possession and exorcism

[TMA_1]

We both have different perceptions of this universe, with different logic and a different mindset. How can I or the other be right? its all relative. You are one dimensional because your perception only allows you your specific form of logic and point of view.

so what makes us different?

[Acriku]

I adhere to a simple philosophy that places concepts that have come out of a two-thousand-year-old book into a category of high skepticism. You don't.

[Caid Ivik]

While it is not the subject of this discussion, it was a point that I brought up to demonstrate how "imaginative" TMA and GUNWOUNDS' talkings of Satan and his demons were. If someone started talking of rogue and splinter elves, which are as logical as rogue and splinter demons are (according to GUNWOUNDS' reasons for the demons' logic, which can be applied to the elves), they would not be taken seriously.

It isn't needed from you to show us how imaginative they are, we can read them ;) On the other hand, it won't help any side of understanding any of the used terms. If you categorize all as part of imagination, then you wouldn't understand anything. Solipsism is a hard way, you know.

[GUNWOUNDS]

It isn't needed from you to show us how imaginative they are, we can read them ;) On the other hand, it won't help any side of understanding any of the used terms. If you categorize all as part of imagination, then you wouldn't understand anything. Solipsism is a hard way, you know.

Makes sense.

TMA,

I think i see what Acriku's problem is.... he thinks super deep theological thinking will alienate people who are unfamiliar with the religion. THIS IS TRUE.

[TMA_1]

no you are right, and really that hit me between the eyes, thanks for posting it. "a little knowledge puffs up" as the bible says. Sometimes I just desire to talk abouti t anyways, but I know it is only meant for fellow brethren at times. There is a verse for it actually, but I dont want to post it as it sounds kinda offensive.lol

C.S. Lewis is a genius, read a lot of his essays and speeches. He did talk a lot about issues involving christianity to new believers and those who dont believe. There is really so much you can say. So yeah, I do agree with you. :)

[GUNWOUNDS]

no you are right, and really that hit me between the eyes, thanks for posting it. "a little knowledge puffs up" as the bible says. Sometimes I just desire to talk abouti t anyways, but I know it is only meant for fellow brethren at times. There is a verse for it actually, but I dont want to post it as it sounds kinda offensive.lol

C.S. Lewis is a genius, read a lot of his essays and speeches. He did talk a lot about issues involving christianity to new believers and those who dont believe. There is really so much you can say. So yeah, I do agree with you. :)

yea i think you are referring to the scripture that has the word "pearls" in it?  ;)

[GUNWOUNDS]

The major flaw in your reasoning of the hamburger is that if a simple hamburger requires a higher being to make it, then there's even more reason to believe that the higher being requires an even higher being to make. If you disagree and say that God does not need a creator, than neither does the hamburger or the Universe for that matter.

No, i understand that you can only go so far back until you logically have to accept that the first cause had to have no begining.

[Caid Ivik]

After this argument

I think i see what Acriku's problem is.... he thinks super deep theological thinking will alienate people who are unfamiliar with the religion. THIS IS TRUE.  Which is why C.S. Lewis said you should never argue complex deep spiritual or theological things with someone who is unfamiliar with your religion.  So really Acriku shouldnt be in this conversation since he isnt part of our faith TMA.  This is really a discussion that a christian should be having with another christian.  Its deep theological thought and an Atheist should not be in such a conversation since he doesnt even accept the first premise of a God existing.  So really, he shouldnt even be in this discussion and his mere presence is that of a troll, technically speaking.  A christian shouldnt be discussing this type of deep stuff with an atheist... the only things we should be discussing with Acriku/atheists is BASIC faith premises.  Do you agree with C.S. Lewis's opinion TMA or do you disagree?  Personally i agree.

I find it rather unhonest to make other arguments towards him, Gunwounds. Altough imo it is a flawed one, as nobody can become "familiar with religion" without discursive exploration. Either it was one-sided acceptance during childhood from catechumens or personal philosophical research, which may - and I would say that it should - include doubt and critical stance.

[GUNWOUNDS]

After this argument

I find it rather unhonest to make other arguments towards him, Gunwounds. Altough imo it is a flawed one, as nobody can become "familiar with religion" without discursive exploration. Either it was one-sided acceptance during childhood from catechumens or personal philosophical research, which may - and I would say that it should - include doubt and critical stance.

[Caid Ivik]

Our flesh and logic are bound to each other, so I would not say it is "pride" which searches for consense. You yourself said that criticism is natural. Acriku only criticizes more deeply, he questions more basic elements. Which are imo easier to explore, and so it is easier to discuss about. Essence of religion and ie demonology is not same, but when you show it so (without ontologic reduction; as you can say that everything has same primordial essence...), it is a very easily arguable point.

So as I may now turn to the second thing, demonology has no place in christianity nor in Bible. Despite we may talk about spiritual and immaterial existence (or being? to be more accurate), it is sure that not in the terms which would have some "alternative logic", which doesn't bind other phenomena of the world. Also I don't know, what makes you certain, that this "spiritual logic" would be the same as the one concerning ie concepts of salvation. Jesus himself was no epistemologist, nor was any of the patriarchs or prophets.

[GUNWOUNDS]

"He only criticizes more deeply"

This is false he only criticizes more shallowly.

[Caid Ivik]

I would hold the context  ;)  Deep criticism means to criticize foundation, what is the motive is irelevant. I would say it is needed to criticize it exactly because it is a foundation. What so extremely complex was proposed by Acriku, I don't know. Next important factor is whether you both understand complexity of discussed phenomena.

Our mind works somehow different than by dialectics of arrogance and submission. Your neurons are parts of same body as you are, altough they hold more data than hormones. In your example, there simply was no link between one info and the other. While there is one logic functional for both: ignoring desire to sleep (lazyness) would also harm you. Such discourse was a question in times of Aristoteles who solved many such questions, altough you can still criticize 2k years old books...

To the end, perception of God is a very hard question. God has no mouth to say you something, and there is no prophet alive to ask him how it went. Here, solipsism would be really an argument. We know what Moses wrote, but not what he perceived. I would say he had to have problems to formulate the teaching, and also name of God (dh his primary attribute - as Jah, ultimate being), more than a book of commands, which was instantly accepted by such a critical nation as Israel.

[TMA_1]

interesting point Caid about the transcendance of God in the old testament, you can really get a feel for it if you know what the language is saying. Like when Moses recieved a vision of the glory of God through the burning bush. When God calls himself the doubled "I am". Complete and utter self contained being. God is the only self fulfilling and self sustaining one, and people just dont see how amazing this is, how no other religion really taps into the complete eternal nature of God. Even religions of the east that try to break otuside the boundaries of the old Hindu dogma, looking beyond to something even deeper. No notions ever beat the awe inspiring beauty of the scriptures.