Recommend viewing: "Does Satan Exist?"

wolfsbane

There were four panelists for this debate: philosopher Deepak Chopra and Bishop Carlton Pearson faced-off against Pastor Mark Driscoll and Annie Lobert, founder of the Christian ministry "Hookers for Jesus" about the existence of the Devil.

Not many pastors would welcome such a diverse panel and a biased, national news program like ABCNEWS Face-Off into their sanctuary. Nor would they host a debate on an issue concerning an aspect of the Christian faith that allows voices who are violently opposed to biblical Christianity to have a seat at the table. And then still speak with unashamed boldness about the gospel, the Scriptures and its truth while showing reverence and respect for those who oppose biblical Christianity (1 Peter 3:15-16). This is what I call: bringing Mars Hill Church to Mars Hill.

Though the aired portion of this broadcast was edited by ABC beyond even sound bit status, when you listen to the unedited videos of the complete interview (ten in total) you come away with an appreciation for our brother's presence and acumen in this discussion.

See the videos here:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/

studiorat

Now I'm really confused Wolfie. Which one is "our brother"?
For once I have to agree with the Quantum Quack. The anthropomorphism of "good and evil" is much easier for people to accept then the cruel trick that all the evil in the world has no rhyme or reason, it just happens. In general, I believe the connections he makes between the spiritual and physical realms are nothing more than metaphorical.

Annie Lobert doesn't appear to make any actual argument rather she testifies in good old-fashioned American christian fashion appealing to the emotion rather than common sense.

Call me Zen but, we have absolutely no need to explain why there is so much pain and suffering in the world. Why do we need to explain this fact? We'd be better off trying to deal with it.

All in all I thought the debate was between those who would like to see their religion in terms of angles and demons, apocalypse etc. all of which I would judge to be human analogy. And those who would not try to explain their spirituality in the infallible terms drawn out in the bible but rather by what their instinct and intuition tells them.

I must say it was refreshing to hear Bishop Preston's common sense approach. I thought Driscoll came across as the headbanger that he is, his refusal to discuss anything outside of a purely sola fide scriptural context showed poorly on his argument IMO.

The little reference to 1 Peter 3:15 is a nice touch but a little disingenuous, it's merely being polite so as to look good and make other people look bad.

Rev Hellfire

Well from my view Deepak Chopra and Bishop Carlton Pearson certainly seemed to walk away with the discussion.
Not that I agree with all that they say, but they at least attempt to understand the nature of evil and demons. Offering explanations beyond simple caricatures.
Annie Lobert was a non-feature, there purely for the emotional card as studiorat stated. The other participant was equally ineffectual offering no real answers or perspective into the either the nature of evil and the satan.

But then again I suspect for those to whom proof is simply blindly dictating passages from the bible, they probably came away with the opposite opinion of this 'debate'.

wolfsbane

studiorat said:

Now I'm really confused Wolfie. Which one is "our brother"?

I thought it would be obvious - Mark Driscoll.

For once I have to agree with the Quantum Quack. The anthropomorphism of "good and evil" is much easier for people to accept then the cruel trick that all the evil in the world has no rhyme or reason, it just happens. In general, I believe the connections he makes between the spiritual and physical realms are nothing more than metaphorical.

Yes, his 'spiritual' realm seems quite illogical given the other stuff he said. Metaphor might explain it, but I wonder if he is just torn between his desire to reject God and the deeply depressing nihilism that he sees as the alternative.

Annie Lobert doesn't appear to make any actual argument rather she testifies in good old-fashioned American christian fashion appealing to the emotion rather than common sense.

Agreed.

Call me Zen but, we have absolutely no need to explain why there is so much pain and suffering in the world. Why do we need to explain this fact? We'd be better off trying to deal with it.

Seems a bit limited for an enquiring mind! :eek:

All in all I thought the debate was between those who would like to see their religion in terms of angles and demons, apocalypse etc. all of which I would judge to be human analogy. And those who would not try to explain their spirituality in the infallible terms drawn out in the bible but rather by what their instinct and intuition tells them.

Surely instinct and intuition bear a much more definite witness to the existence of God/a spiritual world than they do to atheistic materialism. I thought the atheists among us had to learn that, had to reason God out of existence. So what the opponents of Christianity in the debate were doing was explaining their spirituality by what their pride and self-sufficiency tells them.

I thought Driscoll came across as the headbanger that he is, his refusal to discuss anything outside of a purely sola fide scriptural context showed poorly on his argument IMO.

He was presenting the argument his religion holds to - it would be hypocritical of him not to. You put value on man's self-centred explanation of the spiritual dimension, because you believe in it. He puts value on the Bible's for the same reason.

The little reference to 1 Peter 3:15 is a nice touch but a little disingenuous, it's merely being polite so as to look good and make other people look bad.

Not sure what you mean. Please enlighten.

wolfsbane

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Well from my view Deepak Chopra and Bishop Carlton Pearson certainly seemed to walk away with the discussion.
Not that I agree with all that they say, but they at least attempt to understand the nature of evil and demons. Offering explanations beyond simple caricatures.
Annie Lobert was a non-feature, there purely for the emotional card as studiorat stated. The other participant was equally ineffectual offering no real answers or perspective into the either the nature of evil and the satan.

But then again I suspect for those to whom proof is simply blindly dictating passages from the bible, they probably came away with the opposite opinion of this 'debate'.

I agree the debate was limited in its scope and depth, but a good starter. We have had much better exchanges in these threads, but we have had much more time.

Hopefully the program will have awakened people to the debate and the competing beliefs held by thinking people. Unbelievers will have some insight into Biblical Christianity and Christians will have an understanding what some unbelievers have as a basis of their morality. All of us have too many assumptions about what others believe.

Rev Hellfire

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hopefully the program will have awakened people to the debate and the competing beliefs held by thinking people. Unbelievers will have some insight into Biblical Christianity and Christians will have an understanding what some unbelievers have as a basis of their morality. All of us have too many assumptions about what others believe.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought that all the participants where Christian, certainly everyone other than Deepak Chopra was. And he seemed to imply he had a slant that way as well.

It seemed as mentioned before to be discourse between those who hold a literal view and those who don't.

wolfsbane

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought that all the participants where Christian, certainly everyone other than Deepak Chopra was. And he seemed to imply he had a slant that way as well.

It seemed as mentioned before to be discourse between those who hold a literal view and those who don't.

Only Driscoll and the lady are Christians. The bishop is an apostate.

PDN

wolfsbane wrote: »

Only Driscoll and the lady are Christians. The bishop is an apostate.

Pearson used to be a 'health & prosperity' TV evangelist. Then he became a universalist. I'm half expecting him to become a Mormon next. The guy appears to be going for a full house of heresies.

neuro-praxis

How can you consider Driscoll a brother? As a Christian I'd rather have pretty much anyone declared my brother before that despicable man.

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, his 'spiritual' realm seems quite illogical given the other stuff he said. Metaphor might explain it, but I wonder if he is just torn between his desire to reject God and the deeply depressing nihilism that he sees as the alternative.

I don't know a whole lot about Chopra, I don't imagine he sees God as a personality, rather more of a force of nature. Or something, whatever it is I'm deeply suspicious!!
However, I don't think you should be so quick to write off nihilism as depressing. As long as you have an appreciation of the absurd it's actually quite a useful concept.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Seems a bit limited for an enquiring mind! :eek:

Unless it's in an effort to actually prevent misery attempting to designate a source of evil is a pointless pursuit. I think sticking a label or laying blame on an outside force is usless. If you personify evil, what purpose does it serve? You can just as easily choose to be constructive or destructive without laying a 'blame' on an outside intervention causing you to do either.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Surely instinct and intuition bear a much more definite witness to the existence of God/a spiritual world than they do to atheistic materialism. I thought the atheists among us had to learn that, had to reason God out of existence. So what the opponents of Christianity in the debate were doing was explaining their spirituality by what their pride and self-sufficiency tells them.

Firstly, I think it was quite clear that there were no opponents to Christianity in the debate. Opponents to the concept of a supernatural destructive personality, but not Christianity. You can certainly believe in one and not the other.
Speaking for myself here, intuitively I don't sense an outside force, let alone a personality. In fact I would actually need to reason God into existence. For me, this is the only life there is and it's enough, really. The only way I'll exist afterward is through my contribution during this short time and only in the memory of others. (and the massive statue I'm having built!;))

wolfsbane wrote: »

He was presenting the argument his religion holds to - it would be hypocritical of him not to. You put value on man's self-centred explanation of the spiritual dimension, because you believe in it. He puts value on the Bible's for the same reason.

I understand that, however he was the only member of the discussion not to offer a point of view outside of the bible. Therefore, I felt leaving the bible aside not one of his arguments held water. I noticed some of the comments from the original blog article actually thought this was a good thing.
I don't think it would have been hypocritical or outside of his religion of him to present an argument that one could accept without needing to rely on the bible to prove his point each time. In fact I'd go so far as to say it was very poor form of him not to discuss any of the points outside of a biblical framework.
I share no beliefs with anybody in the video, BTW. Though I respect both Chopra's and Preston's "universal inclusion".

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not sure what you mean. Please enlighten.

From what I read of 1 Peter 3:15 it asks the believer to defend his believe politely and courteously. However it asks this seemingly to discredit the unbeliever and not simply out of respect for him.

Rev Hellfire

wolfsbane wrote: »

Only Driscoll and the lady are Christians. The bishop is an apostate.

I stand corrected.

Rev Hellfire

neuro-praxis wrote: »

How can you consider Driscoll a brother? As a Christian I'd rather have pretty much anyone declared my brother before that despicable man.

Cen fath ?

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

The guy appears to be going for a full house of heresies.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Only Driscoll and the lady are Christians. The bishop is a apostate.

Because, unlike Plasterer Mark Driscoll, they don't believe that the majority of the population is "predestined" to burn eternally in a "smoldering" place of "torment with burning sulfur." No?


I believe Praxis is talking about the good pastor Driscoll's somewhat more original exegesis.

"God hates you... God can't even look at us because he is so disgusted… You have been told that God is loving, gracious, merciful, kind, compassionate, wonderful, and good... That is a lie... God looks down and says 'I hate you, you are my enemy, and I will crush you.'"

In defense of Ted Haggard, he blames his wife!!!!

It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.

"After church tonight you will go home and you will eat chicken, not human, because of the spread of Christianity... go to a country where there hasn’t been the spread of Christianity and they’re having human for dinner."

The last one is just hilarious. He knows he's pulling the wool over his congregations eyes. No mention that, Hindu, Islamic , Jewish and Buddists have much stricter dietary laws than Christianity.

Húrin

studiorat wrote: »

Call me Zen but, we have absolutely no need to explain why there is so much pain and suffering in the world. Why do we need to explain this fact? We'd be better off trying to deal with it.

If there is no explanation then there is no solid reason to deal with it or to prevent it.

All in all I thought the debate was between those who would like to see their religion in terms of angles and demons, apocalypse etc. all of which I would judge to be human analogy. And those who would not try to explain their spirituality in the infallible terms drawn out in the bible but rather by what their instinct and intuition tells them.

Are you declaring your perspective (or those of the non-Christian participants) to be super-human or extra-human?

neuro-praxis

Studiorat has kindly tipped the iceberg for me regarding that hideous lump.

Rev Hellfire

Those quotes are pretty medieval, not sure I'd be wanting to associate myself with someone who promotes such outlooks.

H&#250 wrote: »

If there is no explanation then there is no solid reason to deal with it or to prevent it.

There's always a reason to deal with it if it results in human suffering.

studiorat

Húrin wrote: »

If there is no explanation then there is no solid reason to deal with it or to prevent it.

Not really, think of a virus or a disease. That virus doesn't need to have a reason to do what it does, it just does it. We still put time and effort into fighting it, but, we don't consider it to have a motive.

Húrin wrote: »

Are you declaring your perspective (or those of the non-Christian participants) to be super-human or extra-human?

Could you elaborate please?
My perspective on the debate is, two new agey theistic types and two old skool fire and brimstone types. Some believe in supernatural powers with a personality and motive, some who just see it as a force or energy or something. Both parties seem to believe they are right.

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

If there is no explanation then there is no solid reason to deal with it or to prevent it.

There is no objective reason to deal with it or prevent it. It still doesn't stop you running to stick your finger under cold water when you've burnt it, because, subjectively, it hurts.

Rev Hellfire

Here's a question I've wondered about.

Can/will satan be saved. I mean assuming satan and legion can/would repent would there be a place from them once again in heaven ?
I mean with an all loving creator, there's wriggle room there.

stevejazzx

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Here's a question I've wondered about.

Can/will satan be saved. I mean assuming satan and legion can/would repent would there be a place from them once again in heaven ?
I mean with an all loving creator, there's wriggle room there.

Reminds me of when I was about 10 years old in religious studies at school. We had just finished a chapter on forgiveness. We started on a chapter about the commandments. We were talking about false prophets, and there was a story about Herod on the mount who was falsely preaching that he was god and God struck him down. No one else seemed to mind this but I was beside myself with confusion - we had just finished a chapter about how God can forgive anyone..under any circumstances, if they truly repent. I asked why God never gave Herod a chance to repent? The religious teacher just ignored me, Herod could not be saved so he was killed. Then I asked why we were told that the point of existence was that we could work through life and come to the conclusion that God was our path. Again I asked why certain people got struck down and others were allowed to live; and then I asked when did God stop doing this? The whole thing was a mess of logic from every perspective. No one noticed or cared it seemed except me.:mad:

PDN

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Here's a question I've wondered about.

Can/will satan be saved. I mean assuming satan and legion can/would repent would there be a place from them once again in heaven ?
I mean with an all loving creator, there's wriggle room there.

One early church father, Origen, speculated that Satan might be saved. Then again, he also castrated himself, so probably not the best of role models.

Nodin

PDN wrote: »

One early church father, Origen, speculated that Satan might be saved. Then again, he also castrated himself, so probably not the best of role models.

If the latter matter had hinged on the former, it may explain some christians stance against gambling....

wolfsbane

PDN wrote: »

One early church father, Origen, speculated that Satan might be saved. Then again, he also castrated himself, so probably not the best of role models.

Maybe he took Paul's wish to heart?
Galatians 5:12 I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off!

wolfsbane

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Here's a question I've wondered about.

Can/will satan be saved. I mean assuming satan and legion can/would repent would there be a place from them once again in heaven ?
I mean with an all loving creator, there's wriggle room there.

God can save whom He will. But He wills not to save any of the angels who rebelled, including Satan.
Hebrews 2:16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.

And who said God is an all loving creator? That is a figment of some half-baked theologian's imagination. God is an all holy creator - but He chooses whom He loves.

wolfsbane

stevejazzx wrote: »

Reminds me of when I was about 10 years old in religious studies at school. We had just finished a chapter on forgiveness. We started on a chapter about the commandments. We were talking about false prophets, and there was a story about Herod on the mount who was falsely preaching that he was god and God struck him down. No one else seemed to mind this but I was beside myself with confusion - we had just finished a chapter about how God can forgive anyone..under any circumstances, if they truly repent. I asked why God never gave Herod a chance to repent? The religious teacher just ignored me, Herod could not be saved so he was killed. Then I asked why we were told that the point of existence was that we could work through life and come to the conclusion that God was our path. Again I asked why certain people got struck down and others were allowed to live; and then I asked when did God stop doing this? The whole thing was a mess of logic from every perspective. No one noticed or cared it seemed except me.:mad:

My sympathies. I think you will find most school teachers not very well read on what the Bible teaches, even those who teach religious studies. Your questions were very sensible and deserved an answer.

- we had just finished a chapter about how God can forgive anyone..under any circumstances, if they truly repent. I asked why God never gave Herod a chance to repent?

God doesn't say why Herod's opportunity ended there. Everybody's ends sometime in this life. Christ in fact highlighted that fact in His Parable of the Rich Fool:
Luke 12:16 Then He spoke a parable to them, saying: “The ground of a certain rich man yielded plentifully. 17 And he thought within himself, saying, ‘What shall I do, since I have no room to store my crops?’ 18 So he said, ‘I will do this: I will pull down my barns and build greater, and there I will store all my crops and my goods. 19 And I will say to my soul, “Soul, you have many goods laid up for many years; take your ease; eat, drink, and be merry.”’ 20 But God said to him, ‘Fool! This night your soul will be required of you; then whose will those things be which you have provided?’
21 “So is he who lays up treasure for himself, and is not rich toward God.”

Then I asked why we were told that the point of existence was that we could work through life and come to the conclusion that God was our path. Again I asked why certain people got struck down and others were allowed to live; and then I asked when did God stop doing this?

Yes, God has put us here and we are supposed to seek after Him until we find Him. Those who do will be saved. But if we are not seeking today, there is no guarantee of tomorrow. His only promise regarding our lifespan is that those who diligently seek Him will find Him.
Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

wolfsbane

neuro-praxis wrote: »

How can you consider Driscoll a brother? As a Christian I'd rather have pretty much anyone declared my brother before that despicable man.

I don't know all his details, but I gather even from those Christians who abhor his cultural approach that his theology is fine. What I have read suggests to me he pushes the envelope of Christian liberty too much in his choice of language, but that's probably in reaction to unbiblical traditionalism in our Fundementalist and Reformed churches. And we all can be guilty of over-reaction.

Maybe you have specifics that cause you to describe him as despicable?

wolfsbane

studiorat said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by PDN
The guy appears to be going for a full house of heresies.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Only Driscoll and the lady are Christians. The bishop is a apostate.
Because, unlike Plasterer Mark Driscoll, they don't believe that the majority of the population is "predestined" to burn eternally in a "smoldering" place of "torment with burning sulfur." No?

That's one of their errors, not the biggest by a long shot.

I believe Praxis is talking about the good pastor Driscoll's somewhat more original exegesis.

Quote:
"God hates you... God can't even look at us because he is so disgusted… You have been told that God is loving, gracious, merciful, kind, compassionate, wonderful, and good... That is a lie... God looks down and says 'I hate you, you are my enemy, and I will crush you.'"

I think Mark is highlighting one aspect of the truth, to off-set the error that teaches God is all-loving. He could have went on to show that God calls these sinners to repentance so that they will not face His wrath.

In defense of Ted Haggard, he blames his wife!!!!

Quote:
It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.

I've tried to find anywhere he defends Haggard, without success. It seems to me Mark is taking the opportunity to give pastoral warning to his flock about the need for husbands and wives to do their best to fulfil their sexual responsibilities to one another. The quote only dealt with the wife, but I'm sure he would have been just as robust with husbands.

Quote:
"After church tonight you will go home and you will eat chicken, not human, because of the spread of Christianity... go to a country where there hasn’t been the spread of Christianity and they’re having human for dinner."

The last one is just hilarious. He knows he's pulling the wool over his congregations eyes. No mention that, Hindu, Islamic , Jewish and Buddists have much stricter dietary laws than Christianity.

I'm sure neither he nor any member of his audience are ignorant of the customs of Jews, Hindus and Muslims. I take this as hyperbole. I know they are Americans, but give them a break.

stevejazzx

wolfsbane wrote: »

My sympathies. I think you will find most school teachers not very well read on what the Bible teaches, even those who teach religious studies. Your questions were very sensible and deserved an answer

God doesn't say why Herod's opportunity ended there. Everybody's ends sometime in this life. Christ in fact highlighted that fact in His Parable of the Rich Fool:

Yes, God has put us here and we are supposed to seek after Him until we find Him. Those who do will be saved. But if we are not seeking today, there is no guarantee of tomorrow. His only promise regarding our lifespan is that those who diligently seek Him will find Him.

Ok - but I have one question you never answered; when and why did God stop this kind of interaction with humans. The interaction I refer to is 'striking people down' appearing to people, plagues...I just don't understand why he began this kind of practice and then he just totally stopped; it's the same for every other religion also - the Gods appear during the lifetime of peoples in the stories recorded and then disappear..forever.

wolfsbane

stevejazzx said:

Ok - but I have one question you never answered; when and why did God stop this kind of interaction with humans. The interaction I refer to is 'striking people down' appearing to people, plagues...I just don't understand why he began this kind of practice and then he just totally stopped; it's the same for every other religion also - the Gods appear during the lifetime of peoples in the stories recorded and then disappear..forever.

Hi, Steve. Sorry I missed that. I'll repeat it also just for clarity:

Again I asked why certain people got struck down and others were allowed to live; and then I asked when did God stop doing this?

The answer is, He hasn't. God still intervenes in judgment (and deliverance) in individual human lives. I have experienced this myself. He also brings nations to disaster; He blesses others.

But His appearing to prophets and apostles ended with the end of prophets and apostles. They were a foundation ministry for the church, a foundation that later generations built on. That is not to say Jesus could not speak to someone in a vision - just that such a vision would not be for anyone but the person. No one can lay it on the church that God has appeared to him and this is the message to be believed.