• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Getting spiritually Screwtaped Over – by C.S. Lewis

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,624
11,483
Space Mountain!
✟1,358,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Below you'll find a fun and comical, yet brief, video representation of the 1st Letter from C.S. Lewis' book, The Screwtape Letters (… one of my favorite books!).

Within the 1st letter of Lewis' playfully diabolical correspondence, we find two Demons who represent the possible ways--even if in abstract manner—in which the use of rhetoric in modern media could be used to disrupt humanities' cognitive formation of religious belief and/or its efforts to maintain Christian faith in God.

Keep in mind that even though it isn't explicitly stated, this conversation between the two Devils delves into various epistemological, metaphysical, and hermeneutical ideas.

So, without further ado, let's see what demonic methods Lewis' characters, Screwtape and Wormwood, employ in order to …......................screw us over spiritually. :smilingimp: :fearscream: :imp:



If after you've watched the video and you feel up to it, share with the rest of us where you think Lewis' characterization of the demonic goes right, or if you're of a more skeptical mindset, where you think it goes wrong. Of course, be ready to get any earful from the 'other side' in this discussion.

Enjoy!

2PhiloVoid
 
Last edited:

jacks

Er Victus
Site Supporter
Jun 29, 2010
4,254
3,569
Northwest US
✟816,352.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Great video and I agree with it's points. I've always felt that any line of thought (philosophy, science, discipline, etc.) will eventually lead one to God. The only ones who don't get there are the ones who stop asking questions, i.e they become complacent and/or distracted or worst still think they know all the answers already. Seek and you will find.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,624
11,483
Space Mountain!
✟1,358,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Great video and I agree with it's points. I've always felt that any line of thought (philosophy, science, discipline, etc.) will eventually lead one to God. The only ones who don't get there are the ones who stop asking questions, i.e they become complacent and/or distracted or worst still think they know all the answers already. Seek and you will find.

Yes, keeping one's self open to the ongoing questioning of the world can help.

And from what Lewis seems to suggest through the voice of Screwtape, it also seems that those of us who tend to focus too much on the assumptions we hold about "real life" are the ones who have a harder time finding God/Christ.
 
Upvote 0

jacks

Er Victus
Site Supporter
Jun 29, 2010
4,254
3,569
Northwest US
✟816,352.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Yes, keeping one's self open to the ongoing questioning of the world can help.

And from what Lewis seems to suggest through the voice of Screwtape, it also seems that those of us who tend to focus too much on the assumptions we hold about "real life" are the ones who have a harder time finding God/Christ.

Yes, I always liked 2 Corinthians 4:18, which I think speaks to that.

"While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
the use of rhetoric in modern media could be used to disrupt humanities' cognitive formation of religious belief and/or its efforts to maintain Christian faith in God.

Why does belief or faith need to be maintained? True things tend to handle themselves. I don't need to maintain my "belief" that 2+2=4. I will never have a crisis of faith on this issue. No matter how little I think about it or pray about it or go to math church or have devotions, 2+2=4 will always be there, always true. No effort is required.

If you have to make yourself believe something, then it's make-believe.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,624
11,483
Space Mountain!
✟1,358,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Why does belief or faith need to be maintained?
Because not everyone is Southern Baptist or holds to OSAS! :dontcare:


True things tend to handle themselves. I don't need to maintain my "belief" that 2+2=4. I will never have a crisis of faith on this issue. No matter how little I think about it or pray about it or go to math church or have devotions, 2+2=4 will always be there, always true. No effort is required.
I'm going to have to go with Pontius Pilate on this one.............................................

If you have to make yourself believe something, then it's make-believe.
And which form of Epistemology is it that you're assuming? And tell me again which cognitive and perceptual issues DON'T apply in the processes involved in our individual grapplings with the Reality we each find around us (or in us)? And you're sure there's no Devil-in-the-Details, and no Worm-in-the-Apple that might defray you from having the assurance about all of that "truth" you think you have? ;) And, with the OP in mind, you don't think you've ever gotten Screwtaped Over (i.e. 'deceived')? (I have; and it's no fun to wake up and realize that this has been the case!)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Because not everyone is Southern Baptist or holds to OSAS! :dontcare:


I'm going to have to go with Pontius Pilate on this one.............................................

And which form of Epistemology is it that you're assuming? And tell me again which cognitive and perceptual issues DON'T apply in the processes involved in our individual grapplings with the Reality we each find around us (or in us)? And you're sure there's no Devil-in-the-Details, and no Worm-in-the-Apple that might defray you from having the assurance about all of that "truth" you think you have? ;) And, with the OP in mind, you don't think you've ever gotten Screwtaped Over (i.e. 'deceived')? (I have; and it's no fun to wake up and realize that this has been the case!)

Are you saying that you can disprove 2+2=4?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,624
11,483
Space Mountain!
✟1,358,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Are you saying that you can disprove 2+2=4?
No, but I can assert that your choice in selecting "2+2=4" as some kind of 'truth structure' that blows away or exhausts the human meaning of the English word 'truth' is fallacious and fairly arbitrary. Haven't we already gone in circles about all of this over the past few years, or is there something you feel we still haven't covered? Perhaps we need to cover just where you think Lewis' ideas about the ways in which we could be demonically deceived go wrong?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
No, but I can assert that your choice in selecting "2+2=4" as some kind of 'truth structure' that blows away or exhausts the human meaning of the English word 'truth'

An obvious straw man. To say that 2+2=4 exhausts the meaning of the word "truth" is to say that 2+2=4 is the only thing that's true. Clearly I'm not saying that.

is fallacious and fairly arbitrary.

Well, yes, I just established that you committed the straw man fallacy.

Haven't we already gone in circles about all of this over the past few years, or is there something you feel we still haven't covered?

Frankly I don't know what we did actually cover in all this time. At no point have you ever even attempted to give a good reason for me to accept Christianity over atheism. Pretty much every post is a word salad where you are sure to include "epistemology," "ontology," and then cap it off by name-dropping some no-name author.

Perhaps we need to cover just where you think Lewis' ideas about the ways in which we could be demonically deceived go wrong?

The very existence of Satan and demons (or should I say "existence") should be more than enough to discredit Christianity.

1.) The standard apologetic response to divine hiddenness (that God's open existence would mitigate our free will to accept him due to coercion) totally evaporates when we consider that a third of all the angels were fully aware of God's existence, and still rebelled. Therefore, if God is able to reveal himself to the world, and if doing so would cause more people to believe, and if he wants us to believe, then we should expect God to reveal himself to the world. Our expectations are not met.

2.) Satan is often thought to be much more intelligent and powerful than any man or even any organization of men. But even if Satan were of ordinary human intelligence, the "fact" that he has been observing humanity for thousands of years would still make him so powerful that he'd be able to do pretty much whatever he wants (however it is that he actually gets things done, seeing as how he is not corporeal...). And yet we're supposed to believe that Satan is unable to corrupt the Bible while at the same time there are monks who spend their entire lives preserving the Bible and still they make mistakes. So in other words the most powerful entity on earth, the god of this world, cannot even match the blunders of mankind. Or if we ditch that idea, then what? We're supposed to believe that God allows man to corrupt the Bible accidentally but doesn't allow Satan to touch it? Why, exactly, would God go about it this way? I await your ontologically epistemological response.

3.) Demons never even existed in the Old Testament whatsoever (Satan arguably didn't exist either), and then suddenly when Jesus roams the earth they're everywhere. Clearly they weren't there as a response to Jesus' arrival as they didn't even know he was there ("Have you come before the appointed time?"). So we're supposed to believe that they just suddenly appeared all over the place and this has nothing to do at all with the fact that the New Testament is written in Greek and that the Greeks had their own notion of daemons, a spiritual world, the ether, the Platonic realm of things, a pantheon, and etc. This plot hole is so big that it has its own zip code.


I've never seen a "theory" of demonology that could withstand casual scrutiny, even if I'm already assuming all of your theology beforehand. So please, if you have some way to explain how demons exist and you're able to do so without tripping all over yourself, don't be shy to share. Until then, considering the conversations between demons is about as silly as considering a conversation between Spider-Man and Zeus.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: cvanwey
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,624
11,483
Space Mountain!
✟1,358,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I've never seen a "theory" of demonology that could withstand casual scrutiny, even if I'm already assuming all of your theology beforehand. So please, if you have some way to explain how demons exist and you're able to do so without tripping all over yourself, don't be shy to share. Until then, considering the conversations between demons is about as silly as considering a conversation between Spider-Man and Zeus.

Spider-Man and Zeus? Are you sure it's not more like a conversation between Nicholas Cage's comical Ghost Rider and various forms of Lewis' Screwtapian Devils?

All I know is, the Devil is going down, and we have to come to realize that we need to be aware of him in order to stand against him. In this endeavor, I have found philosophy and theology to be fairly helpful things, with the Lord's Word being the most helpful thing of all.

 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,624
11,483
Space Mountain!
✟1,358,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
An obvious straw man. To say that 2+2=4 exhausts the meaning of the word "truth" is to say that 2+2=4 is the only thing that's true. Clearly I'm not saying that.
What are you saying specifically?

Well, yes, I just established that you committed the straw man fallacy.
I don't know that you've established that since you never actually made a statement but rather returned a question to my questions.

Frankly I don't know what we did actually cover in all this time. At no point have you ever even attempted to give a good reason for me to accept Christianity over atheism. Pretty much every post is a word salad where you are sure to include "epistemology," "ontology," and then cap it off by name-dropping some no-name author.
I'm sure that it does sound like word salad to you, NV. And I would expect that to be the case for anyone who tries to take up new subject matter. However, as far as name-dropping, I can't recall any "no-names," since I consider that just about (almost) anyone with a PhD might have something interesting and/or pertinent to say.

The very existence of Satan and demons (or should I say "existence") should be more than enough to discredit Christianity.

1.) The standard apologetic response to divine hiddenness (that God's open existence would mitigate our free will to accept him due to coercion) totally evaporates when we consider that a third of all the angels were fully aware of God's existence, and still rebelled. Therefore, if God is able to reveal himself to the world, and if doing so would cause more people to believe, and if he wants us to believe, then we should expect God to reveal himself to the world. Our expectations are not met.
You have expectations that are unwarranted, just like many Christians do today. And there as some academics, like Rolfe King, who think we have some additional assessments to make in regard to God's hiddenness before we're in a place to say we know what we should expect to see demonstrated by God, if He were real.

2.) Satan is often thought to be much more intelligent and powerful than any man or even any organization of men. But even if Satan were of ordinary human intelligence, the "fact" that he has been observing humanity for thousands of years would still make him so powerful that he'd be able to do pretty much whatever he wants (however it is that he actually gets things done, seeing as how he is not corporeal...). And yet we're supposed to believe that Satan is unable to corrupt the Bible while at the same time there are monks who spend their entire lives preserving the Bible and still they make mistakes. So in other words the most powerful entity on earth, the god of this world, cannot even match the blunders of mankind. Or if we ditch that idea, then what? We're supposed to believe that God allows man to corrupt the Bible accidentally but doesn't allow Satan to touch it? Why, exactly, would God go about it this way? I await your ontologically epistemological response.
On the flip side, not only could Satan interfere with the transmission of truth, he could also potentially distract and deceive someone like me.........or even you...when we attempt to understand the truth. (ala Screwtape)

3.) Demons never even existed in the Old Testament whatsoever (Satan arguably didn't exist either), and then suddenly when Jesus roams the earth they're everywhere.
That's debatable.

Clearly they weren't there as a response to Jesus' arrival as they didn't even know he was there ("Have you come before the appointed time?"). So we're supposed to believe that they just suddenly appeared all over the place and this has nothing to do at all with the fact that the New Testament is written in Greek and that the Greeks had their own notion of daemons, a spiritual world, the ether, the Platonic realm of things, a pantheon, and etc. This plot hole is so big that it has its own zip code.
It's only an apparent plot hole to you, NV.

I've never seen a "theory" of demonology that could withstand casual scrutiny, even if I'm already assuming all of your theology beforehand. So please, if you have some way to explain how demons exist and you're able to do so without tripping all over yourself, don't be shy to share. Until then, considering the conversations between demons is about as silly as considering a conversation between Spider-Man and Zeus.
...the reason you haven't seen a theory of demonology that can withstand any scrutiny is because 1) there is no real theory or comprehensive explanation about it that we can know about, and 2) if Screwtapian type beings exist (i.e. fallen angels), their power and influence can only be overridden by....God. So, welcome to the Matrix (or really to Rene Descartes' demon haunted world, along with Descartes' Foundationalist mistakes).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
What are you saying specifically?

I'm saying that you committed the straw man fallacy.

I don't know that you've established that since you never actually made a statement but rather returned a question to my questions.

Nothing that you've quoted thus far from me was a question of any form so this statement of yours is bizarre.

I'm sure that it does sound like word salad to you, NV. And I would expect that to be the case for anyone who tries to take up new subject matter. However, as far as name-dropping, I can't recall any "no-names," since I consider that just about (almost) anyone with a PhD might have something interesting and/or pertinent to say.

You'd think so, but you have to be careful. "Hi I'm Dr. Chuck Missler. Let me talk to you about quantum mechanics and how it relates to Christianity." Never mind the fact that his PhD was in engineering. My favorite moment was when he opened a jar of peanut butter and "explained" that the theory of evolution predicted that there should be a new form of life inside. The TV show identified him as Dr. Chuck Missler in text on the screen while he was saying this. I failed to see liberal Christians tripping over themselves to correct this guy, seeing as how evolution has nothing to say about abiogenesis any more than the theory of gravity has anything to say about where gravity actually comes from (not to mention the fact that he gave no explanation as to how a jar of peanut butter should be considered ideal conditions for this).

And of course there's also "Dr." Kent Hovind, who I believe wrote his thesis in crayon on the back of a children's book.

To be clear, I wouldn't have argued with Dr. Missler about engineering. But I found him to be extremely dishonest in the way he presented himself. If your PhD is not relevant to a lecture you're giving, either don't introduce yourself with your title or else go out of your way to explain that the topic of discussion is not your area of expertise.

Speaking of expertise, how, exactly, can one legitimately say that one is an "expert" in theology? If you have a PhD in theology, even from an accredited university, then... what? How is that an actual discipline? There's nothing to which you're held accountable. Historians have the historical method, scientists have the scientific method, mathematicians have proofs and rigor... theologians have what, exactly? A bunch of opinions that are not only unsubstantiated, but entirely unfalsifiable?


At the end of your song and dance we come back to the point where God must, at some point, directly communicate with his creation if he wants his creation to believe in him. Is the best method for this really to reveal yourself to just one prophet who then disseminates the information? Obviously not, since here we are arguing about it. Again, to the point of this thread, demons don't sit around arguing with angels about the existence of God. So obviously if God wants us to believe he exists, he's not done a great job. Conversely, if your god doesn't exist, the only option you really have is this prophet-to-masses system because a non-existent god is not going to do it himself.

On the flip side, not only could Satan interfere with the transmission of truth, he could also potentially distract and deceive someone like me.........or even you...when we attempt to understand the truth. (ala Screwtape)

OK... so... how is it exactly, then, that you are sure that the New Testament isn't a lie from Satan? Consider all the things that the New Testament has changed. You're not sacrificing animals to Jehovah (Jehovah is on record as finding animal sacrifice to be very pleasurable). You're worshiping a being not named Jehovah (Jehovah is on record hating this, as it is against his very first commandment). Basically, the New Testament completely gutted the Jewish religion. How do you know this wasn't engineered by Satan? Or to put it another way, if you were Satan in the year 500BC, and you wanted to lead the children of Israel astray, what would you have actually done differently? What would you change about Christianity? What events did Jesus perform that Satan couldn't have? If Satan is responsible for other fake religions, like Islam, why couldn't he be responsible for Christianity? If Satan is not responsible for Islam, then Islam is an invention of man; by what grounds couldn't Christianity be the same?

That's debatable.

OK... do a ctrl+F and see how many hits you get for "demon" in the Old Testament.

It's only an apparent plot hole to you, NV.

I'm not sensing much effort on your part in addressing my points.

...the reason you haven't seen a theory of demonology that can withstand any scrutiny is because 1) there is no real theory or comprehensive explanation about it that we can know about, and 2) if Screwtapian type beings exist (i.e. fallen angels), their power and influence can only be overridden by....God. So, welcome to the Matrix (or really to Rene Descartes' demon haunted world, along with Descartes' Foundationalist mistakes).

So basically you've got nothing, right?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,624
11,483
Space Mountain!
✟1,358,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm saying that you committed the straw man fallacy.



Nothing that you've quoted thus far from me was a question of any form so this statement of yours is bizarre.



You'd think so, but you have to be careful. "Hi I'm Dr. Chuck Missler. Let me talk to you about quantum mechanics and how it relates to Christianity." Never mind the fact that his PhD was in engineering. My favorite moment was when he opened a jar of peanut butter and "explained" that the theory of evolution predicted that there should be a new form of life inside. The TV show identified him as Dr. Chuck Missler in text on the screen while he was saying this. I failed to see liberal Christians tripping over themselves to correct this guy, seeing as how evolution has nothing to say about abiogenesis any more than the theory of gravity has anything to say about where gravity actually comes from (not to mention the fact that he gave no explanation as to how a jar of peanut butter should be considered ideal conditions for this).

And of course there's also "Dr." Kent Hovind, who I believe wrote his thesis in crayon on the back of a children's book.

To be clear, I wouldn't have argued with Dr. Missler about engineering. But I found him to be extremely dishonest in the way he presented himself. If your PhD is not relevant to a lecture you're giving, either don't introduce yourself with your title or else go out of your way to explain that the topic of discussion is not your area of expertise.

Speaking of expertise, how, exactly, can one legitimately say that one is an "expert" in theology? If you have a PhD in theology, even from an accredited university, then... what? How is that an actual discipline? There's nothing to which you're held accountable. Historians have the historical method, scientists have the scientific method, mathematicians have proofs and rigor... theologians have what, exactly? A bunch of opinions that are not only unsubstantiated, but entirely unfalsifiable?



At the end of your song and dance we come back to the point where God must, at some point, directly communicate with his creation if he wants his creation to believe in him. Is the best method for this really to reveal yourself to just one prophet who then disseminates the information? Obviously not, since here we are arguing about it. Again, to the point of this thread, demons don't sit around arguing with angels about the existence of God. So obviously if God wants us to believe he exists, he's not done a great job. Conversely, if your god doesn't exist, the only option you really have is this prophet-to-masses system because a non-existent god is not going to do it himself.



OK... so... how is it exactly, then, that you are sure that the New Testament isn't a lie from Satan? Consider all the things that the New Testament has changed. You're not sacrificing animals to Jehovah (Jehovah is on record as finding animal sacrifice to be very pleasurable). You're worshiping a being not named Jehovah (Jehovah is on record hating this, as it is against his very first commandment). Basically, the New Testament completely gutted the Jewish religion. How do you know this wasn't engineered by Satan? Or to put it another way, if you were Satan in the year 500BC, and you wanted to lead the children of Israel astray, what would you have actually done differently? What would you change about Christianity? What events did Jesus perform that Satan couldn't have? If Satan is responsible for other fake religions, like Islam, why couldn't he be responsible for Christianity? If Satan is not responsible for Islam, then Islam is an invention of man; by what grounds couldn't Christianity be the same?



OK... do a ctrl+F and see how many hits you get for "demon" in the Old Testament.



I'm not sensing much effort on your part in addressing my points.



So basically you've got nothing, right?

I'm sorry to say that in your case, I've got no word from God by which tohelp you out, NV. I wish I did. But since it seems that after a couple of years in interlocuting with you, just anything I could possibly say or offer is basically ignored by you (not engaged, but ignored----much in a similar way to that which many of my fellow Christians also do in a stereotypical, fundamentalist style), then I have nothing more to offer you from this point on, despite the collection of PhD materials that I have at my disposal. And I'm not going to go further and bash my head in a wall in trying to engage these apologetic discussions further with you. However, if at some point you want to talk about other subjects elsewhere, then I'll be open to that. No problem. But in the meantime, best wishes, NV! :cool:
 
  • Winner
Reactions: zippy2006
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I'm sorry to say that in your case, I've got no word from God by which tohelp you out, NV. I wish I did. But since it seems that after a couple of years in interlocuting with you, just anything I could possibly say or offer is basically ignored by you (not engaged, but ignored----much in a similar way to that which many of my fellow Christians also do in a stereotypical, fundamentalist style), then I have nothing more to offer you from this point on, despite the collection of PhD materials that I have at my disposal. And I'm not going to go further and bash my head in a wall in trying to engage these apologetic discussions further with you. However, if at some point you want to talk about other subjects elsewhere, then I'll be open to that. No problem. But in the meantime, best wishes, NV! :cool:

You're obviously well within your rights to drop out, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't say I ignore your points. I respond to everyone line by line. I do my best to not ignore a single detail. If you said I'm simply wrong in a fundamental and unfixable way, or that you can't properly convey faith, that'd be one thing, but you're totally out of line saying this.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,624
11,483
Space Mountain!
✟1,358,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You're obviously well within your rights to drop out, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't say I ignore your points. I respond to everyone line by line. I do my best to not ignore a single detail. If you said I'm simply wrong in a fundamental and unfixable way, or that you can't properly convey faith, that'd be one thing, but you're totally out of line saying this.

If I'm out of line, I apologize. But in this case, if you're actually willing to "engage" fully, then in my definition of that concept I would tend to think you'd actually join me in thoroughly reviewing, critiquing and discussing a book (or book chapter) or journal article, or something along those lines. If not, by my standards, you're not really willing to engage, and moreover, in such a context, I have nothing really I can offer you further, sorry to say. And it's not because I think you're a bad guy, but rather a person who is not quite willing to engage on that level.

But, to each his own in many cases. Best wishes.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
If I'm out of line, I apologize. But in this case, if you're actually willing to "engage" fully, then in my definition of that concept I would tend to think you'd actually join me in thoroughly reviewing, critiquing and discussing a book (or book chapter) or journal article, or something along those lines. If not, by my standards, you're not really willing to engage, and moreover, in such a context, I have nothing really I can offer you further, sorry to say. And it's not because I think you're a bad guy, but rather a person who is not quite willing to engage on that level.

But, to each his own in many cases. Best wishes.

And again, if someone invited me to engage them on critiquing a discussion between Spider-Man and Zeus, the only way I know to properly respond is to critically attack their idea for what it is (notice that in no way does this involve me ignoring what they're saying). To engage such a person in the manner you prefer, as though the idea of a conversation between Spider-Man and Zeus is a serious topic, is not to do the person any favors.

I'm not asking you to prove that demons exist. I'm not asking for evidence, be it physical or scriptural. I'm asking you to show that the very notion is internally consistent with your own theology. Your dismissal speaks for itself.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,624
11,483
Space Mountain!
✟1,358,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
And again, if someone invited me to engage them on critiquing a discussion between Spider-Man and Zeus, the only way I know to properly respond is to critically attack their idea for what it is (notice that in no way does this involve me ignoring what they're saying). To engage such a person in the manner you prefer, as though the idea of a conversation between Spider-Man and Zeus is a serious topic, is not to do the person any favors.

I'm not asking you to prove that demons exist. I'm not asking for evidence, be it physical or scriptural. I'm asking you to show that the very notion is internally consistent with your own theology. Your dismissal speaks for itself.

Well, as I've been in conversation with another person here on CF, I do happen to think that a particular passage in the Bible leans toward an interpretation that could be seen as foreshadowing of the onset of various cyber/A.I. technologies, most particularly as they have been tied in with certain political cultures which have created them. So, in that sense, I do 'see' what I count as evidence for the Devil, and thereby...................Jesus as Divine Revelator.

However, I'll be the first to admit upfront that this interpretation is where I'm at with the material in question, but that's me, and I don't expect anyone else to kow-tow or to readily 'see' my interpretation along with me. With that said, I do see it as somewhat "Screwtapian" in nature.
 
Upvote 0

Nihilist Virus

Infectious idea
Oct 24, 2015
4,940
1,251
41
California
✟156,979.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Well, as I've been in conversation with another person here on CF, I do happen to think that a particular passage in the Bible leans toward an interpretation that could be seen as foreshadowing of the onset of various cyber/A.I. technologies, most particularly as they have been tied in with certain political cultures which have created them. So, in that sense, I do 'see' what I count as evidence for the Devil, and thereby...................Jesus as Divine Revelator.

However, I'll be the first to admit upfront that this interpretation is where I'm at with the material in question, but that's me, and I don't expect anyone else to kow-tow or to readily 'see' my interpretation along with me. With that said, I do see it as somewhat "Screwtapian" in nature.

Are you referring to a computer chip being implanted into either the right hand or forehead as the mark of the beast?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Critically Copernican
Site Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
24,624
11,483
Space Mountain!
✟1,358,498.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Are you referring to a computer chip being implanted into either the right hand or forehead as the mark of the beast?

Definitely not. What I have in mind is a bit more insidious than that...o_O
 
Upvote 0