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.