A fair amount of criticism of Islam stems from the fact that moderate muslims appear to be hesitant in their denunciation of radical elements of the religion.

I suppose this is fair enough. I am curious to see however, how Christians react to these three movements.

I have a hypothetical situation for the resident Christians on these boards, who frequently criticise Islam - if these three scenarios are indeed true, will you renounce and actively condemn these Christian movements?

I suppose you can argue that these articles aren't a fair representation - I suppose in our free society, questioning a media portrayal is fair enough. But assuming these are accurate accounts, then would you reject these groups?

Firstly, we have 'Mercy Ministries.'

This Fairfax piece outlines their actions.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/bible-used-to-treat-mental-illness/2008/03/16/1205602228237.html

They tell women with eating disorders and anxiety issues, that their problems are the work of demonic possession. They have also been asked to sign contracts saying they won't communicate with certain friends - a calling card of cult movements.
Mercy Ministries are linked to hillsong, and the Gloria Jeans coffee houses. On reading this article, I know I for one, will not be buying any coffee from Gloria Jeans.

Secondly, we have the Catch the Fire ministries - who have actively asked people to tear down mosques.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pms-message-to-controversial-sect/2007/01/18/1169095914473.html

Do the Christian residents here, oppose the notion that mosques should be torn down?

Thirdly, we have the 'Westboro' church. In the wake of the death of Heath Ledger, they picketed his funeral and said he was going to hell for appearing in the film, brokeback mountain.
I think their homepage - godhatesfags.com really says it all about Westboro.

Do our resident christians oppose these three groups?
After all, with the call for muslims to do the same, it seems only fair that the same pressure be applied to Christians to keep their faith reasonable, and free of violent or destructive fringe movements.

TRTL

There is a lot that does not make sense about the news articles you have highlighted. I refuse to denounce Mercy ministries because I know they have helped many young women in tragic situations. The newspapers claim that 'Only careful psychological and psychiatric care over several years brought them back from the edge.' I know a number of people who have suicided after long stints with psychologist and mental health experts. Do we denounce all psychology also? Painting the girl as being independent young women, and coming out broken and suicidal is totally misleading. If the girl had it together she would not have signed up for ministry with this organisation. The girls going to these ministries are normally desperate and have been given up by the mainstream in society. Many people give of their free time and money to help these people. You comparing this to a belief in the 'religion of peace' is deceitful and misleading.

I refuse to denounce 'Catch the Fire Ministries' because you know as well as anyone that they never called for mosques to be physically torn down. That is an out and out misrepresentation of what was said. Read the article and you will find the context of tearing down was in prayer. Even you are not so stupid as to believe they were calling for physical violence.

I have no problem denouncing your third group who show hate towards homosexuals and others they believe are sinners. They do not represent any part of Christ as far as I'm concerned.

You seem to either of swallowed the headlines or have been deliberately misleading when reporting on the first two articles. I actually join with you in denouncing the Westboro Baptist who show no compassion and are full of self righteousness.

CHRISTIAN_SHAMANISM ?

1/ MERCY MINISTRIES. Any 'ministry' involving young people in conflict, is prone/vulnerable to negative reports in the media.
What I have great trouble with, is the idea of 'It's Satan' when in reality it is simply 'us' with an unrepentant heart. Or..it might well be some kind of psychological disorder such as Schitzophrenia.

Attributing habitual this or that to 'demonic posession' is to my understanding unbiblical and dangerous. It is one thing to speak about temptation and giving in to the desires of the flesh, it is entirely another to claim that this is 'because' of demonic posession. One would need to know what the terminology being used by Mercy is. Do they refer to Satanic 'influence' on a life, or.. 'posession'?

What I condemn is "You were not healed because there is sin in your life" or.. "because you didn't believe hard enough". Even though in both cases there is some scriptural support which 'might' apply. Only God and the individual knows. But others making external pronouncements is living very very dangerously and borders on a spiritual arrogance of the highest order.

Having cut and dried spiritual solutions which are treatable by a 'formula', heads in the direction of shamanism rather than Biblical truth. The Biblical pattern is .. if it's sin.. it must be repented of. Sickness may or may not be healed. Some are (like me) some arn't.
Look for it only as a 'sign' of the kingdom.

Signing over benefits? hmmm that sounds very dodgy to me. Details..details..details..?

2/ CATCH THE FIRE. :) An easy one. "Tearing down of strongholds" is a verse from 2nd Corinthians.. that secularists latch onto this does not surprise me :) No..I won't condemn it because the verse is preceded by a statement saying it is NOT "physical" tearing down. "The weapons of our warfare are NOT....carnal(earthly/human/phyisical)" i.e.. it is talking about spiritual tearing down, as people come out of darkness into faith.

3/ PHELPS AND WESTBORO CHURCH.. yes.. on this one I can confidently say they deserve the utmost condemnation, based on publically verifiable UNbiblical behavior and statements.

Religion isn't responsible for the actions of the people. The people are.

I get tired of people blaming a faith for the actions of the faithful. Just becasue someone does an action in the name of religion, that doesn't mean their God condones it, nor the faith teach it. People have used others blind following of "something better than this reality" to suit their personal agendas. IT's been going on for centuries, and not once is the faith itself to blame.

It's like blaming democracy for the invasion of Iraq.

Good points Stg.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE......between Islam and Christianity, if one wants to make a 'comparative religion' approach.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE against SPOUSEs... is ABSOLUTELY condemned in the Bible, yet it is clearly and unambiguously permitted in the Quran (4:34)

SEXUAL ABUSE of captive women is permitted, exemplified (in Mohammad and his closest disciples) and codified in the Quran. (23:5-6)

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN is specifically permitted in the Quran (65:4)
(they call it 'marriage'..to pre-pubescent children)

WAR against non Muslims is not 'hinted'at..it is COMMANDED. 9:29

VILIFICATION OF JEWS and CHRISTIANS is not hinted at..it is specifically and unambiguously AFFIRMED (9:30)

TRTL.. you have thrown out the challenge to us, now I throw it back on you.

CAN you....join with me.... in condemning "Islam" for these outrages?

If you cannot, it means the following: (one or more or all)

1/ You feel that such practices are not 'bad'.
2/ You feel the verses mentioned are 'not correctly interpreted'.
3/ You are just fishing for some reason to 'bash' Christians :)

On point 2, I'd so love for some brave soul to venture onto the quicksand of "No, it doesn't mean that".. or.. the quagmire of "You are being selective and its out of context".....

Yep.. that would totally make my day, because no one as yet, has done anything other than counter such things with 'Christians are bad/ur a right wing nutter' kind of non-arguments.

Its time we faced facts in life, there is 'light' and there is darkness. I prefer to see where I'm a goin.

Boazy, TurnRightThenLeft's challenge was not calling for a general condemnation of christianity but rather against three groups perceived to be taking their faiths to an extreme. There is plenty in the bible which could be cherry in the way you have cherry picked from the koran(and we've all been there often enough before that I hope I don't need to repeat again).

I and most other others who routinely oppose your anti-muslim campaign will happily condem movements within Islam that act on the nasty parts of the koran (or add their own nasty bits).

Just as I condem those christains who promote homophobia or those who bomb abortion clinics I condem muslims who act against others because they disagree with our choices. Just as I condem those christains who suggest the rest of us deserve an eternity of suffering for not being christain I condem muslims who want to make war on non-muslims.

R0bert

ROBERRTTTT :) I'm so glad you posted here and now..because I was just reading something which should be of great interest to you.... in fact.. I came here just now thinking 'How can I get this to Robert'? and viola.. "before you ask..."

Ok.. please read this.

DIFFICULT PASSAGES IN THE BIBLE.

"Does the Bible Authorize rape of captives" Deuteronomy 21:10-14

http://www.utoronto.ca/wjudaism/journal/vol1n1/v1n1elma.htm

I think you will find it very interesting. I'd value your considered response.

ON TOPIC.. it sounds like we are on the same page mostly. The difference is, I condemn 'Islam'.. you just condemn what you see as 'abbherations' of Islam or you see the facts I focus on as 'selective cherry picking'.

I totally condemn any unbiblical action by Christians.. the difficulty is, as you would note from my post, knowing how much is fact and how much is media spin. In Phelps case it is overwhelming and from his own video'd mouth. There is no 'spin'..its alllll 'him'.

Knowing some background to the EB cases reported in the Media.. "the other side".. facts left out in the stories.. I am less sympathetic to just condemn any group on the basis of 'media' spin.

Notice how in response to the Logan sky cowboy thread GINX went straight to 'snopes' (whatever that is) and declared "I've not found anything dodgy...yet" (paraphrase) ..

So, to answer the topic question "Will 'reasonable' Christians denounce it".. I think 'yes'.

ISLAM.. I denounce it by looking closely at:

1/ The Quran... in areas which are not 'cherry picking' (A 'command' or 'permission' is exactly that)
2/ Hadith... which supports the understanding of point 1.
3/ History,(Mohammad and Companions) which in turn supports both points 1 and 2.

If point 2 or point 3 DISagreed with point 1, you could rightly accuse me of 'cherry picking and spin'...but they don't. Hence.. the verdict on the charge 'cherry picking' is... 'innocent of all charges' :) THANK you Jury, you are dismissed. (cheques are in the mail :)

R0bert sums it up quite well. I'm happy to denounce movements when they do harm - Al-Qaeda, Jemaah Islaamiyah, all of the above.

What I suppose I'm getting at here, is that when muslims don't immediately reject fringe movements, they are tarred and pilloried.

When they give explanations, this is dismissed as either pussyfooting around the issue, or they are still secretly supporting them.

Witness the criticism levelled at tariq ramadan. Unless he completely rejects fringe movements outright, he is shunned by many.

However, I see that when runner and yourself make excuses for various movements it's acceptable - the point I'm getting at boaz, regardless of how bad these movements are - next time you condemn moderate muslims for not immediately shunning fringe movements, stop and realise that you just 'pussyfooted' around what many believe to be a fringe movement.

If I were to adopt the same tactics you and others use to attack Islam, I'd be saying that you secretly support the tricking of young women into giving up their centrelink payments, as well as contracts that cut them off from friends.

Regardless of whether this is the truth of mercy ministries.

So my end point?

Don't be so damn judgemental.

How about a list of the Christian suicide bombers and Christians wanting to kill non-Christians just because they are not Christians?

There is no such list, of course. Apologists for Islam like TRTL - a sad fringe dweller and specatator of real life, if ever there was one - appear to be so on the outer with their own kind that they need to attack their own kind at every opportunity.

There will be no credits for TRTL and his kind from Muslims despite pathetic whimpering like this.

Boaz

In organizations like Teen challenge and Mercy ministries people 'sign over their benefits' because they not only are fed and accommodated but often need 24 hour care. These organizations actually save the Government heaps because the people going have had habitual drug, alcohol and other problems which has turned them into nasty pieces of work. They lack respect for themselves and others. It is usually the last resort with for these people and the 'benefits' they hand over don't nearly cover the costs they incur. In WA even some judges have sent offenders to these rehab places.Most of the cost is incurred by generous donations. As I mentioned before TRTL is either naive or dishonest in his/her misrepresentation. Theology aside his comparison with Islam is pathetic to say the least.

Robert

No one condemns you to hell for not being a 'Christian'. We are all born with a sinful nature and thus sin. God provided the answer to that in Christ. The problem is that most love the darkness more than light and refuse His love, kindness and forgiveness. No one has done more for you and me than God.

TRTL; what an excellent question! When I read your post I was delighted that this would give some clearly defined answers.

Just shows how naive one can be, doesn't it?

Small fry incidents TRTL.
In a world of hundreds of millions of born again christians, its not worth much of a mention.
I really think you went looking, looking, looking to poke at and to condemn christians rather than observe the greater truths of the spirit battle on earth.
As for me .......
1. I know the spirit world. Demons and evil spirit powers are the root cause of such things as eating disorders, anxiety etc. You can also include lust (porn and masturbation young fellows), fear, all other addictions and many other life troubles in this cluster.
If Mercy Ministries have a different type of way of dealing with the friends of their patients then thats probably how they deal with it. They will need to keep bad influences away so healing can begin.
2.
Re: Catch the Fire and the tearing down of mosques. Im not really for that. Whats built shoudnt be touched...THOUGH...Islam still has to be halted.
Islam moves forward with a global plan to conquer and displace everything else.
Along that road, if they get their chance, they will kill many people. This we see, with our eyes, each day in the muslim countries. They kill each other and would do it here if they got the chance. No more mosques as powers bases is my heart.
3. As for the Westboro church. They were way out of line (if its extreme it will frequently live in Amercia). The Bible tells us not to judge or to say who will go up or who will go down.
I bet you were rubbing your hands together when you thought up this thread..."oh, this will get the christians going"!
Nah...to small in the incidents for such a vast global christian church.

TurnRightThenLeft, “moderate muslims appear to be hesitant in their denunciation of radical elements of the religion.”

The problem faced by the tolerant and moderate practitioners of any faith is

How to counter the excesses of their more zealot brethren without appearing to become one?

I figure the only way is to publicly denounce extremist actions, promptly and loudly.

It is often contrary to the views of moderates, out of respect for others, to promote their view but if someone is making a mess in the name of your faith, the moderate has a responsibility to defend the good name of that faith and make a stand for it.

They will have their work cut out though, the actions of radical extremists always makes better “news” than those of the moderates.

Fair enough Col - I agree. But should Christians make the same efforts?

Is it okay for them to 'pussyfoot' around people like Mercy Ministries?

Mr Right - I looked through your posts. A litany of half-arsed one-eyed anti muslim sentiments. Fair enough, condemn fringe movements, but get an understanding of the real issues before you insult others.

Start with this article:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6107

As far as debating goes, just insulting your opponents as not understanding the situation doesn't actually prove anything, it merely acts as a smokescreen for ignorance.

Perhaps you should try making rational arguments instead.

In earlier posts, I've outlined complexities of what I think causes Islamic extremism and the real problems:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1180#21169

You, haven't. As it stands, you look more like a yahoo banging a drum, so it's a bit rich for you to pretend to be some all-knowing arbiter. Perhaps if you respond a little more calmly with a bit more reasoning, you'll come across a little more persuasively.

And gibo, as far as your demons, prophecies and concern over the downfall of the west go, this NSW man believed in all three of those things. His warnings over the future of the west, right down to his belief in prophecies and the muslim menace, all sound quite similar to sentiments you have expressed.

http://news.smh.com.au/beheading-accused-suffered-delusions/20080317-1zvv.html

He decapitated his step-grandfather because he believed he was in on the prophetic conspiracy.
He was found not guilty by reason of insanity.

I'm not saying you're insane, but perhaps the fact that other people who believe in prophectic conspiracies of doom tend to be unbalanced, should be a wake up call.

Come on TRTL.
Just admit you dont like christians and wanted to unravel their day a bit.
I used to write against local christians in a country town I lived in...I loved it...then I got saved by the Lords Grace and realised how wrong I was.
You write the same as I used to write, thats how I know you.

". I know the spirit world. Demons and evil spirit powers are the root cause of such things as eating disorders, anxiety etc. You can also include lust (porn and masturbation young fellows), fear, all other addictions and many other life troubles in this cluster." (Quote: Gib)

I am now VERY worried.

Are you saying that doing in the bath WILL make you go blind??

(Gropes way to kitchen for coffee...).

URGENT CORRECTION: "Doing IT in the bath."

I couldn't see the keys......

Gibo, I've no issues with Christians. Most are very friendly, reasonable people. Heck, articles by Alan Matheson are fantastic, and Foxy is quite possible the most restrained, reasonable person in these forums.

Whoever you are or were is your business.

I just don't like nutjobs of any creed. I'll condemn fringe nutjob movements of Islam, just as I'll condemn fringe nutjob movements of Christianity.

The reason why I don't criticise Islam in its entirety is the same reason why I don't criticise Christianity in its entirety.

Both have ugly things in their books. I put the blatant cruelty and ugliness of god in relation to the Job affair to boaz in this thread and asked how he could justify it:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1343#26409

He couldn't. The answers were as evasive as any muslim trying to justify the heinous actions of mohammed. Boaz couldn't criticise god any more than they could criticise their prophet, even when it was abundantly clear the actions being discussed were immoral.

Despite the cruelty of god toward Job, I don't have an issue with Christians, because I judge them on how they live their lives and how they treat others.

I was putting it to boaz in an attempt to make him see that to the balanced perspective, using these texts as a basis for judgement is wrong, because they're interpreted in a manner that suits the individual anyway.

The vast majority of the world's muslims live their lives peacefully. Thus, I've no problem with them, just as I've no problem with the Christians.

The lunatic movements of either creed however, I'll condemn. What I want to know, is whether the same can be said of Christians who lean toward a more fundamentalist interpretation.

And if not, then I'd like them to understand that while I can accept that, they should bear this in mind next time they assume muslims who aren't criticising beliefs share those beliefs.

Individuals are going to do whatever they are going to do, and if they blame their faith for their actions, it is no reflection on the faith.

What worries me more is the structure of religious institutions that put themselves up as an authority, and are seen as such by many, and condone or cover up paedophilia or incite terrorist acts. I think a good way of stopping that may be to withdraw tax relief. That would soon make them self regulate their Priests and Imams.

Though this self regulation seems to have started, with the Vatican deciding obscene riches is a mortal sin. Looks like a lot of real estate and jewellery and art and such is about to be sold...

Any Christian who believes in demons as beings independent of one's own psyche is not Christian but polytheistic in their beliefs. Mercy Ministries is not biblical in their faith, but rather hold an ancient Roman secretism view of human behaviour. In Biblical Christianity all belief in demons are dismissed as pagan ideas, as we do not believe the spirits of the evil dead can independently affect the living. We uphold there is but one God and the person alone are is affected by their sin and live in oppostion to God.

From What I hear of Mercy Ministries they are not orthodox but rather believe in pagan gods [demons].

Catch the Fire Ministries might be radical but the verse quoted does not apply in any physical sense. I agree with B_D.

Anyone who paractises violence and incites acts of hatred is not a follower of Christ. He protected adulterers against stoning and mixed with sinners.

TurnRightThenLeft,

I suspect that moderate Muslims do get a bad rap. However your approach doesn’t seem to achieve anything meaningful. You gave 3 examples of Christian groups apparently acting badly and asked Christians in here if they would condemn them.

The third example clearly showed people claiming to be Christian being offensive. They didn’t kill large groups of people like suicide bombers but their actions were cruel, unChristian, and offensive. The Christian respondents unflinchingly condemned them. That is the complete opposite of your apparent theory that moderate Christians would emulate moderate Muslims who apparently fail to criticize offensive extremism.

The second example was clearly incorrect. Catch the Fire Ministries are calling for people to pray not asking people to vandalise Mosques. Thus I presume you would agree it doesn’t apply.

The first example was Mercy Ministries. After all the discussion they sound potentially quirky and culty but we don’t know much more. You said:

“If I were to adopt the same tactics you and others use to attack Islam, I'd be saying that you secretly support the tricking of young women into giving up their centrelink payments, as well as contracts that cut them off from friends.”

If Christians are critical of moderate Muslims for not condemning things like the slaughter of Christians in East Timor or the suicide bombers in Israel can you reasonably compare that with failing to condemn minor quirky actions by Christians? Isn’t there a serious problem with proportionality?

Have you tested atheists for their reaction to minor quirky atheist groups to see if they immediately condemn them? Then why judge Christians like that?

Without something reasonably proportionate it is difficult to believe the comparison is meaningful. If my guess is incorrect and slaughter of Christians in East Timor or suicide bombers in Israel is not the offensive behaviour and it is instead quirky fanatical Muslim behaviour then please correct me. Otherwise, whether or not you have a good cause, when Christians leap in and condemn the ugliness of the Phelps it hardly supports your argument irrespective of Christian reaction to minor quirky Christians’ behaviours.

TLTR “Fair enough Col - I agree. But should Christians make the same efforts?”

Of course, my comment was non-denominational

“URGENT CORRECTION: "Doing IT in the bath."

I couldn't see the keys......
Posted by Ginx, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 11:53:57 AM”

Yep, “not seeing the keys”, a salutary warning of happens when you do IT in the bath.

I see Jinx and Philo are no believers in demon powers.
My knowledge is different.
Im not an expert... but I cant be too many years off it.
Ive been in warfare with evil spirits so many times.
Ive had them smother me in my sleep and been bitten by them.
Ive been in christian churches, not pansy churches with dainty ways when it comes to Christ, but truly alive in The Holy Spirit churches, where hands- were- layed on by committed pastors and elders and the demons screamed as they came out of troubled people.
Ive spoken to so many christians who have knowledge of them I couldnt name them all.
The best work the christian exorcists do today is not in the generally unbelieving western nations but in third world countries where the demon powers control life in whole villages.
The stories that come back are so amazing.
I think anyone who has no knowledge of evil spirits is so unenlightened as to be deceived as to what is really going on, on earth. Juniors in life. Babies in the crib. Untaught children. Get yourself down to a good christian bookshop and get some testimonies on evil spirits. Find out for yourself. Then talk about demons with a more ROUNDED KNOWLEDGE!
It would be a quiet world, if it wasnt for satan stirring up folks to kill each other.
Your knowledge of how good people relate to each other should tell you, very clearly, there are dark forces on the earth apart from men.

Gibo,
To the pagan mind who believe in demons [gods] they are real, especially in cultures based in spirit superstitions. Of which was the mixed culture of Jesus day, and Jesus practised exorcism as did the monotheistic Judaists. As was baptism it was a physical demonstration to the person held captive in their superstitious mind or by their sin that they are now totally free.

Demons are real to the superstitious mind who fail to recognise there is but one God who in all and in control of all things other than the rebellious heart and mind of man - the enemy of God who needs reconciliation. Christians in the early Church were put to death for atheism by the state because they refused to believe in the reality of demons.

Churches that teach demonology are not Christian but teach paganism superstition.

The fact remains that Islam is the only religion constituting a possible threat to Australia and the rest of the Western world. Rabbiting on about weird Christian sects is a no brainer.

MR. Right seems to have upset TRTL. TRTL replied with a good line of insults himself.

I suspect that it was TRTL who got me suspended for a week a little while ago. Wonder if we'll hear from Mr. Right for a while?

Now that I'm back, I will certainly not be saying anything to upset TRTL.

False accusations Leigh, and unless you have something to back it, you should cease your snide remarks.

If you want to know why you're banned, I'd say you've given a pretty good example of unsubstantiated accusations.

I did nothing of the sort, and the sole occasion I've recommended a comment for deletion was when it was mobile phone advertising spam.

Ask the moderators why you were banned. If you're going to accuse me of something I didn't do, you damn well should get some kind of evidence.

You got your own self barred, and I'm not the least bit surprised.

Did you wish genocide upon another demographic?

As for insults, bring em on. You'll note Mr Right was the first to stoop to insults, and yes, I responded in kind but was able to use actual information to back my case instead of solely using insulting commentary.

No Philo. You have no life knowledge of what you are talking about. You really ought to do an indepth study on evil spirits. You will always have a hole in your knowledge if you dont and your theories will prosper.

Philo, thank you for being upfront about the nature of Gibo's beliefs.

I'm pleasantly surprised.

I've challenged Boazy to respond to Gibo's claims previously and he tends to side step the issue which does his credibility no good.

Well done.

R0bert

Gibo,
I've seen the emotional damage so called exorcisists did to my grandson attending their AOG school. My daughter took him out of the school and found him a specialist who has cured him of his disorder, with diet and love.

The Charasmatic Churches attribute demons to any behaviour they do not accept as normal. I've seen exorcisms practised, and people left in a screaming emotional mess. Such practises are not more than psycholoogical screwing of a persons mind to believe a demon is controling them. These persons certainly need care and healing and attributing it to spirit beings is not a Biblical view.

I have a dear friend now controlled by the Charismatic Churches and her mind is totally screwed to what is normal. She has had countless supposed demons exorcised and she is currently emotionally damaged by the constant fear of the demonic. Sensitive children do not need "boogy men" under the bed theology.

If she had been given the right care and told she alone was totally responsible for her behaviour she would now be of sound mind. But they have convinced her that demons surround her and are trying to destroy her

Evil spirits. Another manorfest of the mind. Its these scary stories that forced the simple people of yesterday into Christianity in the first place and maybe that's the point. I didn't have parents who pushed this onto me and the scariest thing that has ever happened too me, was when I when to see JAWs at the age of 13.

Religion is not good for the human mind and there are cases of normal people going insane by believe in this and I recall one case, where one young lads father,( a traveling evangelist) who spoke to him with every quote from the bible since the day he was born and it was found by the medical profession that the young boy had gone completely and utterly into the depths of insanity and had nothing to give to the real world. When I saw this documentary, it proved to me that it does have a profound affect on the minds of the young, and in the old, as the case maybe.

People, the bible has just complicated things, and like I have said before, the bible was made to control people and it was a good thing at the beginning, but now times have changed. So go home and do your thing, and do what its meant to be, and that's private between you and him.

Just a thought.

TRTL,
OK, I’ll do the gentlemanly and accept your word.

Now, I take umbrage at your comment: “Did you wish genocide upon another demographic?” which suggested that I would, or ever have, wanted any group of people wiped out because of race. Just because my opinions are usually the opposite of yours does not make me a murderer or a would-be murderer.

In one of your posts above, you make much of how you “condemn” certain people. Now you condemn me as a wannabe murder of people purely on racial grounds.

The subject you originally kicked off was a totally unnecessary excuse to rubbish certain branches of one religion just so you could tell us for the umpteenth time your favourable opinions of Islam.

You forget that one of the people you condemn was prosecuted simply because he repeated something from the Koran. As for the “actual information” you claim to have used, you simply hooked someone else’s opinion off the net.

Incidentally, I never open the websites anyone posts because the website is about as reliable as Wikipedia – anyone can put whatever they like on it. Nor do I always believe the newspapers you refer to. Your “actual information” might not be worth anything. And, I’m not going to use up more megabytes just to read opinions you approve of.

Seeing you feel it’s OK to portray me as a genocidal maniac, you will not be offended if I say that I think you are the most sanctimonious, self-opinionated, up-himself know all on OLO.

Gibo, read the sign man- "Do Not Feed Your Demons"

Christian, Muslim or any other. Why is it you feel that need to impose you own beliefs on other people. Is your faith really that fragile.

As for Islam being more violent than Christians.......

It is a simple math question...

If an islamic child is born what is the probality that child will die at the hands of a christian...( US Forces are there at the will of a christian ruler )
Then what is the chance that a christian child is going to die at the hands of a Muslim

Just a because the media has you convince that we are the constant victims of muslim aggression. Surely no one thinks that the numbers add up, to show that christian nations are in more danger.

They are all nutters. The difference is that Islam is POLITICAL, as well as religious.
This puts it in a totally different class to fringe "Christian" sects.

Ear111

Why is it secular humanist feel that need to impose you own beliefs on other people. Is their faith really that fragile. The ABS and SBS are experts at it as are a number of god haters on this forum.

Runner! You dribble, more than you can carry. But that doesn't mean the people on OLO don't hear you. I for one, thank you for your input and we all know this is a crazy world. All thoughts must be respected in the time of times, and its the only the short minds of minds, that make us feel small.

Give it your best, and no man can judge you for that.

Evolution.

Dear Earl

you must be new here :) 'discussing' is not 'imposing'.. your comment was about the abysmal standard of a Muslim who reacts to any criticism by saying "Aah..you got that from some hate site"..in other words, pretty lame.

Here in OLO, we 'discuss' robustly various ideas including the Christian faith, atheism, humanism and secularism. Discussing..is not 'imposing'.

ROBERT.. did you read that link I gave about the captives?

You are acting just a bit like a spoiled child there. You gave us 3 examples.. where it appears.. you have prejudged the outcome solely on the basis of the article.
I told you clearly, I can condemn Phelps unequivocally, because there is sufficient information. Would YOU like to be tried and convicted on the basis of an article written ABOUT you, as opposed to things you have said yourself? I hardly think so.

Runner gave us some added information about the 'signing over' of benefits, and it fills in some blanks.

One think you seem not to recognize is this:

-Programs have rules.
-Those rules are explained to the participants.
-IF... the participant decides they don't like the rules before the program is complete.. don't you think its possible that they might have a huge media whinge? Specially IF the media is looking for such stories?

We can absolutely condemn 'sin' and evil...but it must be shown to be so by dispassionate people based on firm and balanced evidence. Not an inflammatory news article from a commercial tabloid seeing to increase its 'Ad revenue' by creating controversy.

I'm guessing it was HillSong which gave you your 'bad church experience' in the past because you always seem to be hunting them down. Relax mate.. if anything really bad happens.. it WILL come out in time.

Boazy, I read the start of the article and decidied that I had better things to do with my life.

It's not the type of work that will have impact on most bible believers, they believe the bits thats suit.

If you want a better understanding of what I mean have a look at the differences in views between Philo and Gibo in regard to the overwhelming infestation of demons Gibo has in his neighborhood.

People believe what they want to believe regardless of scholarly interpretations of the texts.

At a guess you'd take a middle position on that debate, your life is probably not overrun with demons but I suspect that you think they exist and do play a role.

Personally I'm thinking of starting up a line of "Demon Bombs" (think cockroach bombs), you'd buy a pack of 3 (or maybe two packs to be certain) and set them off in your prayer closet as you leave in the morning. When you got home you'd have to air the place out and sweep up all the dead demons. Could be a good money spinner in some circles. Maybe for a fee I could have them endorsed by some pastor who once drove past a bible college and who does not like wussy churches.

Some christains have been able to be slave owners (and the verse you refered to seem to allow for that) whilst others have found the practice abhorent. Some have found excuses to bomb innocent's others have given their lives to protect innocents. Some regard women as weaker vessels while others have partnerships based on equality.

It's not really about your holy books but about what you want to do with them.

Whilst the christains on this thread seem to have been willing to see the wrong the Westboro churches actions few have been willing to speak out against the villification of gays on threads on this site. Some lead the charge - whilst claiming love they act in a manner which appears to have it's roots in the same place as Westboro.

R0bert

Leigh, there's nothing gentlemanly about launching unfounded accusations, then refraining from doing so when you don't have any proof.

You then accuse me of lying in relation to painting you as wishing genocide upon a certain demographic.

Wrong again. You did wish genocide upon a demographic, and I never said anything about race.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6698#100362

"Generation Y should have been smothered at birth."

Pretty damn conclusive.

Leigh, where you climb on here to launch vitriol, often with no backing at all, I have a basis for my criticism, and not all of my posts are laden with hate as yours are.

What's more amusing, is you have the hide to call me 'opinionated.' Aside from the fact that we're on an 'opinion' website and by logic, anyone who takes the time to post here is opinionated, you are clearly more opinionated than the vast majority of posters.

Here you say that you don't want logical debate, you just want to come on and launch your opinion, then basically be immune to criticism.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6632#99643

My contentions that:

a) I've never recommended anyone be banned, I'd rather let them display their own ignorance.
b) You have indeed wished genocide on demographics.
and
c) I back my views where you just launch hate and insults.

All stand, while the reasoning behind your constant sniping lies in tatters.

I await with resignation your next spray of uninformed vitriol.

Dear Robert

CAPTIVE SLAVES-INTERCOURSE.

that article was probably the most honest and comprehensive analysis of one of the most difficult issues in the whole old testament that I've come across!

I recommended it(and still do) because of that. You are the one constantly and incessently claiming that the 'difficult' part of the Bible are never addressed by Christians etc.. well that commentary seems to have been written not by Christians but by Jews and it encompasses a spectrum of opinions, ranging from 'yes' to 'no' and how these positions relate to the various rabbinical schools.

The conclusion is quite good I thought. (at least read that, and if you disagree, then go back and read more)

You simply cannot make these 'anti Christian' claims and then not be willing to explore the issue to the tune of what? 2 pages of type?

Of particular interest to me, was that one school felt a man can have intercourse with a captive girl once, (though not on the battle field) and then, she had to go through the grieving rituals after which he could have her again. The other school (which I support) held that a the captor could marry the girl after the full month of grieving.
It is worth pointing out, that if the girl did not make him happy, (and how hard would that be ? ) she was FREE.. So, I cannot imagine a man forcing himself on a slave, if he knew that if he annoyed her she gained her freedom.

This is one of the most difficult parts of ancient life for me to relate to. The girls (male adult) family is dead. What prospects does she have? She is a different race...should she convert? remain pagan?
If she remains pagan can the man marry her? (no) So there is much to be learned from all this.

Robert,

"Whilst the christains on this thread seem to have been willing to see the wrong the Westboro churches actions few have been willing to speak out against the villification ..."

Is that meant to be taken in isolation or are you comparing silence on villification of that group in a robust debate with silence on slaughtering Christians in East Timor, Indonesia or Sudan and silence on suicide bombers killing Jews in Israel?

If you mean it in isooation then be honest with yourself and admit that when gays get villified in these threads Christians are usually too busy defending themselves from a lot worse often from the keyboards of gay activists often simultaneously goaded with disrespectful comments (think eg. demon bombs although I'm sure that particular comment is an original from this thread). Don't be so judgemental about Christians not demonstrating ideal love in that situation when you haven't walked in those moccasins.

If it is an ambitious attempt to resuscitate the original theory then I reiterate the issue of proportionality. I also, note that we continually see non-villifying atheists stand by when there is much worse vilification directed at Christians. Any atheist who wants to pursue that needs to consider the old saying about glass houses.

I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ”
—Stephen F. Roberts

As for the legitimacy of 'Mercy Ministries'

In the past, they've claimed they can use god to 'cure' gay people.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2008/03/18/1205602421321.html

Of course, I suspect some posters here don't see any issues associated with this.

They say they've backed away from it, but those who've been through the program say there are still 'separation contracts' to avoid lesbianism.

Well, whatever the case, I'll not be buying Gloria Jeans coffee any time soon.

There has been some inappropriate comparisons in here as I have pointed out. Having done so I feel obliged in fairness to those inclined to Islamic belief to include the following:

Prince Hassan would have to be Islamic wouldn't he? He is criticizing the slaughter of Assyrian Christians:

http://www.aina.org/guesteds/20080318055924.htm

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/03/17/news/Pope-Iraq.php

In the following story the victim's wife assumed (presumably with good reason) that Muslims would be shocked by the behaviour of Muslim youths.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=535131&in_page_id=1770

Why I picture about ten youths with skateboards baiting the priest before deciding to bash him and insult his religion after he failed to get sufficiently aggressive is anyone's guess.

mjpb - I don't deny there are plenty of factions within Islam that are in dire need of criticism.

Nor do I deny that violence is more likely to come from militant Islamic movements than Christian ones.

What I do find objectionable, is how quickly the billion muslims of the world have been categorised as dangerous because some members of their religion have interpreted in a violent manner.

Then, moderate muslims are told they must loudly and vehemently criticise these fringe movements without any hesitation.

I'm saying that I expect the same from Christians. Ugly movements should be criticised no matter what religion they are, and if muslims aren't given a fair opportunity to explain why they're not denouncing these groups, then the same should be applied to Christians.

Many people are so very quick to judge when the response isn't swift and simple.

I just wanted to put the shoe on the other foot, and see how fundamentalist Christians see it when they're expected to denounce a fringe movement quickly. I wanted them to see what it's like to be expected to make a vocal criticism of an offshoot of their faith, especially when the expectation is that this criticism must be loud and instantaneous, lest they be accused of harbouring secret sympathies for weird fringe agendas.

There is plenty of criticism from many posters here, and certainly you're well within rights to post some examples of a nastier side of Islam here. I'm not arguing against that.

I would argue that many posters, such as boaz, have already posted such material on an incredibly frequent basis and perhaps it's time they put themselves in the other person's position.

TurnRightThenLeft,

Your experiment didn't work but that doesn't mean you are wrong about moderate Muslims. Ironically Christians may well be more inclined to take that viewpoint because of the expectations on them. More particularly, if Christians are expected to and habitually criticise the Phelp's of the world we may well be pushed to a mindset where we expect other religions to fulfil the demands upon us and be vulnerable to making unfair inferences if they don't meet our unreasonable criteria particularly in much more extreme situations.

Earll11,
I note the Greens political bigotry in your claim, "an islamic child is born what is the probality that child will die at the hands of a christian...( US Forces are there at the will of a christian ruler)."

In case you do not realise the new Government in Iraq is basically Muslim in its religion and law. The fact is two groups of Muslims are fighting for power that is the reason for the civil war in Iraq. One group of Muslim terrorists will blow up indiscrimately women and children the other moderare group in power now seek out terrorists with the help of American soldiers. Many American soldiers are Muslim. So I suggest instead of believing the Greens propaganda and reproducing it here you do some serious factual research.

Boaz_David

You almost made my point for me again. I celebrate the idea that religion and all other topics can be discussed. Your over simplification of my point, reflects on the opening statement only. And your condescending & simplistic reply was truly lame.

The imposition I refer to is in the real world. Many christians seek to impose their beliefs whether it really benefits the target or not. (e.g. catholic church going to great lengths to stop african's from having access to condomns / christians in america getting creation talk as a science in public schools ). This contradicts a fundamental right that all people should enjoy - freedom of religion. I do resent this attitude as it reflects a lack of acceptance of other faiths and points of view.

This imposition (not discussion) is not rare and is a consistent theme in christianity on both a small and very large scale. If you do not believe this imposition is real, then you are misguided and you do not believe it matters, then I think you are blind. This was my point of discussion (not impostion).

I do not like this attitude because it allows you not to reflect upon the fact that many more muslim people are victims of christian aggression that the other way around. Why is that and how can we ignore it when discussing muslims and 'their violent ways'........

Finally. Why is humanistic label a bad thing. Can you not be both, should you not have both as an aim. Golden rule and a few others examples spring to mind. I know God should be no.1, but God never ask's to be no.1 in spite of others.

For those interested in what the scriptures teach.

SPIRIT IN OLD TESTAMENT

"ruwach", It's said that Saul suffered with an evil [adverse, affliction] spirit [wind, breath] 1 Samuel 16: 14. The evil here means affliction with his breathing as it came from the Lord. The condition he suffered that led to his poor attitudes and decisions.

From Jewish history we learn Saul suffered with a severe breathing problem - snoring [aponia] that causes the sufferer irritability and anger if not treated. The word evil on the OT refers to an enemy or natural curse - note "it was from the Lord" as He imposed upon natural creation. The word breath and spirit in OT is the same word. His breathing problem was from depletion of oxygen to his brain from lack of sleep that caused his anger and affected his judgments and attitudes.



"n'shamah". Contacting the spirits of the deads.
[Strong 178] In every case where the word is found it only relates to women contacting the spirits of deceased or to sexual immoral practises. Priestesses were used in the pagan temples to contact the spirit of the dead. Baal was supposed to give man his sexual arousal that was satisfied in the temples of Baal. That is why Israel was frequently deluded into believing Baal was real. Both practises prostitution and contacting the dead [bringing to life the spirits of the dead] were forbidden to Israel.
.
Lev 20: 27 one who makes guttural sounds predominantly during intercourse that are interpreted as signs from the god Baal of sexual desire – note the context verse 10 – 27 is about clean and unclean sexual relations.

God gave human sexuality to be held responsibly in moral esteem not Baal. And to the orthodox Jew the dead know nothing, and have no contact with the living. Shamah is a delusion of the mind forbidden in the Bible.

During the times of Jesus the Persian, Greek and Roman inflences upon the uneducated culture led them to call any unexplained behaviour as demonic - That is controlled by minor pagan gods.

Hi Earl
sorry if my post seemed condescending. I kinda get a gutful of this 'you are imposing' thing.. which we experience quite a bit here (the accusation I mean). Perhaps in future you could set the context better so we know where you are speaking of.

Your idea of what is a "Christian" concerns me a tad.. can you illustrate where you mean 'Christians' are victimizing Muslims?

I sure hope you don't mean the Invasion of Iraq.. but in any case, you would need to be more specific so I understand both your view of what a Christian is, and then how you relate this to the victimization of Muslims you refer to.

I'll await clarification b4 making further comment.

TRTL.. 'denouncing the dark side'

I would rather approach it like this. "If there is a command (s) or a permission(s) for violence, sexual licentiousness, accumulation of territory and treasures in 'Christianity' I would happily condemn it as being contradictory to the nature of God as I understand it.

My problem though, would be that I only have the Bible as my source for 'what is God like'.. thus, it is quite hard to condemn Him based on that source for the faults and the definition. You see, obviously, if 'GOd' said its ok... then it must be. Which brings us to circular reasoning "How do you know God said it?"

Well.. my answer to that one is the same one as the Apostle John

<<That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life>> 1 John 1:1

Added weight is found in His Gospel record

<<"These things are written (the signs and miracles) that you may know...that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you will have life in His name">>

Your next step would be to examine the reliability of the traditions of the Gospel of John and his 1st Epistle.

Whitty,

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. ”
—Stephen F. Roberts

"Rejecting a proffered explanation is totally different from saying there is no need for an explanation. In short, your unbelief in the Christian faith is not the same kind of thing at all as my unbelief in Islam. And I am not a "partial atheist" because I am not a Muslim. You say, "No one needed to put the world here." The Muslim says that Allah created it. I say that the triune God did. These statements contradict one another in different ways - not in the same way, as you argued."
-Douglas Wilson

mjpb,

All I see you've done is changed the argument from whether god exists, into who created the world. Incidently do you agree with the proposition of athiesm as a religion that is used against Dawkins?

"All I see you've done is changed the argument from whether god exists, into who created the world."

If you want to be pedantic Whitty it could be said that (if you will excuse the licence) we aren't atheists because rejecting that God exists in a particular way is totally different from saying God doesn't exist. In short, your unbelief in the Christian faith is not the same kind of thing at all as my unbelief in Islam. And I am not an atheist because I am not a Muslim. You say, "God doesn't exist." The Muslim says that Allah is God. I say that God is triune. These statements contradict one another in different ways - not in the same way, as you argued.

"Incidently do you agree with the proposition of athiesm as a religion that is used against Dawkins?"

I have thought about it in response to your question and can't yet decide. I don't know. Some definitions of religion seem to fit but I believe that those including things such as practices and worship probably don't apply. It seems more like a cult for atheist fundamentalists like Dawkins.

Very interesting post you placed there boaz.

"My problem though, would be that I only have the Bible as my source for 'what is God like'.. thus, it is quite hard to condemn Him based on that source for the faults and the definition. You see, obviously, if 'GOd' said its ok... then it must be. Which brings us to circular reasoning "How do you know God said it?"

So, essentially, you're saying you can't judge the actions of god because morality is what god has handed to you through the bible.

Therefore, your entire morality isn't based around what the majority sees as right, it's based on what the bible says is right.

Hence your condemnation of homosexuality.

But, what you don't explicitly say, is that your biggest objection to Islam is that their morality isn't christian.

Evidently, any morality which isn't christian is a lesser morality.

The bible is your compass, right?

I guess then, you consider secular morality, hindu morality and buddhist morality as all being wrong, but acceptable depending on how far they are from the bible.

What's amusing, is that you see this as okay simply because it's your god's morality, but you claim He doesn't permit torture, even though it's a clear example of god's actions.

When the Qu'ran has scenes of torture, that's somehow entirely different - muslims must take it literally, even though the majority of these billion people are quite peaceful when left alone.

So, to recap boaz, when the Qu'ran has immorality, it means Islam is evil.

When your god tortures, it isn't immoral because he made morality.

This makes no sense - so I wonder, how can you really think that?

I conclude it's because you see them as further from the bible.

That scares me. I don't want to be close to your bible either.

Dear TRTL,

The three examples that you've given don't appear to be very "respectable." They sound bizarre.
They sound like sects - intolerant of other religious organisations. Dogmatic and fundamentalist, believing that their particular interpretation of the Scriptures is the literal and only route to salvation.

They probably have no trained clergy, and their rituals of worship I imagine, emphasize emotion, and extensive participation by the congregation.

Thankfully most sects tend to be short-lived, but some gradually become denominations - always with an accompanying loss of fervor and a gain in social respectability. Jehovah's Witnesses, is one example.
Seventh-Day Adventists, too, began as a sect prophesying the end of the world on a specific date. That day came and went.

I would not accept in silence the travesties of a dishonest theology.
I could not smile in assent or bow before any clergyman when I know he is wrong.

So no, I would not support any of the three examples that you've given.

The purity of orthodox monotheism as was proposed to be practised by Israel was broken down by the Babylonian exile, Persian, Greek and Roman occupation and intermingling of these religious cultures. Therefore in the times of the NT world superstitious views of demons controlling human bahaviour were prevalent in Palestine.

It was the Greeks that gave alcohol the term "spirits" because one who drank too much were said to be controlled by an evil spirit.

Persons who suffered ailments like epeletzy or mental disorder or poor hygene were also considered as posessed by an unclean spirit. The Romans influenced by Persian Zoroastrianism believed the spirits of the evil dead roamed the scenes of the buried and deserted places until they found peace. This influenced Romanised Christianity to include purgatory in their theology.

Bacteria was not known to the ancients so when it was discovered beings could be passed from one to another and cause sickness the beings were also called spirits. These spirits could be destroyed by water or fire. This view permiated much of the ancient world and witch doctors could they believe dispel such spirits by incantations and potions.

The New Testament identifies attitudes of belief as the nature of a spirit. Belief motivates behaviour and attitudes and in that sense it is spiritual. The behaviour is always identified as the persons own spirit and not an independent being of the person.

Sorry about your grandson Philo.
Churches have to be so careful that there is a demon there first; and its not just fallen nature causing an unusual quirk.
Not refering to your grandsons case of course.
People are or can be considerably weird and have many strange habits because of the fall from Edens Perfect Creation. This can get easily misinterpreted for evil spirit behaviour. As I said if you are NOT! speaking from life experience with evil spirits any theory can be used to put them away. That squashes the truth of thier existance.

Thanks Gibo,
From what I have seen of current exorcisms the suppopsed spirits were called names like lust, sexual addiction or perversion, rock music, drug addiction etc. These are not more than addictions and behaviours that are at the will of the person themself. There are no spirit beings involved other than maybe other persons or peers who maybe feeding them evil influences and ideas.

All these are as James and Jesus taught, from within the persons own hearts desires and lusts. These are not more than sinful habbitual behaviours. These addictions require spiritual enlightment, conviction, confession and change of one's heart toward God.

Youre by-passing Philo the events of The Word if you think these things are just of the heart or of desires...i.e. you havent read the Bible or studied it, not with any commitment.
In Mark chapter 5 we see Jesus casting out a group of evil spirits with the name Legion from a tormented man. Again we see a similar event with a boy and a demon in him in Mark chapter 9:14-32. On and on I could go...New Testament and Old Testament. They are full of descriptions of evil spirit powers and, of course, the forbidding of the use of witchcraft to summon them...right up to Revelation chapter 21:8 (no one who practices magic gets into Heaven).
To have credibility in this area of evil spirits Philo you must have knowledge gained from The Bible and/or life contact with them. All Ive seen is theory...and thats as good as the Charles Darwin stuff. Cant talk to you on the subject anymore.

I can't believe what I'm reading here. Citizens of the twenty-first century, living in a scientifically advanced western culture, talking absolute mediaeval nonsense about "evil spirits" and "demons".

And they believe it!! How insane is that? Reminds me of Monty Python.

Incredible that there are still people around who are stuck in a seventh century mindset.

Next you'll be saying there are witches and warlocks who need to be burnt at the stake.

Richard Dawkins certainly has a point about religion.

Heck froggie, that was the edited version. You're missing out on all the UFO-inspired nuttery.

What concerns me is the "I can't talk to you anymore."

Simply put, when Gibo's reality is challenged, he simply discards the information presented to him and re-boots as it were.

We see a few fringe posters on these boards who have extreme views of some kind - it's fascinating to see the hoops they will jump through in order to justify such bizarre views.

When a glitch presents itself, they just short-circuit and start back from scratch.

The info TRTL was not fact. It was theory based on what had happened to a persons relative. Whereas what I was saying re: evil spirits was truth, based on life experience...no theory, no made up rubbish...just fact.
I heard Hal Lindsey say once that the tech for the Xerox machine came from a demon. We all believed it. Demons are highly intelligent even as fallen angels, though on the wrong side. As for UFOs being built by men...did you ever get a copy of Stan Deyos THE COSMIC CONSPIRACY? A good book by a good christian author.

Gibo,
I have studied the scriptures for 50 years and researched and written many articles on views of demonology. There is no confirmation of demons in the OT having reality. Such views were forbidden in Jewish thought and theology. Jesus never identified demons in people, other persons accused them of being posessed. Even Jesus himself was accused of being posessed of Baalzebub. Is Baalzebub a reality? If you are monotheistic - then NO. Baalzebub was the Canaanite god of death who guarded the doors of sheol [the grave]. The OT teaches YHVH both gives life and removes life, blesses and curses.

The term Legion was what the man believed about himself and how others had identified his behaviour. Jesus freed him by empowering him, and at his request Jesus allowed him to drive the pigs over a cliff.

Demons make photocopiers?

That explains a lot.

I bet they did "programmable" VCRs, the crazy frog ringtone and the Microsoft Office Assistant as well.

Thats not what the Bible says Philo in any version.
It clearly speaks about evil spirits all of the way through it.
Your interpretation is substandard and unscriptural.
I suspect youre just stirring and would talk the bricks off a wall for the sake of talking them off.

Yes, the Microsoft Office Assistant is definitely a manifestation of Baalzebub.

Gibo,
1. Give us one current example of a demon acting totally independently of the evil imagination of man.

Both Jesus, Paul and James identify the sinful behaviour in the world as man's totally responsiblity and man being held accountable.

2. Give us one example to the contrary.

3. Give us one example from the OT of an evil spirit acting outside the mind of a human. The OT attributes all sin to the immagination of sinful man.

The nature of the sinful mind is evil and can influence peers unsuspectingly in the same behaviour, but is is not transmitted by the entry of a spirit being. Such a view may have been held by some ancient communities. But a seed of an idea can flourish in the mind to produce evil fruit. That is the very nature of the human mind. For instance depression is transmitted by company with the depressed, excitment is transmitted by company with the excited. The state may be spiritual but not transmitted by a spirit being.

Tell one person there is no accounting for his behaviour and that may relese his immagination to do all sorts of dispicable things.

Heya CJ Morgan

Are you a Mad Magazine fan?

Well I'm having deja vu 'Spy VS Spy' while reading 'Gibo VS Philo'.

This is hilarious.

Yep, no doubt about it, the bible is open to any and all interpretations.

:-D

Quite so, Fractelle! Spy vs Spy - now that takes me back...

But isn't it nice that they can deal with their demons in public?

I dunno... whilst I'm a pretty secular sort, what Philo's saying here seems to be a pretty reasonable interpretation.

Seeing as he is a devoted Christian I think he's more likely to be able to perhaps make Gibo see that his beliefs aren't actually displayed in the real world.
I'd hope he could perhaps show Gibo that some of his beliefs, strictly speaking, don't really fall under the category of 'Christian.'

TRTL

I do concede that Philo has been quite reasonable HERE. But, too good an opportunity, how often is that one christian actually takes to task another. I guess it underscores the title of your thread. So hey, success!!

However, don't get Philo started on evolution, stem cell research, homosexuality, female reproductive rights - where is the christian who will pull him up then?

Fractelle. Im not fighting with Philo, one christian against another. I suspect Philo is more New Age than anything else with a bit of Bible knowledge thrown in. I found him generally unteachable because he doesnt listen. I told him my life experience had involved contact and attacks from dark powers. My knowledge also includes testimonies from many other christian brothers and sisters on the demons they have had contact with and much learning on the subject from Gods Word, which I totally believe is accurate in its evil spirit descriptions, and from other christian literature. If he wants to know about demons...he should do his own Bible research. But dont urinate on my life knowledge. I happily asked The Lord to show him the truth of demons, so he could get a rounder knowledge. TRTL and CJ Morgan are just scally-wags and stirrers who mock many things. Recalcitrants.

Gibo: "I found him generally unteachable because he doesnt listen."

Ain't that the truth

ROFL

Gibo: "TRTL and CJ Morgan are just scally-wags and stirrers who mock many things. Recalcitrants."

The last time I was called such names was many years ago in high school, by a particularly odious headmaster whom I had somehow upset.

Thanks for the memories, Gibo :)

Gibo - "But dont urinate on my life knowledge."

You seem fairly happy to do this to the "life knowledge" of those who don't share your particular views.

Likewise keen to dismiss the views of those who don't agree with you as stiring rather than considered views.

From what I've seen of the christain church much of it "sort of believes" in demons but most don't believe that they are part of everyday life for most people. Few would believe that demons would be smothering or biting (both physical activities) human beings, most would think if there were physical manifestations that would be against those who have specifically opened themselves up to such manifestations.

I happen to agree that Philo's interpretation is more consistant with the overall teachings in the bible although a little less marketable for those who want their faith to be more exciting.

I've often disagreed with Philo (generally quite strongly) but on the whole Philo seems much less likely to dismiss his opponents out of hand than you do Gibo. "I found him generally unteachable because he doesnt listen. " - perhaps you could look at the plank in your own eye before being to focussed on the speck in Philo's eye when it comes to not listening.

Fractelle, "However, don't get Philo started on evolution, stem cell research, homosexuality, female reproductive rights - where is the christian who will pull him up then?" - spot on except for Foxy who is the light on the hill of OLO's known christian posters.

R0bert

The thing RObert is that there are many manipulators on this site, the second half of TRTL's very title shows him at it.
"...will reasonable christians renounce it".
Whats that if not manipulation?
Manipulation is a form of witchcraft.
Dont join these guys... if its not too late already.
Quite a few dislike Christians and show it clearly.
This, of course, is because we Christians have admitted that we are sinners and have gone on with Jesus to find far more hope, than the others who dont. The ousiders will always wonder what is going to happen after death...we Christians dont. Its really a great Peace.

Gibo

What will happen after I die will be exactly the same as before I was born - think about it.

R0bert
I am sure the inimitable Foxy can speak for herself, what a shame there is only one of her on OLO.

I've had two compoters hit by power surges in the past week - obviously there are demons. I call it lightning strikes, that I attribute to the nature of creation. So I have just got back online with a new computer.

Mental depression, bipolar and intellectual oppression in Gibo's definition are what he defines as demons. Both states are not identified by the views held by the pagan world of Jesus day of demons being viewed as spirit beings controlling human behaviour. Most persons in NT times viewed demons as the deceased spirits of evil persons who returned to inhabit the bodies of the living. In Greek thought a demon as a lesser god in a panthion of gods. A good read and understanding of Colossians dispels such views of lesser being controlling human behaviour.

Gibo's demons are states of the human mind that are affected by fear, immagination, chemical imbalance, or supressed guilt.

I think anyone actually interested in this topic should watch:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200804/programs/LE0615H029D7042008T213500.htm

It's on Monday night 7th April.

Especially you, Gibo.

One needs to be careful not confuse the Jesus Mission with Christianity:

The former goes back two generations before Jesus' birth [7 BCE] to when the direct descendents of the House of David [Heli, Joseph and later Jesus] were given permission to offer a low order of Judaism less strict order of rabbinical rites to the Gentiles. However, this mission was at the decretion on the Herodian dynasty, who were Roman puppets.

The biggerer picture, which included, only in small part Jesus' mission, was to ensure the Jews of the Diaspora did not lapse. Jesus would have had contemporary teachers, perhaps, with a deferent slant on the signance of the Law of Moses [i.e., Pharisees].

The latter involved the Hellenisation of Jesus' folk lore, and the founations of Christianity at Councils of Nicaea (325), Constantinople (391) and Kent.

At the Council of Constantinople, the Nicaean decision on the deity of Jesus was confirmed and Arianism was formally declared a heresy. The Holy Spirit was the third Person of the Trinity. Nonetheless, even as late as the Council of Ephasus [431] the nature of the divity/non-divinity was hotly debated.

Jesus' mission does not seem to have been militant. The zealots were the militant Jewish sect. Jesus appears to have tried to establish a moderate form extended Judiasm, which would include Gentiles, as lower ranked members, whereas the zealots sought a sort of Jewish Pontifus Maximus: Something Jesus appears to have seen an over-reach. Yet is Jewish Kingdom of Heaven was for him achievable.

The atrocities of the Christians often involved the control of political power and ethic cleansing [to clear debt] from Constantine to Hitler and beyond. That is not claim your average church goer is some brand of monster; only misinformed as to the History of The Christian Churches.

Cheers,

O.