Accommodation theories are very popular today when it comes to the Scripture. No matter what the issue, if it seems to folkish, bizarre, or mythological, we can explain it by saying that God was simply “accommodating” to a contemporary way of thinking, not actually affirming the detailed reality of this stuff. Whether it be the story of creation, the flood, Paul’s admonition to women not to teach, a donkey speaking, the “fire from heaven” that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, or Christ and Paul’s reference to Adam and Eve, these all can be tagged with a nuanced view of truth: “Yeah, its true, but not really.”
Before you fall back in your chair, my conservative friends, we need to know that all Christians must accept accommodation theories. For example:
- We don’t really believe that Heaven is up and Hell is down (Mark 16:19). After all, which side of the earth do you have to be on for heaven to be up?
- We don’t really believe the sun really raises and sets (Josh 10:13). We call this “phenomenological” language and we are cool with it.
- We don’t believe that God has eyes (2 Chr. 16:9). After all, God, in his essence, is not material or spacial. He does not really have eyes. We call this “anthropomorphic” language.
- We believe that the Mosaic code (Law) was accommodated from a suzerain vassal treaty. This means that the code of the law as well as the way it was given was often culturally sensitive and not eternal ideals.
- We don’t believe that God’s language is Hebrew or Greek. We believe that when God gives us his word, he accommodates by speaking through man and the language of man.
The difficulty is that when it comes to accommodation theories, while we believe that God does accommodate, we don’t really know when to draw the line.
Here I introduced the specific subject of the post:
It is popular these days to give an account for the happenings in the New Testament concerning demon possession by reference to modern science. The idea here is that what the New Testament writers (and Jesus himself) described as demon possession was really nothing more than medical conditions that could today be described and treated by modern medicine.
Those who believe this and, at the same time, seek to maintain a high view of Scripture would say that the New Testament is not really teaching that these people were demon possessed, but accommodating the the prevailing notion of the day that they were demon possessed. Christ’s miracles, in this instance, were miracles indeed, but not in the way we think.
In this view, there probably is not such a thing as demon possession. Many would scoff at those who still believe in such saying, “Why are demons so scared of Zoloft?” They would look to the neglectful abuse of many Christians in the past who have sought to blame every disease, psychotic episode, and depression on demon possession when, in reality, they did not need archaic religious remedies, but modern medicine.
“Men think epilepsy divine, merely because they do not understand it. But if they called everything divine which they do not understand, why, there would be no end of divine things.” -Hippocrates
A couple of questions:
1. Do you think it is viable to say that demon possession was an accommodation to the prevailing worldview and not representative of the way things really were?
2. Where do we draw the line on accommodations?
68 replies to "Has Modern Science Made Belief in Demon Possession Unnecessary?"
I begin with the question – is Satan real? Yes. Are demons real? Yes. I don’t think any Bible believing Christian would argue differently. So then the next question is: Can they possess and/or oppress people? Yes. It seems that when the Scripture speaks about demon possession that in some cases they actually spoke and were physically active – it wasn’t just another sick person presenting themselves to Jesus – it was different. So no I don’t believe it is an accommodation.
Along these lines, CMP:
IIRC, you say you are a de facto cessationist because even though you don’t think the Scriptures clearly teach cessationism (and may in fact NOT teach it), your experience is such that for all practical purposes the “sign” gifts or whatever one wants to call them and/or gifts specially located in specific individuals do not operate these days as they did in and among the Apostles.
So, where do you stand re: the reality of demons and their interactions with humans – i.e., demonic oppression/possession/influence?
Are you a demonic-oppressionist (i.e., you believe in present-day demonic oppression of people)?
Or are you a non-demonic-oppressionist?
Or a de facto non-demonic-oppressionist?
If so, why? If not, why not?
Eric,
Good way to put it. Could show some fallacy in the way I am thinking if I am not consistant, eh?
I would probably say, just like I do with the spiritual gifts, it certainly could happen today. However, I would think the idea of expectation and expectant normality would be different in both. I doubt anyone would says, as they might with the gifts, that demonic possession should be normative, sought, or celebrated. I would imagine that with demonic oppression/possession, those of us who believe that it is possible, will all be de facto in our thinking. If it happens, then it has happened. No theology behind any sort of theoretical cessation.
Anyway, thanks for making me think in a systematic way here my friend.
Oh, I wasn’t challenging you to be consistent. Just wondering if you believed in:
1. The possibility of present-day demonic oppression
or
2. The actuality of present-day demonic oppresssion, either because:
a. You believe that’s what the Scriptures teach, though you haven’t seen/experienced it, or
b. You have experienced/seen it, or
c. People you trust affirm that they have experienced/seen it.
Or if you:
3. Reject the possibility or actuality of present-day demonic oppression
or
4. Reject the possibility or actuality of both present-day demonic oppression and its existence in the past (including the Biblical accounts) because those can all be medically or scientifically explained.
I hope my questions don’t take this thread off topic. Maybe it would make a good poll for your readers/commentors.
Yeah, good idea on the poll. I will put one up.
I accept the possibility. I have never experienced it in any way and don’t really know how to “diagnose” it. I would normally call Scott Horell at Dallas Seminary and ask him.
Out of your answers, I would go with 2.a.
I probably span all three options in 2.:
a. I believe the Scriptures teach it such that to believe the Scriptures (which I do) almost requires belief in the actuality of demonic oppression in the Biblical accounts, as well as the probability of its continuation.
b. I may have seen/experienced it (i.e., there could be naturalistic explanations for some of the things I or my wife have experienced/seen that resembled and maybe were demonic oppression).
c. I have friends whom I have no reason to doubt who have told me about demonic things they’ve seen or experienced.
I picked the third radio button in your poll: “I believe it still happens today, and we should look for specific signs”
I think there is a mixed bag here. Three levels at work.
First, people back then knew diseases and that some of them were worse than others. There was the woman who touched Jesus’s cloak (Matthew 9:20-22). Even though it was a horrible affliction and the cause and cure were unknown, it wasn’t labeled as demon possessed in scripture. They called it an illness and not in relation to anything demonic.
So first we know that people knew there was a difference between demonic possession/oppression and illness.
Secondly, the Bible tells VERY specific stories about persons being possessed and they specifically show that they are not mentally ill but demon possessed. The Demon-Possessed man near Gerasenes (Mark 5:1-13) is a great example of something that seems to be beyond mental illness (super human strength and recognition of Jesus) and this is also recognizable.
So secondly we know that there is something more to demonic possession than erratic and illogical behavior.
I think what we have in the end is ancient accommodation for the unexplained. Some mental illnesses they didn’t have an explanation for yet were incorrectly labeled as demonic possession due to similarities.
I used the term “demonic oppression” because some argue that a Christian can’t be “possessed” (i.e., owned) by an evil spirit, since the Holy Spirit already has or indwells him/her or is one spirit with the Christian’s spirit. I probably should use the term “demonized” since that would cover either oppression/tormenting by or possession by, and it’s also a nice transliteration of the term the Scriptures use, daimonizomai. The Scriptures also refer to this as “having an unclean spirit” (Mark chapter 3 verse 30) and being “in/with an unclean spirit” (Mark chapter 5 verse 2), though the exelthe…ek of Mark ch 5 vs 8 suggests it can be within a person and not just around or next to or attached to a person. Or this could all just be idiomatic speech and “demonized” is maybe all that should be said without trying to analyze it further.
How is it accomodationist to say that “demon possession” and “mental illness” are different names for the same thing?
Christians fall into a trap when they presuppose that any phenomenon that has physical correlates is, by definition, not supernatural. As if Satan would never have the power to cause mental disease.
It’s particularly puzzling to me, since we have reams of evidence of Satan being given the power to cause other physical ailments, like leprosy, boils, and so on. But Christians want a double-standard when it comes to mental illness — mental illness can only be called demon-possession when absolutely no physical signs are detectable. Why is that?
Good point JS.
How do we distinguish between the two? I am sure that you would agree that while demons can bring about physical ailments, all physical ailments cannot be connect to demonic activity.
is there a way to determine whether an individual sick person (e.g. with depression) is sick due to posession, or sick due to a physiological/medical cause?
@CMP, @Boz — I’m not sure what it means to talk about a physical ailment that isn’t caused by, or at least permitted by, God or Satan.
It seems like we have banished God to an ever-shrinking slice of the world that can’t be appealed to by naturalistic explanations. As if God’s sovereignty does not extend to the natural world, or as if God or Satan would never use physiological/medical causes to exert their wills.
On the question of how to distinguish between the demonic and non-demonic physical ailment I believe we should pray for all ailments of whatever type. It is my experience that sometimes when you do this you get a sense that something is demonic and should pray specifically in that way. (I am not terribly worried about accidentally slandering demons.) If there is not immediate healing I certainly would not withhold other medical forms of treatment. (Even if it is demonic this could treat the symptoms. ) I think the fallacy here is an absolute division between the physical and the spiritual and you have to be 100% certain whether demonic forces are involved to prescribe treatment. I would advocate dealing with both realms in all cases.
I agree with JS. Our thinking on the matter is usually a “God of the gaps” regulation to that which does not have an already available naturalistic explanation of a particular phenomenon. The Scripture never presents illness as a purely natural event, but one that has a spiritual source as well. The spiritual works through the natural. Is God, therefore, accommodating to ancient culture, or are we being accommodating to ours?
I would, however, make a distinction that some illness is from a demonic source in a sense due to the Fall. Being in the realm of death and no longer in Eden we lack the tree of life needed to sustain our health. This is due to the work of the devil, but not necessarily directly. Of course, all things occur under the “indirect” direction of God, so bacteria and viruses are but natural agents working within a divine plan.
Note the instructions given by James if someone is sick:
Call the elders, pray for them, anoint them with oil, and let the person confess any sins needing to be confessed.
It is interesting to note the global Christianity functions MUCH differently than the American garden variety of it.
One trip to a place like Haiti, China, or Kenya, for instance, and you will see a whole different response to the supernatural and that includes demons/spiritual “warfare”.
Most of the Christian world lives out the reality of God and the supernatural as active and moving in everyday life. Healing, miracles, and exorcisms happen countless times a day…. though to our American minds this seems unlikely, exaggerated, or absurd to encounter in our ordinary daily life.
It seems important to note that American Christianity is *not* the norm in the sense of Christian experience gloablly, and we do well to not do eisegesis on those biblical points.
We do well not to do eisegesis on those biblical passages and so reveal our particular brand of spiritual experience as largely a cultural anomaly.
American Christian experience is not the norm. In the global South and East Christians experience miracles, healing, and exorcism on a daily basis.
This sort of Christianity is quite foreign or even absurd to most us in the USA, Canada and UK.
2. Where do you draw the line?
“We believe that the Mosaic code (Law) was accommodated from a suzerain vassal treaty. This means that the code of the law as well as the way it was given was often culturally sensitive and not eternal ideals.”
Just what evidence is there to support this? Cause I’m tempted to say, “who is ‘we’, white man?”
———————————
Just wondering if you believed in:
1. The possibility of present-day demonic oppression
or
2. The actuality of present-day demonic oppresssion, either because:
a. You believe that’s what the Scriptures teach, though you haven’t seen/experienced it, or
b. You have experienced/seen it, or
c. People you trust affirm that they have experienced/seen it.
No real problem here:
Since I was raised an atheist and trained as a scientist, I was initially skeptical about it, and very attracted to semi-Christian explanations like “we are so stupid that Jesus talked to us in baby-talk while healing people”.
But 35 years of experience tells me that the symptoms of demon possession are alive and well, the asylums are still full of people with incurable cases, and theories of ‘schizophrenia’ and chemical imbalance aren’t adequate.
For a while, the drug experimentation and abuse of the 70s convinced me cases were just ‘medical/chemical’. But after long study and deliberation, I am tending toward the hypothesis that drugs do ‘open a door to the occult’, wherein unexplained entities can reach into our world and influence us.
Its a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God, and nearly as bad to fall into unexplained evils.
peace
Nazaroo
Narzaroo:
Just wondering how you think God’s grace factors into that?
16. & 17. Lisa Colón DeLay wrote:
One trip to a place like Haiti, China, or Kenya, for instance, and you will see a whole different response to the supernatural and that includes demons/spiritual “warfare”.
Most of the Christian world lives out the reality of God and the supernatural as active and moving in everyday life. Healing, miracles, and exorcisms happen countless times a day…. though to our American minds this seems unlikely, exaggerated, or absurd to encounter in our ordinary daily life….
…In the global South and East Christians experience miracles, healing, and exorcism on a daily basis.
LISA:
Are you speaking/writing from personal experience and observation and doing these things – i.e., healing, miracles, and exorcisms countless times a day” – or are you just reporting what you’ve heard or read without actually having personally seen/experienced this level of spiritual warfare activity? If the former, please elaborate.
This is really fascinating, especially as a Bible believer who doesn’t believe in the existence of demons.
CMP’s list of accommodation examples in Scripture is extensive, but the question of ‘why?’ should be asked, as it differs for each example:
– Heaven is synonymous with ‘sky’ in both Hebrew and Greek and the sky is always up from the earth.
– The sun ‘appearing’ to rise and set is a linguistic style, which in Joshua happens to have a more profound setting.
– God having eyes – anthropomorphic language helps us empathise and get closer to God.
etc…
So the question has to be asked (if I am to defend my position), why then might demonology be accommodated by Jesus?
There are a couple of possibilities.
1. What if Jesus himself believed in demons (even if they don’t exist)? There would be little benefit in him preaching 21st century medicine after all. Jesus’ primary purpose was to manifest the Father’s authority and mercy by healing.
2. In Matt 12:22-32 we have the account of the Pharisees accusing Jesus of casting out demons by Beelzebub. Jesus’ argument is extremely logical and he explains that if demons were cast out by the prince of demons then the whole of demonology would collapse. Then Jesus gives the analogy of a strong man needing to be bound before the house can be plundered, and Luke’s account says a stronger man must overcome him. Why this analogy? Jesus’ point is clear: that in order to help people, you must be stronger than whatever his harming them. Jesus is stating his authority and power over these illnesses.
However we understand what the Bible says about demons, we must conclude that Jesus overcame them, and will eradicate the world of them one day.
I don’t feel that we need to believe literally in the existence of demons to find salvation. And I don’t an unbending hold to the traditional view gives us much credit among modern, educated agnostics.
@EricW
I went to Trinidad and did encounter a much different approach to the supernatural, and quite a few bewildering experiences. Any one I talked to could tell me a bunch of stories regarding this, as I shared my experiences. One incident that comes to mind, off the top of my head, was a kind of riot of children that came out of nowhere during a VBS event we did. It seemed quite otherworldly at the time, and prayer changed things in a big way.
It’s been my experience that Missionaries and missiologists will tell me the same thing and have loads of stories. My grad prof on the subject is the director from the Yale World Christianity Initiative http://www.yale.edu/worldchristianity/
Apparently Yale tries to stay on top of this sort of thing.
If you read for yourself what is happening around the world, what I mention seems pretty obvious.
(For starters, and a quick read, one could read Simon Chan’s book “Spiritual Theology”)
My global missions class discussed this (non-American) phenomenon of Christianity in depth, and read up quite a bit on it.
A few of our texts where these:
“Mission in the 21st Century: Exploring the Five Marks of Global Mission” (Andrew Walls & Cathy Ross)
“The New Global Mission: The Gospel from Everywhere to Everyone” -Samuel Escobar
“Spiritual Traditions for the Contemporary Church” (Robin Mass & Gabe O’Donnell)
[…] Parchment and Pen – Has Modern Science Made Belief in Demon Possession Unnecessary? […]
* We don’t really believe that Heaven is up and Hell is down (Mark 16:19). After all, which side of the earth do you have to be on for heaven to be up?
I really believe that heaven is up and hell is down!
* We don’t really believe the sun really raises and sets (Josh 10:13). We call this “phenomenological” language and we are cool with it.
I believe the sun really literally set and stopped in Joshua!
* We don’t believe that God has eyes (2 Chr. 16:9). After all, God, in his essence, is not material or spacial. He does not really have eyes. We call this “anthropomorphic” language.
Ill pass on this one , you might be right!
* We believe that the Mosaic code (Law) was accommodated from a suzerain vassal treaty. This means that the code of the law as well as the way it was given was often culturally sensitive and not eternal ideals.
I believe Mosaic Law(God’s Law) is Eternal so will tell you any educated Jew or orthodox Jew
* We don’t believe that God’s language is Hebrew or Greek. We believe that when God gives us his word, he accommodates by speaking through man and the language of man.
Actually there is midrash that says Hebrew is 1st language(and God gave his Law in ancient Hebrew that’s a big significance) and what language do you think we gonna speak in heaven?
mbaker: “Narzaroo: Just wondering how you think God’s grace factors into that?”
hmm. I don’t care how you spell my name, but I was just wondering if you could be more specific?
I believe in God’s grace. I believe in demonic forces (I’ll leave them undefined at the moment).
I believe that the NT teaches that Jesus has power over both nature and demons, whatever they are.
but I’m not sure about your question, i.e., what it is you are asking me…
peace
Nazaroo
There is also the issue that an illness could be spiritual in the sense that God Himself directly caused it as in the case of the Corinthians who abused the Lord’s Supper.
While spending 2 years in Ethiopia and getting to know some very solid Ethiopian believers, their attitude towards things spiritual and demonic were totally different than my traditional Baptistic understanding. My friends were not given in to exageration or hyperbole but gave me direct accounts of miracles, healings, and exorcisms.
I think that Lisa makes a strong point that believers in the “educated West” need to drop the idea of looking foolish to our much “smarter” but unbelieving world. I was listening again to The Theology Program audio files (great stuff) and Michael was presenting the continuationists point of view that the Scriptures have not directly stated that the gifts have ceased. Though the point has already been made here it is a good one in that there is no exegetical reason to think that Satan’s schemes and direct intervention in humanity have changed either.
Blessings,
Don
Nazaroo,
Sorry about the misspelling of your name.
I meant that I’m wondering how at one time anyone can be both oppressed by demonic forces and indwelt by the Holy Spirit? That has always been somewhat of a mystery to me.
I don’t doubt that demons exist either, yet one has to wonder if God would really allow one of his elect to be hopelessly and/or permanently taken over by such a thing, against their will.
It is no coincidence that uneducated people with little or no grasp of (or access to) science would fall back on a supernatural explanation for things that they don’t understand. That is why people ascribed illnesses to demons 2,000 years ago, and it is why people in third-world countries do it today.
It is also why educated people with access to blood tests and MRIs know that illnesses are caused by things that can be seen and traced. Science does not yet know the cause of every physical and mental illness, but anybody with a modicum of rational thought has a pretty good idea that people are not inhabited by demons.
If demons do inhabit people, how exactly do they choose their victims? Do they pick random people who are mentally ill already? Is it the level of propensity toward sinning? Drinkers?
And why is it that supernatural events such as “demon possession” are so much more prevalent in places with mostly uneducated people? Maybe demons don’t like to be inside people with high IQs or college degrees?
The bible references to demon possession reflect the views of the authors, who were products of their pre-scientific time. There is not a scintilla of factual evidence that demons (or Satan) exists, and even less evidence that they control people in “Inside John Malkovich” fahion.
Paulf
It seems you are trying to be funny…but comment boards don’t do too well with nailing down the tone of a post.
If you are being serious, you have an extraordinary faith in science. Really. Just remarkable. You seem to have most things learned and locked down. Again. That’s rather astonishing.
Bless your heart!
😉
I’m kidding you, of course.
I’m not sure if it’s wise to separate God from science. I suppose some people assume that they must somehow exist as diabolical opposites, but what a false assumption. God is God, even of creation, and science is a flawed method to try to assess it, susceptible to the agenda or predisposition of the observer. However, science still helps us to understand our world better. It’s always a wonder to me that God/supernatural is separated from Almighty Science. Really a modernist thought, (marketers have realize this for 15-20 years).
Maybe your’e teasing, but it could be that maybe you haven’t realized that you don’t need a high IQ to have a degree, just $ and patience. (may that renew your interests in learning!) I’m hoping you were also being facetious about people who live in other places as “unedcuated”… Do you travel much?
I love the movie “Being John Malkovich” … A fun ride, from a creative mind! You must, of course, realize it’s an incongruent correlation in the extreme to assume those two variations are or could ever be analogous. HOWEVER-The power of the Silver Screen~it’s impressive.
Educated folks, Science (history) and common sense will tell you that as humans we hardly know much of anything about God, his world, or how most things may function. Delve into any subject thoroughly, and this becomes painfully obvious quite quickly.
And yes. Drinkers. Definitely Drinkers!
LOL
Hi Michael,
I have written two first hand posts on the issue. The first gives an example of a mental illness which is not an example of demon possession. The second gives an example of a demonic influence on a person. Though they were written a while ago, I would still be interested in people’s comments, either on my site or here.
They are unfortunately too long to try and reproduce here, but in short, yes, I believe in Demon Possession, but would be very careful not to confuse it with mental illness.
“And why is it that supernatural events such as “demon possession” are so much more prevalent in places with mostly uneducated people? Maybe demons don’t like to be inside people with high IQs or college degrees?”
Yes, there’s certainly no educated people who suddenly off their entire families or coworkers, or end up in a mental institution with some strange diagnosis.
Man speaking a thousand years from now: “It’s perfectly understandable why 21st century people would attribute illness purely to naturalistic causes. They were completely brainwashed by naturalism and constantly created false dichotomies between the two. We have, fortunately, been liberated from their enslavement to such.”
The problem for the BELIEVER is that the Bible doesn’t simply describe demon possession. Jesus talks to the devil who tempts Him. That same devil enters Judas as he goes to betray Christ. And Christ holds small conversations with the demons who speak to Him, sending them into the pigs which then kill themselves (apparently from bipolar issues that they obtained to cope with their parents getting divorced).
BTW, demons aren’t simply employed in Scripture to describe illness, but also that which idolaters worship, and those who, therefore, bring miracles and answers of inquiries to those who worship them.
To those who are apt to dismiss these non Western cultures understanding of supernaturalism I would offer this:
Satan will use what works in turning people from God. One effective tool is to convince people he doesn’t exist. that tactic seems to have worked wonders in the more ‘advanced’ west so to afflict many people with obvious supernatural afflictions would work to defeat that enormous victory. Our demonic afflictions have resulted in materialism, greed, individualism, drug use, and other forms that appear completely natural but are still destructive.
And as others have said, I think it is foolish to assume that because we can observe and trace the natural causes of some affliction that there is no spiritual element involved.
And to there are NT episodes that, even if you wish to take on accomodation as an explanation for demonizing in regards to illnesses, whose only explanation is demons or you have to throw the entire episode out. The demonized man through which demons recognize and speak to Christ after which he casts them into pigs is the case and point. Either demons or real or the NT is a farce.
I think we can all agree that folks who worship satan are under demonic possession, but like others here, I think demonic oppression/possession is in the eye of the beholder more often than not. It can also be used as justification to cover up sin.
For instance, when I was involved for a time in the hyper-charismatic movement, demonic oppression/possession was described as ‘having a jezebel spirit’. It was common for demons to be specifically called out and identified as a spirt of this or that, depending on what the person with the unclean spirit was manifesting. I heard a lot more folks rebuking these spirit demons personally than being asked to confess and repent of the sinful practices they were engaging in.
I think we can get too hung up on identifying these things, and get so involved in trying to figure out what’s what that we forget that although satan and his minions might still be active, Christ won the victory against them on the cross.
However, the old devil made me do mentality apparently is still alive and well today as an excuse not to accept responsibility for our own actions. Our sin sounds less offensive when we can put it down to outside influences beyond our control. So in that sense demon oppression/possession can also be an accommodation to excuse our own lack of discernment.
Lisa: Raw intelligence is evenly spread, I’m sure, to people of all cultures. But that wasn’t really my point.
My point is that if you step back and think logically for a minute about demon possession, it is obvious that it represents the superstition of an age when people didn’t know any better.
Whether you are a scientist or not, and I’m not, there is no excuse for someone raised in the U.S. to not know better. There is absolutely no evidence that demons exist. None. Oh sure, someone says they heard a story about some guy in Nigeria who claims to have actually spoken to a demon or performed an exorcism, but that’s not exactly credible.
If demons existed and inhabited people, I think there would in the history of the world been at least one instance with tangible proof. But like ghosts, there remains nothing but scary stories.
hodge, that an anonymous person wrote 1900 years ago that someone spoke with a demon doesn’t constitute evidence.
Take the story of Jesus casting the demons into pigs. One problem there for literalists is that there is no such body of water within many miles of the town where the episode was supposed to have taken place. Another is why did Jesus want to kill those poor pigs, or even allow them to be slaughtered? He could have stopped the suicide. And what logic was behind the demons entering pigs? Or killing them? Other cast out demons in the bible didn’t look for livestock, and didn’t kill their hosts. Where did they go after the pigs died? Rabbits? Ants?
No, it makes much more sense that the story was created for its symbolic meaning, not because there were actual demons who had a yearning for bacon.
The multitude of stories about demon possession in the bible are evidence of nothing more than that the texts represent the culture from which they sprang.
Yes, and I could use all of your arguments to argue that God is symbolic in Scripture too. Where’s you’re evidence for Him? Your arguments are purely naturalistic. I said nothing of proving that demons exist. I’m far from a literalist in many respects I assure you, but many of us understand that the gospels aren’t symbolic stories. They utilize symbolism, but are not symbolic in themselves. Now, if you believe that Jesus and God are symbolic of the fuzzy goodness we all experience in love and life, then feel free, but your making a genre error with something that is clearly seen by its community and fellow authors as literal. Is Paul being symbolic in 1 Corinthians (a letter)? Is Deuteronomy (a treaty-type law code) being symbolic?
“One problem there for literalists is that there is no such body of water within many miles of the town where the episode was supposed to have taken place.”
It wasn’t in the town. Read the story more carefully before you dismiss it to cater to your presuppositions. The region is controlled by Gadara.
This is where you’re confused. Even if the story were symbolic, what does that have to do with the characters in the story being real? Do you believe that Jesus was/is real? If so, your argument is bogus because it assumes that if a story is symbolic all of its characteristics are.
Second, it is in the region (chora) of the Garasenes, not the town. The region is filled with this type of topography (http://www.bibleistrue.com/qna/pqna63.htm). All three Synoptics have this story, so what is its symbolic purpose? Of course it teaching theology, but what is symbolic about Jesus asking a demon its name (as an exorcist would) and the demon recognizing who Jesus is?
Finally, what is symbolic is not automatically non-literal as well. Both exist together. It is no proof that X is SOLELY symbolic simply because it is symbolic. Giving a rose to my wife is symbolic and a literal thing that I do. Your reasoning is altogether…
“…what is symbolic is not automatically non-literal as well.”
No, not necessarily, but the overwhelming probability is that it is.
“Is Paul being symbolic?”
Yup.
“Is Deuteronomy being symbolic?”
Not sure what you mean. But the law in Deuteronomy represents the same thing as demons in the gospels. It is a representation of the customs and beliefs of a primitive tribe in the Middle East.
Do I think these people carried god around in a magic box? No, I don’t. I think they sincerely thought they did, but (like the people who believed in demons) they were wrong because they didn’t know any better.
Do I think the maker of the universe tracks the fabric choices of individual humans? Nope. Do I think he monitors whether mating humans have sex during the woman’s menstrual cycle? Nope. Do I think he approved the system of dowries for men to sell their daughters? Nope. Do I think God was angry when people ate pork? Nope.
However, the tribe that became Israel for whatever reasons developed customs around those (and other) things, and ascribed those customs to a deity.
Whether the deity is real is of course another qiestion. I assume Jesus was a real person. And if a story is symbolic, you are right to say that it COULD be based on an actual incident and actual characters. But, again, the probability would be tilted heavily toward not being real, just because that is the way that literature and history works.
I answered your questions, now answer mine.
Why did Jesus want to kill those poor pigs, or even allow them to be slaughtered? And what logic was behind the demons entering pigs? Or killing them? Other cast out demons in the bible didn’t look for livestock, and didn’t kill their hosts. Where did they go after the pigs died? Rabbits? Ants?
“No, not necessarily, but the overwhelming probability is that it is . . . But, again, the probability would be tilted heavily toward not being real, just because that is the way that literature and history works.”
No, it doesn’t work that way. This can only be said by someone who is completely unfamiliar with historical literature and its constant use of symbolism. Most of historical literature uses symbols. Its filled with gods and demons and miraculous events, etc. It is more likely that something that uses historical events and data is meant to be historical even if it uses symbolism. There are only a few genres that use solely symbolic stories (apocalyptic, poetry, mythic/cosmology).
“Not sure what you mean. But the law in Deuteronomy represents the same thing as demons in the gospels. It is a representation of the customs and beliefs of a primitive tribe in the Middle East.”
Deuteronomy tells us that people who worship idols actually worship demons. So you’re belief is that this is saying people worship their customs? This isn’t the point in context. Maybe you should, once again, read the text before you comment (love the way you can tell me what the Deuteronomist meant without knowing what text I’m talking about).
Would you then say that answered omens and miracles are purely natural events that can be explained scientifically?
“Do I think these people carried god around in a magic box?”
I don’t care for your reductio ad absurdum arguments. Let’s refrain from it, since I can present your arguments as equally a joke.
“However, the tribe that became Israel for whatever reasons developed customs around those (and other) things, and ascribed those customs to a deity.”
Amazing. You are able to comment upon a metaphysical claim using empirical verification. Tell me, how is this magic trick accomplished and what higher education brought you to accomplish such a feat?
I didn’t answer your questions because they ignore the context and are meant to be evidence of typical atheist reductio ad absurdum arguments which replace any legitimate form of argumentation.
“Why did Jesus want to kill those poor pigs, or even allow them to be slaughtered?
Jesus didn’t. The demons ask Him for it as an act of mercy as opposed to sending them into the abyss.
And what logic was behind the demons entering pigs? Or killing them?
Because pigs are unclean animals fit for demons and demons don’t belong in humans who are meant to be fit for the Spirit of God. It also shows Christ’s sovereignty over what is unclean, what is chaotic, what is evil. If that’s the symbolism you want then great. My point is that this real thing was done to teach this, and that is the more probable intention of the text. Hence, all three gospels have it, even though all three gospels have different theologies and should have changed the story to suit their purposes.
“Other cast out demons in the bible didn’t look for livestock, and didn’t kill their hosts. Where did they go after the pigs died? Rabbits? Ants?”
Yeah, and? What do others have to do with this? Other people don’t blow up towers with airplanes. Some did. Is this meant to be an argument of some sort?
Where did Alexander go after he left his tent on August 2, 335 BCE? No one knows. The texts don’t say. Once again, this is ludicrous reasoning. If you’re going to show your superior education to all us unmaeducamacated ignoramuses who believe a metaphysical world exists then you need to up your line of argumentation.
Evil and deliverance. Many orthodox religions personify evil as Satan, the Devil, Iblis, Mara, or other demonic forces. Most mystics hold us responsible for our own evils, not an external source. Some say that evil exists only in rejection or lack of awareness of good, or to balance good in the apparent dualities of this life…not in unitive eternal life. Mystics have to eliminate personal wrongs to realize divine oneness. Deliverance comes by overcoming the selfishness of our egos, ignorance of our minds and stubbornness of our senses.
“The devil made me do it.” Whether this is said tongue-in-cheek, or by a believer in satanic influences, it is still the grand excuse. Too many people attempt to blame someone else for their own troubles or lack of personal achievement. If you want to see the devil, simply look at what is reflected in the mirror. Blaming yourself, even when it is justified, is quite difficult. “It isn’t my fault,” they usually say.
It is equally wrong for you to fault yourself for every misfortune and shortcoming. You can become your own devil when you allow the demons of your mind to rule your life. There are guilty people; others are ridden by guilt. All humans make mistakes; a few believe themselves to be hopeless. Each of us fail at some tasks; some persons feel doomed to failure. The psychologically impaired must ask for help or allow their maladies to be the grand excuse.
(quotations from my ebook at http://www.suprarational.org on comparative mysticism)
Personal responsibility and a demonic influence to do evil are not mutually exclusive. I could just as easily say the kid down the block made me do it because he tempted me to do so. The source of temptation does not contradict the responsibility of the tempted.
Hodge, sorry about the reduction ad absurdium thingy. I should have known you don’t do that. And now I will never know whether you think about whether people could carry god in a beautifully crafted gold box.
You seem like an earnest kid, but you need work on your people skills and logic.
I said demons don’t exist. The pagans didn’t worship demons, whatever they thought they were doing. Likewise, there are no miracles, just reports of them. Which were commonplace before people were educated.
If someone tild the story about demon pigs today, nobody would believe and rightly so. Ancient people believed such things could happen, so they wrote as if they did.
[…] – C. Michael Patton asks if modern science makes “demon possession unnecessary”. […]
Casey,
We had a discussion along those same line in Sunday School two weeks ago, when discussing Luke 11 where Jesus delivered the man who had a spirit that made him mute.
The story of the Gadarene demoniac is the first known written record of deviled ham (sorry, had to get that one in).
PaulF,
As C.S. Lewis said in the introduction to The Screwtape Letters, there are two equal and opposite errors we can fall into regarding Satan. One is to disbelieve in their existence. The other is to believe, and to feel an excessive and unhealthy interest in them.
Sounds like you’ve fallen into the first error.
paulf – I assume you are an atheist or a desit then? I think its difficult o have this conversation, then, because you reject many of the assumptions that make the context for this conversation.
Regarding proof or evidence of demonization. I have participated in an exorcism and held a conversation with a demon speaking through someone else. At least all of my senses and faculties told me so. I won’t deny that there could have been an alternative explanation (some random, purely material psychotic episode influeced by a prior belief in demonization -or- a full deception) but I don’t really have any good reason to reject what seemed plain. And this man was an African.
Again, I don’t think Satan attacks westerners as much in overt demonization because materialism/skepticism/scientism or at leasta rejection of an actual Satan is more effective…overt demonization would be counterproductive.
However, in these cultures which are much more intuitive and don’t have technology and progress to separate them from the essential realities of day to day existence…and in which there is a recognition of the spritual connection to every day life…demonization exerts fear and dread or a promise of power…and both make their subjects captive. So it is effective in these cultures.
At least that’s my thoughts on it.
Interesting how “education” can cloud knowledge of the truth and prove I Cor 13 “knowledge puffs up.” (Oh how we look down upon the “uneducated”) While I endorse formal education it behooves all to be wary of its pitfalls and even how Satan can (and will) use even your education and intelligence against you. (Read C. S. Lewis, “Screwtape Letters”)
Bottom line, I’ve witnessed undeniable personal demon oppression/possession on 2 occasions (in the U.S. and Canada and when nobody was expecting it or looking for it). I posted one on the CARM boards here:
http://forums.carm.org/v/showthread.php?t=177723
This was a personal being that has a name, and the account includes confirmation through animal reaction (thus supporting the pigs account). Humans can fake things, but you can’t train a cat to perform on cue.
On this topic… One claim I’ve seen made, and am inclined to believe, is that the Church drives out demonic activity by its presence and activity, and that driving out is long-term (which means that it takes a while for the demons to reassert their power). There are plenty of passages in the Bible that clearly give the Church as a whole and as individuals the power to fight demons, and the well-known passage about “the gates of Hell” might be taken to mean this.
This might explain why demonic activity is so commonly reported out in the far-flung missionfield, but so rarely in settled areas.
I’d like to spend a lot more time discussing the concept of “accommodation”; I’ve found some interesting ideas along that path.
-Wm
Paul,
Thanks for your assertions about my logic. My people skills are notoriously bad, so that’s the only truth in your entire statement. 😉
The irony is that the only one committing logical fallacies is you (e.g., reductio ad absurdum, as mentioned, and begging the question).
You’ve done nothing but reassert your position. Where is your proof? Where is your argument? Oh, yes, the ad populum fallacy you just gave me that no one would believe it today.
The truth is, Paul, the patronization toward others’ lack of education in terms of their being less inclined to adopt naturalistic presuppositions is only made by those who are less educated in the very ideas they pretend to dominate. Education has nothing to do with presuppositions, as they are mere beliefs that govern analysis. Only the truly uneducated make claims to the contrary, and only naturalists (champions of a self refuting belief system) seem to replace logic with posturing. “Because everybody whose educated today thinks so” isn’t a good argument in an academic paper, it isn’t a good argument here either. You get an F for the day, not for your lack of belief, but for your lack of careful analysis of what you believe.
Paul,
Although I agree with you on the non-existence of “demons” (or Satan), other than those of the mind, you can be rather patronizing.
I can be guilty of that myself, but at 71 can blame it on my age. Then again, you probably don’t believe in mysticism because it can’t be proven by science. Each of us believes what we want to believe, until irrefutably proven wrong.
Ron, I have a sore spot for the name Hodge ever since the Rangers traded Rick Middleton for Ken Hodge. I was probably taking out on my young friend.
Casey, whatever you saw, you can be sure there are no demons. That the victim was African is part of the evidenc against it. Look at it this way: Why do people who attend pentacostal churchers speak in tongues but presbyterians don’t? Does the spirit discriminate? No, one group is open to suggestion because they believe something is real, so that is reflected in their actions.
Gary, so if being intelligent is bad, should I be ignorant? If the facts and logic are against you, just say, “nah, nah, smartypants.”
Ron, I used to believe, but I began to chafe at the arguments for ignorance and found I didn’t believe my own positions. The other side has the virtue of simplicity and logic.