Theological Opinions , PART II

[Hasty Ent]

I Love Snow!!!!!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

If it is that which provides things for us which is associated with beauty, why are mountains beautiful? Why is the sea, with its unpalatable water, more beautiful than a clear brook, or a lake with clean water? Why are ocean beaches beautiful?

Why aren't brussel sprouts?

And there you go: snow! It doesn't fulfill any needs, and it signifies an environment which is unhospitable to humans.

[Bombadillo]

LOL!

The ocean, mountains, prairies, the sky, and the universe are beutiful to us because each one is a wonder. It's vastness that we're attracted too. (Snow makes the scenery look more vast.) The world is beautiful to us because it's huge, and makes as marvel at its complexity and contemplate our own place in its incomprehensible system. It humbles us, and impresses us.

Bugs don't do that and that's why they're ugly, to most people. They do have a part in the system of life that does fascinate some people, but usually their ugliness overshadows that.

Umm. . . Lief, I'll still get back to you on the stuff from two pages ago.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Well, as a child, I didn't appreciate the beauty of nature at all. How about you?

Among psychologists, it's actually agreed that very few people ever do reach the maturity level to appreciate art. The theory is Jean Piaget's, that we develop through sensorimotor, preoperational, conrete operational, and formal operational stages. Formal operational is when we become able to think abstractly. In America, only one third of us ever reach this level. ( ) I have a bunch of stats about different societies somewhere on looseleaf, but you get the picture.

I think this explains why some people don't appreciate nature or don't sea much beauty in forests and such. Ever notice how they were always the ditzes anyway? They actually do have the brain of a typical 12-year-old child.

[Nurvingiel]

As a child I did appreciate the beauty of nature, as much as my immaturity allowed. My favourite baby picture is of me happily crawling through tall grass. (Not lawn grass, proper wild, grassland grass.)

I also collected bugs, as kids do.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Hasty Ent

That feeling of comfort, whether psychological or physical, drives the development of belief systems.

I agree, at least in the case of atheists and agnostics ...

(but rather serious, too)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

The ocean, mountains, prairies, the sky, and the universe are beutiful to us because each one is a wonder. It's vastness that we're attracted too. (Snow makes the scenery look more vast.) The world is beautiful to us because it's huge, and makes as marvel at its complexity and contemplate our own place in its incomprehensible system. It humbles us, and impresses us.

I think that's part of it, but it's certainly not all of it. Manmade portraits of tremendous size gain something with their size too, but they'd be beautiful small as well. If it were just the size, shops wouldn't try to sell people pictures of landscapes.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Bugs don't do that and that's why they're ugly, to most people.

I don't agree. Large insects are worse horrors to people than small insects. And us-sized insects are far more frequently people's secret imaginary terror than lions are. The idea of encountering one so large is very repulsive to me. Many people can't imagine how horrible it would be to touch a tarantula (not me- I would like to hold a tarantula), but they don't mind little birds, which often are equally small.

I don't think size equals ugliness or beauty, though it can contribute to something either way. Flowers are small, but they're beautiful . Large size for something beautiful means you have more beauty to look at, which is why we often like it more. Large size for something ugly means you have more ugliness to look at, which is why some of us like large insects less.

I'll respond to the rest soon.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

EDIT: Among psychologists, it's actually agreed that very few people ever do reach the maturity level to appreciate art. The theory is Jean Piaget's, that we develop through sensorimotor, preoperational, conrete operational, and formal operational stages. Formal operational is when we become able to think abstractly. In America, only one third of us ever reach this level. ( ) I have a bunch of stats about different societies somewhere on looseleaf, but you get the picture.

I think this explains why some people don't appreciate nature or don't sea much beauty in forests and such. Ever notice how they were always the ditzes anyway? They actually do have the brain of a typical 12-year-old child.

I agree, and that's something I commented on earlier. People who don't appreciate nature's beauty tend to be the people who don't appreciate beauty much at all anyway. Yes, I agree with you on this. And I think most children are like that too, though we seem to have a few exceptions on Entmoot . I'm not one of them , and neither are my brothers .

[Lief Erikson]

This is part of my response to post #945 in the Muslims thread.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

My apologies; when I said 'who', I was looking for specifics. Give me the particular, that I may know the universal.

I have a college professor who identifies himself as a liberal Christian, and yet he was happy about the African-Muslim youth riots in France, because it "serves those arrogant bastards right."

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

You're playing Humpty-Dumpty again; words are significant by convention, and conventionally defending (which I am not, but our Objector is) the use of violence is NOT liberal.

I don't know why you say that. But I'm not arguing that modern liberal violence is commonplace. I do think historical liberal violence was commonplace. Here I'm referring to religious liberalism, liberalism that leads to reinterpretation of scripture to suit one's own desires, and picking and choosing.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

That's not a valid example; the context of Psalms is very clear. The meaning of Our Lord, and exactly where one thought begins and another ends is not.

Sometimes that may well be true. I admit that some things in the scripture are more clear than others. The passage you chose about violence is one that is clearly not advocating violence, if you look at the context.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Are you kidding??? Pretty stupid??? Do you always remember everything? Do you not forget things? Even important things like passages of Scripture that might relate to matters at hand?

Of course I forget things. But when it's something major like going to war or starting the Inquisition, forgetfulness is not a valid excuse!

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But again, I object to the use of fundamentalism in this way; your playing Humpty Dumpty, and denying the essence of language, which is to convey thought through vocal sound which is significant by convention. If you just say "I'm going to use this word to mean this thing in the face of all common usage", then you are undermining language itself.

An objection of semantics. But I'm not interpreting fundamentalism in a way that differs from the common usage.

Originally Posted by World English Dictionary

fun·da·men·tal·ism n
1. a religious or political movement based on a literal interpretation of and strict adherence to doctrine, especially as a return to former principles
2. the belief that religious or political doctrine should be implemented literally, not interpreted or adapted

This is essentially how I've been defining fundamentalism. Perhaps I'm not strictly a fundamentalist, for I think there can be many truths taught through single passages. However, I think the literal interpretation is almost always valid. When the Lord speaks through dreams and visions, these are the primary scriptures I don't interpret literally.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Agreed, the "Bible teaches that Jews are evil or must be punished" case is absurdly weak, but nonetheless that does not make it cease to be a case.

Well, sure. I'm not arguing that people can't make absurdly weak cases about scripture that can lead ignorant people or people who are highly biased to do horrible things.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

I disagree that it takes hard work. When you have a certain worldview, you wear tinted glasses through which you read everything. If you have an anti-Semitic worldview, you will read the passage I cited and say "aha!", but not notice when you read the passages which make clear the folly of anti-Semitism. This is not intentional, it is merely the way things happen.

Perhaps true. But I think a lot of these people would fall into my right-wing liberal category, for many of them will read those scriptures (Paul has SO much in favor of the Jews, it would be very difficult to just miss it all) and I suspect reinterpret them to fit their own desires.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This is part of my response to post #945 in the Muslims thread.

I have a college professor who identifies himself as a liberal Christian, and yet he was happy about the African-Muslim youth riots in France, because it "serves those arrogant bastards right."

Ahhh, I see...I thought you were referring to persons in history, not modern days.

I don't know why you say that. But I'm not arguing that modern liberal violence is commonplace. I do think historical liberal violence was commonplace. Here I'm referring to religious liberalism, liberalism that leads to reinterpretation of scripture to suit one's own desires, and picking and choosing.

And I disagree. Such persons did not re-interpret Scripture to suit their own desires, anymore than any one else does.

Sometimes that may well be true. I admit that some things in the scripture are more clear than others. The passage you chose about violence is one that is clearly not advocating violence, if you look at the context.

Again, I don't think it is so blindly clear (though I agree with you that it isn't advocating violence).

Of course I forget things. But when it's something major like going to war or starting the Inquisition, forgetfulness is not a valid excuse!

It's a valid excuse, just not a good one.

An objection of semantics. But I'm not interpreting fundamentalism in a way that differs from the common usage.

'Semantics' are extremely important. Words are the means through which thoughts are communicated, and using words in a manner contrary to the common usage can lead to terrible misunderstandings.

This is essentially how I've been defining fundamentalism. Perhaps I'm not strictly a fundamentalist, for I think there can be many truths taught through single passages. However, I think the literal interpretation is almost always valid. When the Lord speaks through dreams and visions, these are the primary scriptures I don't interpret literally.

Hmph. That dictionary needs updating. The primary definition in MY dictionary says:

A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.

DICTIONARY WARS! *Wallops Lief with his dictionary* *realizes his is immaterial, being a website* *flees to the library for the monster Oxford Dictionary*

But seriously, in common usage of the world at large, when most people refer to 'fundamentalists', surely you agree that they are not thinking of 'strict adherence to doctrine' but a sort of 'intolerance', or at the very least that when most people uses the word, it carries that connotation?

Well, sure. I'm not arguing that people can't make absurdly weak cases about scripture that can lead ignorant people or people who are highly biased to do horrible things.

And someone could very well honestly believe it, and not just "choose" it over other passages.

[Lief Erikson]

. . . also continued from the Theology thread.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Christ is not like a college lecturer; He changes topic seemingly at random.

So now the argument is that the context doesn't matter . It does, though. This speech displays a high degree of unity. Every paragraph except the first and last talk about persecution and/or the response to it. The first paragraph introduces how the disciples are to behave and shows the power of God they will have on their side, and the last paragraph talks about the rewards people will receive afterward. This also is a reference to the persecution paragraphs that preceded it. So this talks about the disciples' ministry from beginning to end, with a heavy emphasis throughout all the paragraphs between the beginning and end on the persecution. Also, compare paragraphs 4 and 8. Paragraph 4 is very similar to number 8, yet it shows clearly that it is the Christian who is betrayed and persecuted by his family, and it says that in response to the persecution, the Christian should flee- not fight. The parallel paragraph is the debated one, and the wording of verse 36 again implies that it is the family that is enemies with the man, rather than the man who is an enemy to his family.

There is so much unity here and so much clarity of message, as well as clear passages that order a peaceful response to persecution, that an interpretation that tries to say this is violent is certainly not a mistake that's easy to make.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

There are in fact seven intervening verses, v. 26-33.

Those verses also relate to persecution. v. 26 says, "So do not be afraid of them . . ." v. 28, "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul . . ." and verses 29-30 are all about of the greatness of value people are to God, and therefore in the end of verse 31, "don't be afraid." And verses 32 encourage people to acknowledge God, which follows the verses prior, and thus is saying "you have no cause to fear, so acknowledge God." This also connects with verse 27, "What I tell you in the dark, speak in the daylight; what is whispered in your ear, proclaim from the rooftops," and verses 19 and 20, which also talk about speaking up boldly in spite of danger. Other passages in the first two paragraphs also encourage speaking up, though threat is not discussed there. So again, you see this high degree of unity. This is not a bunch of random teachings thrown together.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Of course, this may very well be a short 'rabbit trail' (which I think is the case) but it could easily be taken to indicate a complete change in what he is saying.

No it couldn't be. It would take blatant twisting of the text or deliberate misunderstanding or highly uncareful (or heavily biased careful) analysis to come to that conclusion. In many highly relevant passages in the same speech, Jesus told how disciples were to react to persecution and rejection, and he urged reactions that never included violence. The only passage that supposedly urges violence is one verse that is very vague, is surrounded by several paragraphs that talk about violence against believers, has wording that resembles very strongly another part of the speech that talks about violence against Christians, and in its own wording implies that it is talking about violence against Christians.

In short, every evidence indicates that this was a non-violent teaching. It would take ignoring all the rest of the chapter and speech and reading only verse 34 to come up with a violent teaching.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Ahhh, I see...I thought you were referring to persons in history, not modern days.

I was talking about people from history, but I have no specific examples at present from there- only one modern time period example. So you could say I was making a major generalization based on no evidence, and I wouldn't object. I think it's logical and I'm positive I'm right in my theory, though . I expect that if I took the time to do some detailed research, I could prove my point. It's certainly clear that many of these Christians didn't interpret Jesus' nonviolent teachings in a literal way (if they knew about them).

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

And I disagree. Such persons did not re-interpret Scripture to suit their own desires, anymore than any one else does.

I'm not saying they did it then anymore than liberals do now. I don't know whether left-wing liberals do it more now than right-wing liberals did it then. However, I am certain that it was done, just as I am certain it is done. Homosexuality, for example, is a part of the Bible where people commonly twist the obvious interpretations to try to construct arguments that say homosexuality is Biblically acceptable. People go to the Bible and many find what they want to find, with some effort.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Again, I don't think it is so blindly clear (though I agree with you that it isn't advocating violence).

Fine, but that's not an argument.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

It's a valid excuse, just not a good one.

No it isn't a valid excuse- not when it comes to something like the Inquisition or war. Forgetfulness is not a valid excuse in those contexts. I find the idea that it is valid just laughable. People can't become responsible for fiendish tortures of thousands and then say, "oh yeah, that passage, sorry, hmm . . . uh, yeah, I forgot." Or if people became responsible for a war. Forgetfulness is just not a valid excuse. It's a stupid excuse and Christians deserve hanging if they forgot about relevant passages when they made those decisions.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But seriously, in common usage of the world at large, when most people refer to 'fundamentalists', surely you agree that they are not thinking of 'strict adherence to doctrine' but a sort of 'intolerance', or at the very least that when most people uses the word, it carries that connotation?

Yes, I do agree. Let me explain why.

People often think of fundamentalism as 'strict adherence to doctrine', or a literal reading of doctrine. However, they also think that strict adherence to doctrine or a literal reading of doctrine is intolerant, because they feel that some of the Bible passages themselves are intolerant.

For example, Bible passages about homosexuality, or about Jesus being the only way to God are passages that many people see as intolerant when read in a literal way.

So yes, I have received accusations of being intolerant before, and this is because of how I interpret the Bible. I agree with you that fundamentalism does carry that negative connotation. However, I think that people think fundamentalism is bad because they think a literal reading of doctrine is bad, and this is based on the flawed assumption that the scriptures are flawed and intolerant, and not written for modern realities or society. Scripture doesn't agree with modern society's morality, so it is antiquated. I would agree with them that fundamentalism is bad if it is strict adherence to an intolerant doctrine, and that is how they view it.

Because I disagree with the base assumption that a literal reading of the scripture or a strict adherence to doctrine is an intolerant approach, I'm proud to be a fundamentalist . In spite of the accusations and slurs against fundamentalism.

[Lief Erikson]

Bombadillo and Faramir, just to let you know, I haven't forgotten about you or our discussion. If you're able to respond, timewise, I'd be very happy to hear your replies!

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

. . . also continued from the Theology thread.

So now the argument is that the context doesn't matter . It does, though. This speech displays a high degree of unity.

So you say (and I agree), but one could sincerely think it does not.

No it couldn't be. It would take blatant twisting of the text or deliberate misunderstanding or highly uncareful (or heavily biased careful) analysis to come to that conclusion.

I disagree; your basic motto seems to be "If I can show logically that something is so, then anyone who disagrees is wickedly twisting the facts." And it simply isn't so. Analysis of texts, and especially interpretation of their meaning, is highly subjective, though the texts themselves may not (and of course are not in the present case).

It's certainly clear that many of these Christians didn't interpret Jesus' nonviolent teachings in a literal way (if they knew about them).

It is simply impossible to interpret everything, even theological texts, in the most literal sense and have a consistent view. St. Paul calls Christ "the firstborn of all creatures", thus indicating that He is a creature, but St. John tells us "In principio erat Verbum...et Verbum erat Deum." If we interpret both texts in the most liberal manner, they are irreconciliable, as a creature is a created thing, which is of course the opposite of the Creator.

People often think of fundamentalism as 'strict adherence to doctrine', or a literal reading of doctrine. However, they also think that strict adherence to doctrine or a literal reading of doctrine is intolerant, because they feel that some of the Bible passages themselves are intolerant.

I disagree that the base assumption is that literal reading of doctrine is intolerant in the sense which I refer to, i.e. truly not tolerating, (especially religious beliefs); one can tolerate something but disagree with it.

But this particular question is going nowhere fast. I say we agree to disagree.

[Lief Erikson]

I agree.

[Bombadillo]

I totally didn't mean to take so long in responding. I didn't expect the answers that I got out of you Lief, and have been trying to figure out what to say about them. (...Really, where to start! )

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

[. . .] Yes, as I answered before, I lived completely without God for thoughts for the first fifteen years of my life. And seeing as I'm only 20 years old now, that period wasn't that long ago and isn't tough to remember. I had virtually no experience of meeting God for the first fifteen years of my life. Almost zilch. I hadn't heard from my Mom about the electric fence episode either. The only experience I felt I'd had from God was one I did remember from when I was very young.
[. . .]
I'm certain of it [that there is a difference between a sudden personal realization and divine revelation]. I've experienced both, and there's a profound difference. When I have really good ideas, I often thank God for them just because all is in his hands, but that's not the same as a divine revelation. A divine revelation can come in a large number of ways. One is a thought just coming into your mind totally out of nowhere that is a really, really good thought.

The reason I asked is because it seemed like you never lived apart from God, and therefore never thought about life from any perspective other than your current one. I thought you were born into your hardcore faith in God and never quite gave faith in plain Nature a chance.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

[. . .]I don't think anyone can come up with anything independently, for I believe in predestination. However, I do think there is a distinct difference between human ideas and thoughts that come from God. There is a major, massive difference. Having experienced a lot of bright human ideas and also a number of divine ideas, I claim there is a major difference that will be very apparent to almost anyone experiencing the divine ideas.

Again, totally surprised. I assumed that idea died with the Puritans in 18th century America. Today, I think most people would call it outdated. My explanation has to go into psychology again.

I think that we have an instinct which motivates us to believe in some higher power or some predestined direction, purpose, and significant individual impact of our lives, and we both know for sure there's an instinct telling us to "fit in." ("Peer pressure" is all I should have to say for an example.) These two instincts combined led to organized religion, an unthinkably long time ago. Since then, I think, we've evolved enough intelectually to see that these instincts (or at least the former one) are no longer needed. We're quite capable of thinking and functioning independently and IMO we must keep this in mind in order to grow strong and continue evolving. To me, faith in God seems like regressive behavior for someone so obviously intellectual as yourself.

You don't have to answer these, but I wonder if you went through some trauma at age fifteen or if most of your life before then was horrible?

Now it seems like you and I are just foils for each other.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Again, totally surprised. I assumed that idea died with the Puritans in 18th century America. Today, I think most people would call it outdated. My explanation has to go into psychology again.

No, the belief in a God who interacts with you and speaks to you in a voice that is distinct from natural ideas or nature continues full throttle. There are millions of Christians who believe in this kind of direct interaction with God, and claim to experience him in extraordinary ways. I've mentioned a few experiences people have had that might be tough to explain away, largely experiences of myself and people of my acquaintance. However, to be fair, you'd have to multiply the number of tricky-to-explain experiences by at the very least a few million, for multitudes of people have large numbers of miraculous experiences in their lives.

But then another tricky factor is that many non-religious people don't have these kinds of experiences in their lives at all. The impossible experiences trail certain people and leave the non-religious completely or near completely untouched. One could argue that the religious people are looking for such experiences, but they could only argue that if I was talking about experiences that aren't the tricky-to-explain variety (electric fence handling, Brother Andrew's Bibles, impossible miraculous healings, etc.).

There are millions out there who claim such experiences. It's not at all outdated.

I suggest reading the Book of Acts from the Bible, if you have the time and interest. That describes what many Christians in the world have experienced ever since the first century AD quite effectively. The majority of Christians have not experienced such wonders, but millions have. So I recommend it as very enlightening reading. Reading it with the assumption that these are true events recorded (and you can think up explanations for them as you go, that's totally valid) may at least enlighten you as to why I think the way I do, which would probably be nice .

Here's my perspective. Miracles of very tricky-to-explain types have occurred in my personal life, in my grandmother's personal life, in my father, mother and one of my sister's personal lives, in friends' lives and in the lives of their relations, and these are miracles on the level of the miracles occurring in the Book of Acts, miracles that are near impossible. Now me and my circle of acquaintances is a very, very, very, very small group in the Christian body. A tiny handful of people. Yet this has happened in the lives of that handful. I've seen statistics that show there are millions who have such experiences. I've heard many well documented accounts of such experiences in the lives of other Christians, and experiences far more extraordinary than those I've experienced or my circle of acquaintances has experienced. So I know that these things are occurring on a broad scale in Christian communities.

There is also a significant number of Christians who believe miracles are very infrequent in modern times. However, the statistics and numbers argue against them. My personal experience and the experience of my acquaintances suggests otherwise (I've encountered several Christians who practice what's called the spiritual gifts (powers from God, essentially), and it seems unlikely that we're all rarities), and the Christian Evangelical community at large strongly claims otherwise. So there is strong reason to believe that such miracles do occur.

So that's my perspective. Reading Acts would give you an idea what occurs among many Christians in modern times. Or Luke and then Acts (they're both by the same author and go together), for that would give you more of an idea about what Jesus was like and what he did. If you have problems with what you read, such as miracles or other, or questions, you could bring them to me.

Not that I'm forcing this idea on you! Read Luke and/or Acts if you want and I think it would give you much more insight into my mind and many Christians' experiences.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

I think that we have an instinct which motivates us to believe in some higher power or some predestined direction, purpose, and significant individual impact of our lives, and we both know for sure there's an instinct telling us to "fit in." ("Peer pressure" is all I should have to say for an example.) These two instincts combined led to organized religion, an unthinkably long time ago.

I agree. C.S. Lewis called the first instinct you just mentioned a "God-sized hole," that people try to fill up in many ways, but which can really only be filled by a relationship with God.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Since then, I think, we've evolved enough intelectually to see that these instincts (or at least the former one) are no longer needed.

If you've never encountered God, it's easy to think he's just an instinct that's no longer needed. You were challenging me earlier on the ground that you thought I didn't know it was like to not rely on God. Well, now I'm challenging you on the reverse ground, which is that you are forming a judgment without knowing what it is like to encounter God!

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

We're quite capable of thinking and functioning independently and IMO we must keep this in mind in order to grow strong and continue evolving. To me, faith in God seems like regressive behavior for someone so obviously intellectual as yourself.

Actually, I have matured and strengthened a lot because of coming to know God. Some of the maturing and strengthening would undoubtedly have happened naturally if I had survived past the age of fifteen without God, but not all of it.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

You don't have to answer these, but I wonder if you went through some trauma at age fifteen or if most of your life before then was horrible?

My life has been very pleasant. I did go through some trauma when I was fifteen, though. Six months of my fifteenth year were the darkest of my life, though they've been followed with the brightest years of my life too . I talked about it in Theology Thread Part 1 before, and here's what I posted there:

How I met God

My own experience of coming to know God, and my relationship with him since have proved to me that he is loving. I'm afraid I get quite emotional about the time I came to know God.

It occurred when I was fifteen. The six months prior to that year were the worst of my life thus far, and I'll tell you why.

First came God's call. I began to feel hungry in my spirit, though I didn't understand the hunger for what it was. It was very strong and potent. It was almost as though I had a second physical stomach in me. That feeling was so strong that a few times I thought about trying to eat more at dinner to fill it, but that could not have worked, for I was full already. It was a spiritual hunger, though it came across as next thing to physical. Around that time, I began to pray to God that he would reveal himself to me. However, I was very afraid that if I prayed, God would not answer. Then, the house of cards that was my Christianity at that time would collapse and the religion that was so important to my parents would be meaningless to me. This was a great fear, so I never set a date for meeting with God, though I did pray that he would come to me.

Shortly after I began praying for the personal relationship with God, Satan sent a demon to destroy me and my family. The demon put compulsions into my head that were not from me. I could be just doing my normal activities, and all of a sudden I had almost no choice but to murder someone who was vulnerable. Overwhelming impulses began to overrun me to murder family members, to kill myself and them. These weren't just idle intellectual pondering, but rather ideas or thoughts that were powerful enough to overwhelm my resistance and make me perform them. Once, when I was standing on the patio to my house, I was holding a hammer and talking with my Dad about our garden. As he bent over to show me a plant, the urge came next to overwhelming, near forcing me to slam the hammer through his skull. I made myself drop the hammer, because I was so close to killing my father.

I did not begin to suspect demonic involvement until the final days before God came to meet me. I had no experience at all, you see, and little understanding of my religion. I was afraid that I was becoming insane, but I was too afraid of going to an asylum to talk to my parents about it.

All I knew to do was resist the thoughts as hard as I could when they came, but it always was a close thing.

Six months of this condition passed, the incidents increasing in frequency, and then God saved me. When I call Jesus my Savior, for me, the first thing I think of is the way in which he saved my physical life. All Christians call Jesus their Savior because he saved us from our sins on the cross. For me, it has another layer of meaning though, one which is very, very strong.

I opened the Bible one day, just flipped it open randomly, and the words seemed to leap off the page. All the words fitted precisely with my situation, were fitted directly to the need and longing in my heart. They were personal mail, a personal letter from God to me. It was not like reading a book. It was like reading personal mail. You know the difference. I could hear God speaking, not with my physical ears, but with just as much certainty as if I had. The experience was so strong that I was thrilled and bubbling about it all day long. I also told my parents about the murderous compulsions I'd been experiencing, and they drew the connection to demons far more swiftly and solidly than I had. They prayed over me, and from that moment on, those compulsions ceased.

That was how my experience with God began. The challenge that demon posed was not quite over, though. A few days later, it came back.

It was night, and I had a nightmare of a door being opened and red ants cascading out. A particularly large one, about as big as my hand with pincers and claws, began to scramble toward me. Something knocked it over on its back, but it righted itself again and came at me again. In horror, I started awake.

My horror doubled then, for even though I was awake, I saw the creature right next to me on the bed. It was an adult's hand's length. The massive insect scrambled down toward my feet and then vanished into thin air.

I went out to the living room of our house and there encountered the demon again. I did not see it that second time, but sensed it powerfully. You know how you can feel where your hand is with your eyes closed, and point right to it with your other hand even without seeing it? It was rather like that. Only I could also feel all its emotions, could feel this entity's hatred and desire to kill.

I banished it in Jesus' name and it left.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Now it seems like you and I are just foils for each other.

Well, I'm sure we both have more to learn about the other's outlook! I'm finding the conversation both very interesting and enjoyable! And I find you and Faramir to be very friendly people to talk with, which helps .

[Spock]

"You talk, I'll listen"
...GOD....(the movie Oh, God)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

I think that we have an instinct which motivates us to believe in some higher power or some predestined direction, purpose, and significant individual impact of our lives, and we both know for sure there's an instinct telling us to "fit in." ("Peer pressure" is all I should have to say for an example.) These two instincts combined led to organized religion, an unthinkably long time ago. Since then, I think, we've evolved enough intelectually to see that these instincts (or at least the former one) are no longer needed. We're quite capable of thinking and functioning independently and IMO we must keep this in mind in order to grow strong and continue evolving. To me, faith in God seems like regressive behavior for someone so obviously intellectual as yourself.

Bombadillo, why do you think we have an instinct to believe in some higher power? What would be its reason?

[Spock]

...personally I believe in a higher power.....after all, the face that looks back at me in the bathroom mirror, doesn't inspire power or confidence!

[Rev. Justin Timberlake]

Damn, I never got that instinct. The dealer ripped me off. *feels left out*

[Bombadillo]

I can't believe you've actually seen that movie Spock! I almost quoted it in response to Lief. (God says "I don't worry about the details." )

Lief, what I meant to emphasize was that such a strict and literal interpretation of the Bible is much rarer today than in ages past, not so much that belief in miracles has decreased.

My God instict idea hasn't been thought out as fully as the other ideas I post. I just thought about it maybe a week ago. But so far I think it makes sense.

As humans, our stregnth is our intellect. We are Earth's only sentient species. We can't survive in the world without clever inventions like blankets and spears or insulated houses and hunting rifles. Our survival and our evolution requires intellectual growth.

In contrast, animals are physically adapted to be able to survive. Even still, some of them, like penguins, rely on instincts telling them to stick together with others of their species. They developed that instinct through evolution.

Maybe in the days of early humans, nothing was motivating us to stick together. We were probably self-sufficient (at least each little family could provide for itself, as opposed to each big flock), and had little use for each other. Since even then we were reasonable, we wondered why we shouldn't just kill all the people we didn't rely on. There was probably no reason to kill them, but no reason to keep them alive either.

What united us could not have been a simple little "flock" instinct like the one that the penguins need to keep each other warm and alive. I think this because we would have second-guessed such an instinct and we didn't need each other like penguins do. We would not have seen the importance of peace in relation to the continuation of our species either. We would have longed for an explanation on exactly why some useless person's life should go on.

The only thing that could have satisfied that longing was the idea that "Hey, there must be some sort of higher power working over us, and yes, come to think of it, it's probably the same power responsible for the creation of this wonderful world. It must be so powerful that I couldn't even hope to understand how or why it works. It's just a harmony that I won't disturb." (IIRC, that was the philosophy of most Native American Indian tribes, who came over the landbridge directly from Mesopotamia during an ice age and stayed isolated in America until the smarter but still stupid white man drove them into extinction.) The Native Americans had the right idea, but somewhere down the road, as we became even more capable of intricate ideas, someone said "Let's give the power a name: _____. And let's all say 'the _____ works in mysterious ways' for our catchprase!"

Now, we're at the beginning of a point in evolution where that idea is no longer necessary. It stimulated our intellect just enough to get us to this point, but now a lot of people understand that the mysterious power is so mysterious that we shouldn't even bother thinking about it at all. We don't have to rely on what past generations have told us that this power has said concerning right and wrong. We've evolved so much intellectually that we can recognize what feels right and do it all by ourselves. That's good!

BTW, when I use dialogue to explain my thoughts, it's because the only other way I can think to say it is ridiculously long. I don't mean anything here sarcastically, but it sure sounds that way when I choose to be concise.