Sorry MJPB.
I didnt see your comment. Yes it was an intersting story.
Can I be frank?
Committed christians see the transexual and the homosexual as demon oppressed, sometimes with a spirit living inside them and encouraging ungodly sexual behaviour.
Sometimes they will hear the demon speak and ask for permission to live inside.
If this permission is given its extremely hard to get the thing out.

Committed exorcists are usually men and women of God, strong Bible believers with knowledge of demon powers...i.e. they have had contact with them and know they are real.
Satan has to bow at the name of Jesus...thats why we cast them out in His Name.
Jesus Christ has authority over them (everything in the spirit war on earth is about authorities...sin being the reason satan can get authority in the sinner).
Im not surprised "John" got clean of the transexual demon and went on the live a normal life.
He would also have had to make a commitment to repenting of the transexual behaviour lest the demon returned.
Demon powers are known to have sex with men and women.
See inccubus demon on wikipedia and succubus also.
You might read Genesis chapter 6. Here we see the sons of God (angels fallen) coming down and having sex with earth girls; the result being giants (that "giants" may be in the original King James version rather than more modern references).

Gibo, you’re on fire. Lots of interesting stuff. Good to see.

But can I ask you to respond to my questions of 10 May?

‘Invasion of Aboriginal Australia did not imply that the Aborigines were sinful and deserved it, did it? Invasion of European/multicultural Australia would not indicate that we were sinful, or more sinful than the invaders, would it?’

Thanks.

Yes, Lugwig.
Im sorry, when I get a bit tired I tend to let things lapse.
One of the weaknesses of this site, for me, is that there are too many lollies in the shop.
I find myself typing on so much that I forget sometimes where Ive been, thus neglecting the odd writer here and there who responds.
About the aborgines being invaded.
I dont really see it as an invasion.
God's into preaching His Word to very nation, culture and tribe and He has set up His Great plan here on earth that all men come to Jesus Christ and His Shed Blood for the forgiveness of sin...so that God doesnt Judge us later on after death, which He says He will if we have no Blood Covering. There is no forgiveness of sins without the Shedding of Blood.
The white Englishman came out to Australia with Gods Word...and that Word was not just as a rule book and guide to Jesus Christ for the white man, but as door openner to God for the native Australians who were, by the way, into some pretty heavy occult.
They were outside of Gods Plan and He really wanted them to hear the Good News and get incorporated into that Good News...i.e get saved through the preaching of Jesus His Son and become born again (John 3:3)..."you have to be born again to enter Heaven".
The nation was founded on the Holy Bible.
It came with the clergy who came with the first fleet and with the admistrators and the convicts.
For Australia to have been so Blessed by God, and we are a very rich nation in many ways, and to turn back to the sin that is described in The Holy Bible... is a slap in the face for The Lord.
As in the Old Testament if we turn away from God and His Word we can expect what the children of Israel got...invasion from their neighbours...if God so Allows it.
He might just give the country over to those many Australians despise.

Fascinating Gibo.

For a culture that was of no threat to any other and which had lived in harmony with its environment for many thousands of years to have been invaded and destroyed, was surely one of the greatest sins of humanity. Surely basic principles of Christianity tell us that.

Some “Englishmen” may have come to Australia with god’s word and good intentions of converting the Aborigines to a better way of living, but the vast majority were not in the slightest bit interested in that, and just wanted them out of the way, whether by murder or displacement into the deserts.

I don’t think Europeanised Australia was founded on god’s word at all. That’s got to be a furphy if ever there was one. The history of this country has been wildly outside of Christian doctrine, surely.

Oh uh, now hold on. If you consider the core message of Christianity to be to ‘go forth and multiply and subdue the earth’, and everything else that this religion preaches to amount to doing this in a way that is not completely heathenous or barbaric, and to be reasonably nice to each other within the faith while you’re doing it…then maybe I can understand.

So maybe the hidden message in Christianity, or in god’s plan, is to have humanity cause an event that will revitalize the Earth, by way of overpopulating, changing the climate by unleashing all that stored carbon in fossil deposits, changing ecological factors and causing massive extinctions… thus opening up a huge new dynamic phase of the evolution of life…..sort of like the event that killed the dinosaurs, and indeed many others in throughout the history of the planet.

Maybe god just likes energetic stuff happening on this planet and gets a bit bored when things settle down too much. Maybe god is the ultimate antisustainabilityist!

Gibo re: aborigines

Would you at all concede that God may have provided an opportunity for aborigines to get closer by allowing some bad things?

By comparison the Spanish conquered South America out of greed and it ironically opened the door to Christianity. However in South America, had the Spanish not come along, most of the locals would have had their ancestors wiped out by the Aztecs who the Spanish wiped out. The Aztecs believed continual blood sacrifice was required to keep the sun going. The rate of body count accumulation was phenomenal for the comparatively small populations of the day. Ludwig would probably describe it as "unsustainable". They hunted down other humans in their country for sacrifice - something like the movie Apocalyto portrayed. In a sense it was a win win for the current South Americans. Their ancestors were preserved and they got Christianity.

Things weren't like that for Australia. The locals ancestors were merrily going through life hunting kangaroos, snakes, lizards, and cats and snacking on berries, grains and witchety grubs when the First Fleet arrived later resulting in a bunch of ex-convicts travelling out and slaughtering them like animals. Christianity also came and gave them the opportunity to discover God but there was plenty of bad preceding the good. It is one thing to see the positive but surely that doesn't require ignoring the negative irrespective of what you consider more important?

The way you are putting it sounds a little rosy considering the history. Ludwig is getting antagonised by the way you fail to acknowledge anything but the spiritual dimension. I'm hoping to find a slight communication glitch that can be resolved. It is admirable to have your sight set firmly on the Lord but could be counterproductive if you ignore your peripheral vision. I believe that Ludwig is getting a negative view of Christianity and it makes it harder for him to listen to positives in that situation.

Ludwig,

In all the theological perspective that Gibo put forward I believe he didn't get around to actually answering your questions even if he got your attention and talked around the issues. He appeared to answer the question "Can anything positive about European invasion be salvaged?" As a Christian he answers that question strongly in the affirmative because of the introduction of Christianity.

‘Invasion of Aboriginal Australia did not imply that the Aborigines were sinful and deserved it, did it?"

The Christian view is that we are all sinful and we wouldn't believe that Aborigines deserved it in a negative sense. Hopefully you are not so antagonised that you can't place Gibo's silver lining regarding the opportunity to discover Christianity in that context.

"Invasion of European/multicultural Australia would not indicate that we were sinful, or more sinful than the invaders, would it?’

It may indicate that we are sinful given the Old Testament stories but we already know we are sinful because everyone is. If it was analogous to the Old Testament stories we would have to have got particularly sinful and have started off Christian. I know you disagree with the premise that Australia used to be basically Christian. However, if those premises were accepted, assuming an Old Testament like situation it does not indicate that we are more sinful than our invaders.