Demons and Christianity

[hedrick]

I think it is indeed deeply buried, and one reason is that in the New Testament they are represented as sentient beings. In Matthew 8:28-34, for example, they have a conversation with Jesus that ends with them striking a bargain with him.

Right. But mainline Christianity thinks the Bible is a report written by humans of their experience with God. Hence how the people at the time, both those described in the Biblical accounts, and the authors, understood and described mental illness is not the way we would today.

 

[Silmarien]

Have you been hiding under a rock or something?

The biggest issue in the Anglican community over the past few years, it seems to me, is the fact that African Anglicans are so much more conservative than American ones. This has led to the creation of GAFCON, and threatened to split the Anglican Communion.

Likewise the current split in the United Methodist Church (UMC) is driven by the fact that African Methodists are more conservative than the average American Methodist.

Yeah, I know that they're much, much more socially conservative, given that it was the African churches who were behind the sanctions against the Episcopal Church due to its liberal social stances, but I'm not sure if this means that they're also more conservative than Americans who have abandoned the Mainline churches. These schisms are internal, not just between different continents, and the level of hostility towards liberal churches even on the forum is high enough that I assume many would be happy to hand out sanctions if they could. (Would the forum even be representative of American Evangelicalism at large? That I don't know either.)

There's also the distinction between social conservatism and theological conservatism. Belief in demons is not really a social issue, but it does tie into how one reads the Bible, what sort of weight one gives to modern evidentialism, and other issues.

 

[ChetSinger]

Right. But mainline Christianity thinks the Bible is a report written by humans of their experience with God. Hence how the people at the time, both those described in the Biblical accounts, and the authors, understood and described mental illness is not the way we would today.

If you're speaking of mainline Protestantism then I agree, being brought up ELCA myself. We really didn't have much of a supernatural worldview. But the Catholic and Orthodox churches are also mainline and they're still performing exorcisms 2,000 years later.

 

[hedrick]

If you're speaking of mainline Protestantism then I agree, being brought up ELCA myself. We really didn't have much of a supernatural worldview. But the Catholic and Orthodox churches are also mainline and they're still performing exorcisms 2,000 years later.

You can believe that most of the NT accounts involved mental illness but still think that there are very rarely cases that could be described as possession. I’m pretty sure that some Catholics would say that.

 

[coffee4u]

deration, because of being predominantly American. There's stuff out there that isn't well represented here. I'm thinking of conservative theologians in Britain who would count as liberal by American standards, so... are they conservative or liberal when compared to the forum? Probably liberal.

Well, I'm saying the opposite, actually. The average African Christian, for example, would be shocked at how liberal this forum is. And Africans make up a big slice of global Christianity: see this map.

I find CF to be very liberal.

But I am not American.

 

[topher694]

For the sake of discussion I accept that, at some point, demons involved themselves in this young man's life.

In setting out his story you've identified multiple points where things went wrong starting with his father's desertion. You've nominated a point just after the dream as the point where demonic interference starts.

There are a couple of obvious questions I have to ask:
On what basis did you determine that demonic interference started after the dream?
Why could it not have started at an earlier or later stage?

Based on what you've told me, the point where demons come into play appears arbitrary. I can't see anything in the story which explains how you determined that that particular point is the one where demonic activity begins. The idea of sowing discord could be equally applied at other points in the story. This goes to the issue of my third question:

How do Christians differentiate between things caused by demons and naturally (including human) caused events?
​

I appreciate that the point of the story is to help explain demonic modus operandi but it also raises the issue of discriminating between demonic interference and non-demonic normality.

OB

To be clear, I'm using this one situation to illustrate where I believe the demonic happens and where it doesn't. I'm sure there was involvement before this incident, especially with his father, but I felt like this example captures the line between the natural and the demonic that so often gets blurred.

My point is not that the demons were arbitrary. There were not. They were opportunistic. They used the situation to their advantage.

This example (using biblical terminology) is what I would call "bad fruit". Jesus said we could identify the false by the fruit. Experience has shown me that the demonic is often involved when bad fruit escalates to get bigger or worse. That's what happened here. This young man's poor behavior escalated greatly as a result of this situation (discord among the brethren).

The discriminating between demonic interference and non-denomic normality is exactly what I was trying to highlight (my belief anyway). There IS a line, and many Christians (as we discussed earlier) blur and cross that line, albeit usually with sincere intentions. That is where discernment comes in, which I know was discussed earlier. Discernment is a whole different soapbox, but I'll say this, I believe the idea of discernment is one of the top 3 misused and abused "spiritual" principles in the Bible today. It's real, but it is often represented incorrectly.

 

[Occams Barber]

To be clear, I'm using this one situation to illustrate where I believe the demonic happens and where it doesn't. I'm sure there was involvement before this incident, especially with his father, but I felt like this example captures the line between the natural and the demonic that so often gets blurred.

My point is not that the demons were arbitrary. There were not. They were opportunistic. They used the situation to their advantage.

This example (using biblical terminology) is what I would call "bad fruit". Jesus said we could identify the false by the fruit. Experience has shown me that the demonic is often involved when bad fruit escalates to get bigger or worse. That's what happened here. This young man's poor behavior escalated greatly as a result of this situation (discord among the brethren).

Thanks Topher.
You seem to be identifying demonic involvement with a kind of peak in bad (or non-Christian) behaviour (your 'bad fruit'). As a non-Christian with a (usually) evidenced based outlook, I admit that I struggle to understand some of these concepts.

The discriminating between demonic interference and non-denomic normality is exactly what I was trying to highlight (my belief anyway). There IS a line, and many Christians (as we discussed earlier) blur and cross that line, albeit usually with sincere intentions. That is where discernment comes in, which I know was discussed earlier. Discernment is a whole different soapbox, but I'll say this, I believe the idea of discernment is one of the top 3 misused and abused "spiritual" principles in the Bible today. It's real, but it is often represented incorrectly.

If you've been following the thread you will have seen me question whether all claims of discernment are equal and suggest that factual evidence has a reasonable place in the discernment process.

The other worrying aspect of discernment is that it's not disputable. If I claim to have discerned something (in the Christian sense) you have no real way of suggesting I may be wrong without questioning my faith. It effectively stops any real discussion. This means that claims of discernment (correct or not) can skate perilously close to claiming infallibility - "I can't be wrong because I discerned this".

OB

 

[ChetSinger]

The other worrying aspect of discernment is that it's not disputable. If I claim to have discerned something (in the Christian sense) you have no real way of suggesting I may be wrong without questioning my faith. It effectively stops any real discussion. This means that claims of discernment (correct or not) can skate perilously close to claiming infallibility - "I can't be wrong because I discerned this".

Heh. On rare occasions I've run across that exact thing in this very forum, when someone involved in an argumentative thread (typically a theological one) posts that they prayed for wisdom and God told them their viewpoint was right. Yeah, sure. I take it as a sign they felt cornered and decided to throw an elephant. It doesn't fly well here and is mostly dismissed.

The gift of the discernment of spirits is a genuine New Testament concept, appearing in 1 Corinthians 12:10, and is actively practiced in some denominations. Not mine, though.

 

[coffee4u]

Heh. On rare occasions I've run across that exact thing in this very forum, when someone involved in an argumentative thread (typically a theological one) posts that they prayed for wisdom and God told them their viewpoint was right. Yeah, sure. I take it as a sign they felt cornered and decided to throw an elephant. It doesn't fly well here and is mostly dismissed.

The gift of the discernment of spirits is a genuine New Testament concept, appearing in 1 Corinthians 12:10, and is actively practiced in some denominations. Not mine, though.

This is why the Bible says to 'test the spirits'. Both the listeners of this person but also the person themselves.
How Can We Test Prophecies?
Speaking a word of prophecy should not be taken lightly.

James 3:1
Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.

I agree with everything that @topher694 said, he (sorry if wrong pronoun your profile gives an error) is much better at putting thoughts into words than I am.

 

[topher694]

Thanks Topher.
You seem to be identifying demonic involvement with a kind of peak in bad (or non-Christian) behaviour (your 'bad fruit'). As a non-Christian with a (usually) evidenced based outlook, I admit that I struggle to understand some of these concepts.

It's an oversimplification, but not inaccurate. Think of it as more of a spike or a fork in the road where one started down a bad path (with multiple forks within our lifetime)

If you've been following the thread you will have seen me question whether all claims of discernment are equal and suggest that factual evidence has a reasonable place in the discernment process.

The other worrying aspect of discernment is that it's not disputable. If I claim to have discerned something (in the Christian sense) you have no real way of suggesting I may be wrong without questioning my faith. It effectively stops any real discussion. This means that claims of discernment (correct or not) can skate perilously close to claiming infallibility - "I can't be wrong because I discerned this".

Hence the soapbox I'm trying to avoid. Another variation of this is, "I felt led". The immature and the prideful use these to excuse all sorts of bad behavior.

 

[topher694]

I agree with everything that @topher694 said, he (sorry if wrong pronoun your profile gives an error) is much better at putting thoughts into words than I am.

Chris-topher, so you are right

 

[NBB]

You don't believe in the devil, or at least you don't feel its real, until you become a christian and get close to God, then the devil becomes your enemy, it just don't get why some christians don't even almost believe in demons, when they play target practice with christians, of course the christian wins because of Jesus.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

One of the many things which has surprised me about Christianity, since joining CF back in 2012, is the apparently widespread Christian belief in the existence of demons. Attributing various negative events and strange experiences to demonic activity is a regular occurrence in this Forum, leaving the impression that belief in demons is broadly accepted by Christians.

How do Christians differentiate between things caused by demons and naturally (including human) caused events?​

OB

Hey Occam, I saw this a few weeks back but couldn't answer it back then.


I got a certain perspective based on my past. I nearly became a counselor/ therapist many years ago and took most of the classes needed for that profession. I took a class on Mental Health Diagnosis, and other related classes on things like sexual abuse, and so on. And I also worked as a volunteer facilitator for a childhood sexual abuse survivors support group. That group was especially useful because we especially dealt with dissociative disorder, especially the famous "Multiple Personality Disorder." And I read a few books dealing with the subject as a kind of homework assignment by the main therapist that ran that group, "When Rabbit Howls" was the main one. And I read "The Three Faces of Eve" for one of my classes as well as a few less famous books.


Anyway a few years after I left the program, I ran across a case that did not fit the typically Split Personality theory at all. It actually was part of some PBS documentary from the late 1980s-early 90s that was being rerun in 1998. The opening case was a complete nightmare that did not fit any of the theoretical models that I was taught. The personality, who called herself "Enigma" was like something out of "the Exorcist"! She was hysterical, ranting and raving, and violently suicidal. Actually come to think of it, the person's behavior did not even fit what we know about suicide as well. In a nut shell the theory is people develop split personalities as a defense mechanism and they are generally benevolent to the person, e.g. a timid person who gets bullied will develop a tough personality that stands up to bullies and so on. And well, in cases of suicide, which are complex but in a nutshell people who commit suicide are doing it more to avoid a bad fate than they want to die etc.


Anyway this case was very dramatic, because this ranting person would just carve deep cuts in her wrists whenever she could, because they hated being alive and hated everyone else, all the while making all kinds of implicit and overt statements saying or implying that she was demonically possessed to her psychiatrist, who tried to convince her that she really wasn't and that she was simply acting out childhood the abuse and her childhood. And well I found myself quite exasperated and yelling at the tube ; because what was going on camera did not fit the cases that we see in the various textbooks, case accounts etc. he simply was shoehorning things to fit his own bias and not really looking at what was going on in light of the actual textbook stuff, not only that he had been doing that for some time unlike the doctors in the exorcist who decided to try something different after failing for weeks.


But most aspects of this sort of thing have more to do with paranormal type stuff that are going in conjunction with the case. This field has been one that has turned a few agnostic professionals into believers.

 

[Occams Barber]

The opening case was a complete nightmare that did not fit any of the theoretical models that I was taught.

Thanks Pavel.

Although you haven't exactly said so, I assume that you are inclined to believe that your atypical case may have involved demonic possession.

Your level of training appears to have been relatively basic, particularly when compared to that required for psychiatry (a medical degree plus several years as a psychiatric intern). You also appear to have had limited experience with actual psychiatric cases including Multiple Personality Disorder. Are you confident that you were in a position to assume that:

1. The documentary was an accurate presentation of the facts (i.e. not sensationalised)?
2. The psychiatrist in your documentary made a wrong diagnosis?
3. There was evidence that the case involved demonic possession ?

Note that even if you were able to prove that the case was psychiatrically atypical or wrongly diagnosed this does not necessarily prove possession.
OB