No. Or else Wait."
What other options are there?
Prayer simply cannot be understood as a win or loose scenario. It must never be about I pray and get what I ask for and if I don't God's a meanie and I loose out.
This is a complete false way of understanding prayer.
Posts: 560 | From: St Albans | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
The words of the OP came from the mouth of a prayer leader whose surname looks like that of a Romantic composer from Norway.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
One of the many, many things that piss me off about charismatics is their constant use of militaristic imagery - bnut always romanticised and cod-medieval: "war-horses" and "breatplates" and "swords" "satan's citadels", never "guns" or "tanks". That would be a bit too close to unpleasant reality. It's what comes of believing in an objectively-existing devil.
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
The words of the OP came from the mouth of a prayer leader whose surname looks like that of a Romantic composer from Norway.
I've got it! Johannes Haarklou and I claim my 5 kr.- !!
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
One of the many, many things that piss me off about charismatics is their constant use of militaristic imagery - bnut always romanticised and cod-medieval: "war-horses" and "breatplates" and "swords" "satan's citadels", never "guns" or "tanks". That would be a bit too close to unpleasant reality. It's what comes of believing in an objectively-existing devil.
The Bible is chock full of military images too.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
It's what comes of believing in an objectively-existing devil.
Exactly.
I used to go on many 'prayer walks' and 'circle the city in prayer' drives, thinking they made a difference - 'Destroying Dominions' of the devil.
They made no difference of course.
Evil is caused by people - not some imaginary 'devil'.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cedd
Shipmate
# 8436
|
Posted
A very slight tangent, but on the subject of prayer battles: An Anglican church near me has a very liberal vicar. The local evangelicals do not like him and have started 'praying against' him with a view to getting him out. I pointed out to one of them that if someone were 'praying against' their church they would probably say that that was tantamount to witchcraft. When Christians start using prayer as a weapon against each other surely someone has lost the plot.
--------------------
Cedd
Churchmanship: This week I am mostly an evangelical, catholic, orthodox with both liberal and illiberal tendancies. Terms and conditions apply.
Posts: 377 | From: England | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
One of the many, many things that piss me off about charismatics is their constant use of militaristic imagery - bnut always romanticised and cod-medieval: "war-horses" and "breatplates" and "swords" "satan's citadels", never "guns" or "tanks". That would be a bit too close to unpleasant reality.
I guess the Apostle Paul and other Biblical writers didn't get your oh-so-wise memo and I presume you're equally pissed off with them, no? quote:
It's what comes of believing in an objectively-existing devil.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif) Whaaat?! If the charismaniacs have fallen for Lewis second error in the Screwtape preface, you and Boogie appear to have fallen for the first:
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.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I guess the Apostle Paul and other Biblical writers didn't get your oh-so-wise memo and I presume you're equally pissed off with them, no?
You miss Steve H's point, which is the contemporary obsession in some charismatic quarters with quasi-medieval war imagery, lending a sense of romantic nobility to blood-and-guts combat and a sort of heraldic militarism which is, again, more to do with Star Wars and nice little quasi-spiritual fantasies than actually going out and confronting the powers in any meaningful way.
(If you really don't see this, just Google a few words like "prayer warriors' conference" "intercession ministry" or whatever. I haven't right now, but I can guarantee the results will match what I've outlined above).
Paul was taking his imagery from his day-to-day experience of the Roman Empire. If he'd been writing today he would be talking about the taser of the spirit, the riot shield of faith, the kevlar of righteousness, and probably something about pepper spray, too. Either way, the problem is that people are mistaking the accoutrements of the image for the substance of what he's on about.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Granted, and some of the language they use does make me cringe. But I think all traditions are guilty of inappropriate appropriation of language (try saying that after a few drinks!) that's off-putting to 'outsiders' eg: I well remember being asked by well-meaning con evos whether I had been "washed in the blood" ( ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) ).
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I guess the Apostle Paul and other Biblical writers didn't get your oh-so-wise memo and I presume you're equally pissed off with them, no?
You miss Steve H's point, which is the contemporary obsession in some charismatic quarters with quasi-medieval war imagery, lending a sense of romantic nobility to blood-and-guts combat and a sort of heraldic militarism which is, again, more to do with Star Wars and nice little quasi-spiritual fantasies than actually going out and confronting the powers in any meaningful way.
(If you really don't see this, just Google a few words like "prayer warriors' conference" "intercession ministry" or whatever. I haven't right now, but I can guarantee the results will match what I've outlined above).
Paul was taking his imagery from his day-to-day experience of the Roman Empire. If he'd been writing today he would be talking about the taser of the spirit, the riot shield of faith, the kevlar of righteousness, and probably something about pepper spray, too. Either way, the problem is that people are mistaking the accoutrements of the image for the substance of what he's on about.
Exactly - and furthermore, it seems to me that Paul was using a contrast-metaphor, not a compare-one, i.e. he's saying "physical weapons are wicked, BUT spiritual ones are good", not "Physical weapons are good, AND spiritual ones are even better".
Incidentally, I must apologise for the dodgy spelling and synrax of my previous post, which was typed, and then edited, rather carelessly by me.
[ 31. May 2012, 11:34: Message edited by: Steve H ]
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
It's what comes of believing in an objectively-existing devil.
Whaaat?! If the charismaniacs have fallen for Lewis second error in the Screwtape preface, you and Boogie appear to have fallen for the first:
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.
I admire CSL as much as anyone, but he could be wrong (indeed, he could be very silly), and he is here: he's made a rather obvious circular argument, since he's assuming the existance of devils, which is precisely the point under discussion.
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Sorry but I prefer to go with the Apostle Paul (and C S Lewis as it happens as he agrees with the Bible)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Whaaat?! If the charismaniacs have fallen for Lewis second error in the Screwtape preface, you and Boogie appear to have fallen for the first:
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.
Not at all - I have moved from believing in an objectively-existing devil to realising that the devil is a metaphor for all evil.
Many times I have engaged in 'spiritual battle' with the 'devil'
None of it worked.
The thing which works is much, much harder than standing above a town and praying over it. Hard, loving work with damaged people is what works.
People damage each other - no devil needed.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
There is a whole chain of linked logical problems with belief in devils, but I haven't got time to go into them now, as I'm off to work in a few minutes. I'll expand tonight.
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
But in anticipation of your post, let me point out that Christianity is hardly logical.
Christ explicitly referred to "[our] adversary, the devil."
And while I agree strongly with Boogie, that we are evil enough that we don't need devils, and the further point that active loving is better than praying over a city in the manner I've seen done (the prayers mean nothing without consequent action, other wise you really don't care enough to try to bring about the results that you are asking the Lord to bring about), yet I simply cannot dismiss the words of Christ and His disciples.
Blessings,
Tom
[ 31. May 2012, 13:05: Message edited by: TomOfTarsus ]
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Whaaat?! If the charismaniacs have fallen for Lewis second error in the Screwtape preface, you and Boogie appear to have fallen for the first:
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.
Not at all - I have moved from believing in an objectively-existing devil to realising that the devil is a metaphor for all evil.
Many times I have engaged in 'spiritual battle' with the 'devil'
None of it worked.
The thing which works is much, much harder than standing above a town and praying over it. Hard, loving work with damaged people is what works.
People damage each other - no devil needed.
I don't think it's an either/or. Whilst I look forward to Steve H's further elucidation, the existence of evil posits an originator of it - the Devil - since we are made in God's image in the first place. Also, as Tom has pointed out, the NT writers - and the Lord Himself - referred to the existence of a real, personal Devil; whilst accepting that there is "evil that men do", let that not detract from the fact that the Devil is very, very real and that we neglect that reality, perhaps believing ourselves to be so more sophisticated than our 1st century spiritual forebears, at our peril.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Also, as Tom has pointed out, the NT writers - and the Lord Himself - referred to the existence of a real, personal Devil; whilst accepting that there is "evil that men do", let that not detract from the fact that the Devil is very, very real and that we neglect that reality, perhaps believing ourselves to be so more sophisticated than our 1st century spiritual forebears, at our peril.
Not more sophisticated - just different in viewpoint. Our way of describing the world has changed completely. If Jesus had come now instead of then he'd have used our language to describe (and wake us up to) our evil ways - just as he did then.
There IS no evil other than that done by wo/men. There are terrible natural disasters, of course, but they have awful consequences - they are not evil acts. Nature is 'red in tooth and claw' - but this is not evil, it's simply because everything has to eat.
The only deliberate evil available is man made. We need no 'devil' to pervert us!
<eta code>
[ 31. May 2012, 15:01: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Sorry, but there I utterly part company with you.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
I join company with Boogie.
The concept of a Devil is the ultimate excuse for those wishing to evade responsibility.
It wasn't me Guv. I was tempted / forced / compelled by .........
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I think that the account of the Fall negates that particular straw man.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
But the Devil played no part in the Fall.
Unless you want to say that serpent = Devil. (in which case that would be lousy exegesis.)
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
If the devil really exists,and is a fallen angel, along with all the lesser demons, how did creatures who were sinless and had the ability to remain so come to sin in the first place, knowing as they must have done the dire consequences? Given that they did, why didn't God offer them forgiveness and restoration if they repented? Given that God didn't, why didn't God destroy them, rather than letting them spend eternity in an existance which must have been miserable? Given that God didn't, why did and does God allow them to have any influence on the world?
See what I mean about awhole train of linked problems?
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomOfTarsus
Shipmate
# 3053
|
Posted
Like I said, SteveH, Christianity isn't logical. And I think that, as Matt said, to do such violence to the text and to think of ourselves as so much more sophisticated than our 1st century brothers and sisters, is perilous.
Boogie, though, you are right in one very real respect. The actual evil is done by men and women, period. Barring some cheesy costume, Satan isn't robbing the convenience store. And it isn't Satan or some minion demon hitting the defenseless spouse or child, and they aren't making him do it. How the temptation bit works out, or where the dividing like between external and internal temptation is at, I couldn't codify. But I believe we ignore the text at our peril.
--------------------
By grace are ye saved through faith... not of yourselves; it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ... ordained that we should walk in them.
Posts: 1570 | From: Pittsburgh, PA USA | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
But the Devil played no part in the Fall.
Unless you want to say that serpent = Devil. (in which case that would be lousy exegesis.)
Indeed. The Devil as a supernatural anti-God being plays no real part in Judaism even with Genesis as part of the Torah. Ha-satan is just the Hebrew word for "obstacle" or "adversary". The concept of Satan as a being didn't enter into the picture until the Persian exile when the Jews came into contact with Zoroastrianism.
It doesn't necessarily make the concept of a devil-being invalid, but I'd agree that it's poor exegesis to link Satan with the serpent.
[ 31. May 2012, 17:30: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomOfTarsus:
Like I said, SteveH, Christianity isn't logical.
Of course Christianity is logical. It isn't merely logical - there's much more to it than that - but it certainly isn't less than logical, i.e. illogical. If it was ,that'd be the end of all debate, and you could believe anything you liked, without challenge. This is what I mentioned before - the tendency of some Christians, when their particular beliefs are challenged, to come out with some infuriatingly pseudo-pious rubbish about how "mere human logic" can't understand God. If you've got any proper answers to my objections, let's hear them, but spare me that. quote:
And I think that, as Matt said, to do such violence to the text and to think of ourselves as so much more sophisticated than our 1st century brothers and sisters, is perilous.
I'm not "doing violence" to the text (of the Bible), I just don't believe all of it, literally at any rate, and some of it not in any way. The Bible contains the word of God, but it also contains much that emphatically isn't, such as the appalling genocides described in the OT, supposedly commanded by God. As for being "so much more sophisticated than our 1st-Century brothers and sisters", well yes, we are - we have modern science and philosopy. They had neither. They were probably better Christians than us, and I certainly don't feel superior to them in any area of the faith that really matters, but the simple fact is that we know a great deal more than them - and that includes jesus himself: becoming fully incarnate meant not just becoming a man, but becoming a man at a particular time and in a particular culture, and sharing that culture's world-view, at least as far as the physical structure of the world is concerned. I'm sure Jesus believed in a literal three-decker universe with the earth at the centre of it, for example. If you think that Jesus knew that the earth is fairly average planet, elliptically orbiting an fairly average sun, one of billions in a fairly aver age galaxy which is itself one of billions, and is about 15 billion years old, you are, I'm afraid, believing a heresy, because you don't believe that Jesus was fully human during his incarnation. I'm sure Jesus also believed in objectively-existing devils as well, but I'm not bound to that belief. As a Christian, I'm bound to believe, and try to follow, Jesus's ethical and spiritual teaching, but I don't have to accept his physical world-view, including the onbjective existance of devils. quote:
Boogie, though, you are right in one very real respect. The actual evil is done by men and women, period. Barring some cheesy costume, Satan isn't robbing the convenience store. And it isn't Satan or some minion demon hitting the defenseless spouse or child, and they aren't making him do it. How the temptation bit works out, or where the dividing like between external and internal temptation is at, I couldn't codify. But I believe we ignore the text at our peril.
We're not ignoring the text; we're using our God-given intellects to interpret it in the light of modern knowledge.
[ 01. June 2012, 07:44: Message edited by: Steve H ]
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
There IS no evil other than that done by wo/men.
[complete tangent] Recently I was talking to some 16 yr old girls about a text, and the subject of domestic violence came up. One girl commented, "I don't know any person who would behave like that. Mind you, I can think of plenty of men." All I could do was raise my voice a couple of octaves, and squeak, "Right on Sister!" [end tangent]
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I wasn't saying that the Eden serpent is the Devil (that's a whole different debate worthy perhaps of its own thread); rather I was using it as a Scriptural example of the existence of an external tempter not absolving one of personal responsibility for sin - indeed, Adam and Eve try to so absolve themselves and the LORD makes it clear that, as Samuel L Jackson might put it, "Your asses ain't talking their ways out of this one."
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
As for being "so much more sophisticated than our 1st-Century brothers and sisters", well yes, we are - we have modern science and philosopy.
Ah, yes, the things that gave us inter alia the idealogies of racial purity and ethnic cleansing, plus the technology to implement them. As you say, "so much more sophisticated">
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
As for being "so much more sophisticated than our 1st-Century brothers and sisters", well yes, we are - we have modern science and philosopy.
Ah, yes, the things that gave us inter alia the idealogies of racial purity and ethnic cleansing, plus the technology to implement them. As you say, "so much more sophisticated">
Yes, they've been horribly misused - what of it? Sarcasm isn't an argument.
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Come off it Matt. You can do better than this. If you read your Bible things like genocide in the cause of racial purity and nationalism have been around for yonks and what makes it worse is that it was at God's command.
So dont blame science or philosophy and all things "modern".
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I'm saying that human nature doesn't change.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I'm saying that human nature doesn't change.
What has that got to do with the thread topic, and specifically with the objective existance or not of demons?
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
But the Devil played no part in the Fall.
Unless you want to say that serpent = Devil. (in which case that would be lousy exegesis.)
So what or who exactly was the serpent?
Incidentally, someone once reduced Genesis to a haiku, thus:
Don't touch that fruit, Eve -
Oh my God! She's disobeyed!
Cosmic disaster!
or Limerick:
God's plan had a splendid beginning,
But we went and spoiled it by sinning.
We trust that the story
Will end in God's glory,
But at present the other side's winning.
[ 01. June 2012, 09:49: Message edited by: Steve H ]
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
A prominent figure in the charismatic scene in London described (just yesterday) how after someone we knew died of cancer that we 'had lost a prayer battle'. A 'prayer' battle? With whom? If 'we' lost, who won?
Does this baffle others, or is it just me?
Thanks you in advance,
K.
Completely ridiculous and adds support to anything Dawkins might perceive about people of faith.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Waterchaser
Shipmate
# 11005
|
Posted
I can understand why you might disagree with the terminology but don't see why it is completely ridiculous. Wonder if it would seem completely ridiculous if the word "charismatic" hadn't been included in the OP as this tends to act as a trigger word for lots of people on these boards.
On the one hand you may have lost a prayer battle with God - you have been praying for a particular outcome, God didn't want that outcome - he's not going to budge. Not sure I would describe this as a battle but certainly an argument. There are parallals to Jacob wrestling with God in prayer. I am not sure whether this is what is being talked about here....
More likely, and this is how I would see things, they are talking from within a worldview that sees cancer - i.e. sickness and death as being outworkings of the fall and things to battle against in prayer. We all die but doesn't Paul describe death as the "last enemy"? and there is a huge difference between dieing in old age and dieing an untimely death perhaps leaving young children without a mum or dad. A theology of the kingdom of God which is "now and not yet" allows for losing the battle while acknowleding that ultimately God (and also His people) will win the war. The Lords prayer tells us that to pray that God's will is done on earth as in heaven which suggests very strongly that actualy it often isn't. I am not sure it is strictly correct in precise theology as science way to talk of prayer as a battle and losing the battle (not sure it isn't either!) - but certainly as a more poetic description it seems spot on.
Posts: 310 | From: Luton, UK | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
sebby
Shipmate
# 15147
|
Posted
I find the terminology baffling. I don't really believe in, or see the logical necessity for, intercessory prayer.
--------------------
sebhyatt
Posts: 1340 | From: yorks | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Waterchaser:
I am not sure it is strictly correct in precise theology as science way to talk of prayer as a battle and losing the battle (not sure it isn't either!) - but certainly as a more poetic description it seems spot on.
Perhaps, but having read a few of Komensky's posts I can guess the sort of environment this is being said in, and there it is often more than poetic. This Present Darkness is a popularised version of how these folk view the world.
In my view, it's essentially a combination of esoterism, superstition and folk religion masquerading as super-spirituality, and a huge distraction from incarnational christianity.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Posted by Sebby
"I don't really believe in, or see the logical necessity for, intercessory prayer."
You might, just possibly, if you re=arranged your mind-set about how intercessory prayer might work.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Waterchaser
Shipmate
# 11005
|
Posted
Eutychus - your comment appears to be illustrating what I said in the first paragraph of mine.
You are not responding so much to what the OP told us had been said but the environment that you picture it being said in and your prejudice (which may be right or wrong) of how "these folk" view the world.
Posts: 310 | From: Luton, UK | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I wasn't saying that the Eden serpent is the Devil (that's a whole different debate worthy perhaps of its own thread);
That thread has now been started, also in Purgatory. Maybe you'd like to mosey over there and tell us who or what you think the serpent was, if not the devil.
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
