A question about the love of god

[The Grand Nudger]

The word we use as demon in all of those "casting out" texts, is, more accurately, spirit. They saw no distinction. "Demons" achieved sickness in the same way that "undefined" achieved sickness. They simply chose to communicate some instances of sickness (and probably as an extreme negative value judgement of the affliction) as explicitly demonic, rather than vaguely "spirit related". That they didn't ascribe possession to all ailments goes without saying (but they also didn't think that a demon had to possess you to make you sick, demons as a specific spirit could use other spirits, such as the spirit of infirmity or the spirit of leprosy- to make you sick). I suppose, in a way, they did think that demons might be sprinkling flu dust on people, but also that flu dust was a thing itself, a spirit in it's own right. Just that it was more inconvenience, and not quite "demonic".

[Tonus]

Those stories would have been far more entertaining if they'd have translated "spirits" into "booze."

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, that's the reason we call booze spirits.......because it seems to have some of the same properties we ascribed to that latter. Alcohol, it's properties, it's distillation, and it's effects have all been under the umbrella of the shadow world at various points in our history. Hell, they still are, anybody for a shot of the blood of the lamb?

[Cato]

Are you seriously making the argument that the boy's affliction was caused by something other than the demon and just so happened to cure itself when the demon was cast out?

No. As noted, demon possession is cured by casting out the demon. My position is that demon possession and disease are Biblically two different things which you're conflating.

Conflation isn't even possible here, this isn't a case of mistaken identity. The contention is that one causes the other.

[Welsh cake]

And besides... WHY does Christ have to cast out demons anyway? They merely return to the desert, gather in strength, and return all over again. Banishing them isn't effective, nor a permanent solution.

Hey geniuses: Why not redeem them into angelic beings again? What? Is he not god?

Its as asinine as the story to Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword. An evil force is threatening to take over. The protagonist gets unlimited omnipotent power in the form of a single wish, and his wish is already decided for him by an instrument of a lawful good deity. Destroy the evil. Annihilate it. Rather than, oh say, tap into a *little fricking imagination* and simply convert the monster as a force for good and thereby create a new ally.

Geez. These fictional beings who always have unlimited power at their disposal (through various means) sure suck at being creative when using it.

Talk about wasted potential.

Its like the writers back then were no different than they are now. A room full of monkeys.

[Thumpalumpacus]

For those of you that kids here, do you tell them about germs that can make you sick? NY mother certainly did and I suspect all responsible parents do. Since most parents do this because they love their children and what the best for them and god apparently thinks of us as his children how come he failed to tell us germs that cause diseases?

Because I can't put my kid into the oven to cure him if he knows about germs first.

[John V]

Conflation isn't even possible here, this isn't a case of mistaken identity.

I disagree.

The contention is that one causes the other.

The contention is that they believed one caused the other, and the facts show otherwise:

- there are instances in which a demon is cast out, but the posessed person is not otherwise described as being diseased.

- there are instances in which a person is cured of disease, with no mention of a demon.

- there are lists of things that Jesus did, or tasked his followers with, which include healing disease and casting out demons as separate items

- one instance has been given in which a boy had a demon cast out of him. Two translations said the boy was ill, but the other 28 make no mention of illness or disease.

[Cato]

Conflation isn't even possible here, this isn't a case of mistaken identity.

I disagree.

The contention is that one causes the other.

The contention is that they believed one caused the other, and the facts show otherwise:

- there are instances in which a demon is cast out, but the posessed person is not otherwise described as being diseased.

- there are instances in which a person is cured of disease, with no mention of a demon.

- there are lists of things that Jesus did, or tasked his followers with, which include healing disease and casting out demons as separate items

- one instance has been given in which a boy had a demon cast out of him. Two translations said the boy was ill, but the other 28 make no mention of illness or disease.

Translations be damned. I just looked at your list and the majority say epilepsy, lunacy, or shaking. All still symptoms of disease.

Maybe you don't understand the definition of disease:

a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms

The boy was diseased and was cured by casting out a demon. The logical conclusion is that the demon was the cause of the disease. Earlier I gave you the only logical way around this by asking if you believed that the disease had a non-demon cause that cured itself at the time of exorcism; you said no.

Perhaps you'll understand the point another way....
If your son frequently threw himself in fire and water while imitating a paint shaker, would you take him to a doctor or an exorcist?

[The Grand Nudger]

The contention is that they believed one caused the other, and the facts show otherwise:

- there are instances in which a demon is cast out, but the posessed person is not otherwise described as being diseased.

- there are instances in which a person is cured of disease, with no mention of a demon.

- there are lists of things that Jesus did, or tasked his followers with, which include healing disease and casting out demons as separate items

- one instance has been given in which a boy had a demon cast out of him. Two translations said the boy was ill, but the other 28 make no mention of illness or disease.

-and there are instances in which a demon is cast out and the symptoms of disease entirely dissipate.

That can't be omitted from the list with any amount of intellectual honesty or rigor, nor can the fact that there was no distinction in this cultures mind between "disease" and "spirit" (and no textual distinction between spirit and demon, for that matter), and no reason for them to make such a distinction based upon the knowledge available to them. Personally, I don't think that this has actually escaped you at all - as you seem intent on defending a sacred cow rather than discussing the culture and beliefs of these people. Clearly, something about this seems idiotic to you - and so it simply must not be true! Well tough titties, what you or I believe to be true is irrelevant with regards to what -they- believed to be true.

[John V]

Translations be damned.

I doubt you'd say that if 28 translations agreed with you, and I was hanging my hat on just two.

I just looked at your list and the majority say epilepsy, lunacy, or shaking. All still symptoms of disease.

Maybe you don't understand the definition of disease:

a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms

I understand the modern secular understanding of disease. What I don't understand is how it's applicable to NT culture.

The boy was diseased and was cured by casting out a demon. The logical conclusion is that the demon was the cause of the disease. Earlier I gave you the only logical way around this by asking if you believed that the disease had a non-demon cause that cured itself at the time of exorcism; you said no.

Again, "ill" is only used in two translations out of 30. Most say the boy was possessed by a demon, and suffered severely from such possession. And again, note that there were instances in which people were healed of illness with no reference to demons, and instances in which demons were cast out with no reference to illness. Your case is built on a fringe translation of one passage, while ignoring all the others that go against it.

Perhaps you'll understand the point another way....
If your son frequently threw himself in fire and water while imitating a paint shaker, would you take him to a doctor or an exorcist?

I'd take him to a doctor, as I don't see that demon possession occurs today. We don't see examples of it in the OT. It was not a normal occurrence. Personally, I think it happened for a time as a challenge to Jesus and his followers.

But you bring up an interesting point. There were doctors back then. Luke was one. If people thought that all disease was caused by demons, then there would be no need for doctors - just priests.

Further consider the law (see Lev 15 for example). People with discharges which could indicate communicable diseases were not sent for exorcism. Instead, they were to separate from other people, and others were not to touch the things that the sick person had touched. Where are the demons?