Why did Jesus allow demons to enter a herd of pigs?

santana75

Reading Luke 26-39, the story of a demon possessed man.....Jesus commands the evil spirits to come out of the man but they beg him not to send them into the "Bottomless pit", but instead they ask to be sent into a herd of pigs. Jesus actually agrees to this and the pigs end up throwing themselves into a lake and drowning.
What is this about? Why would Jesus allow any concession to demons? Why not just cast them out and throw them into the so called bottomless pit? It seems like a compassionate act by Jesus, but compassion for demons, why?

Effects

If he had sent them to the bottomless pit then they wouldn't have stayed there. They would just have come back up and inhabited new hosts.
He let them inhabit the pigs so he could make the pigs kill themselves, therefore trapping the demons forever.

santana75

Effects wrote: »

If he had sent them to the bottomless pit then they wouldn't have stayed there. They would just have come back up and inhabited new hosts.
He let them inhabit the pigs so he could make the pigs kill themselves, therefore trapping the demons forever.

But surely the demons were aware of this, that if the pigs died they'd be trapped forever, no?

riffmongous

santana75 wrote: »

But surely the demons were aware of this, that if the pigs died they'd be trapped forever, no?

Maybe that's what they wanted?

ChrisJ84

santana75 wrote: »

Reading Luke 26-39, the story of a demon possessed man.....Jesus commands the evil spirits to come out of the man but they beg him not to send them into the "Bottomless pit", but instead they ask to be sent into a herd of pigs. Jesus actually agrees to this and the pigs end up throwing themselves into a lake and drowning.
What is this about? Why would Jesus allow any concession to demons? Why not just cast them out and throw them into the so called bottomless pit? It seems like a compassionate act by Jesus, but compassion for demons, why?

It shows the irrationality and destructiveness of evil - if the demons can't destroy the man they possessed, they can destroy the pigs. The pigs drowning in the sea also prefigures God's final defeat of Satan (see Rev 20:10), and so prefigures the final judgement and fate of all demons. Finally, it shows Jesus' authority over all created things, including the demons - they can only do what he permits them to do.

ChrisJ84

Effects wrote: »

If he had sent them to the bottomless pit then they wouldn't have stayed there. They would just have come back up and inhabited new hosts.
He let them inhabit the pigs so he could make the pigs kill themselves, therefore trapping the demons forever.

Pretty sure that if Jesus has sent them to the pit they would have stayed there - his authority over them is absolute. They begged to go into the pigs to avoid that fate.

santana75

To me it seems like Jesus is actually showing the demons mercy. Is it possible that Jesus knows something about theses demons that we dont? Originally they were Angels, is that right?

ChrisJ84

This is undoubtedly a strange episode, and would have been quite memorable which is likely why it appears in the gospel accounts. The main point is that Jesus has absolute authority over all spiritual forces and powers, and this story should lead us to ask "Who is this man, that he can do these things?" The other character to remember is the demoniac himself who is freed from his bondage, completely healed, and sent off to tell others about Jesus.

santana75 wrote: »

To me it seems like Jesus is actually showing the demons mercy.

I would say that the main example of mercy in the story is that shown to the demoniac - healed and restored to his right mind. Jesus did grant the demons request, and we aren't told exactly what happened to them after the pigs drowned, but the Bible is clear that Jesus has decisively defeated Satan and the demons and that only judgement awaits them. This episode is another powerful example of Jesus power and authority over spiritual powers of darkness, which is why the gospel writers included it.

santana75 wrote: »

Is it possible that Jesus knows something about theses demons that we dont?

Jesus most definitely knows things about these demons that we don't. If you mean did they get some special kind of mercy, then again scripture is clear that the spiritual beings don't get a chance at redemption like us humans do. So whatever happened to them exactly following this episode, their final fate is judgement. Anything else is speculation, and we simply don't know.

santana75 wrote: »

Originally they were Angels, is that right?

Yes, the Bible tells us that the demons were originally angels but followed Satan in his rebellion.

Effects

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Pretty sure that if Jesus has sent them to the pit they would have stayed there - his authority over them is absolute. They begged to go into the pigs to avoid that fate.

That's doubtful. Jesus was still just a man after all.

He could cast them out alright, but had no control over them after that.
That's why he let them enter the pigs, so he could kill them while they had taken over the pigs souls.

He can't control a demon when it doesn't posses a body.

ChrisJ84

Effects wrote: »

That's doubtful. Jesus was still just a man after all.

He could cast them out alright, but had no control over them after that.
That's why he let them enter the pigs, so he could kill them while they had taken over the pigs souls.

He can't control a demon when it doesn't posses a body.

Jesus was not "just a man", he was and is God incarnate. Otherwise, Christianity simply collapses and our faith is in vain. The gospel accounts, which are the only written record we have of this event, certainly do not portray him as a mere man.

And incidentally, pigs don't have souls

Effects

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Jesus was not "just a man", he was and is God incarnate. Otherwise, Christianity simply collapses and our faith is in vain. The gospel accounts, which are the only written record we have of this event, certainly do not portray him as a mere man.

And incidentally, pigs don't have souls

He was just a man of flesh and blood. This cannot be disputed.

He’s just one part of the holy trinity, the weak, flesh bound part. Christianity won’t collapse as a result of that.

Of course pigs have souls, how else could the demons have inhabited them?

Danzy

He freeded them from their torment, they were trapped as demons in hell, they suffered too.

He removed their suffering.

What use is compassion, forgiveness or love if it is not also given to those least like you.

Danzy

German nana wrote: »

Gang, it's just easier for me to do this as opposed to answering individual posts, so apologies as such, it's time management.

I work with a lot of retired and have a few friends who are active law enforcement. There are a lot who come from some sort of military background. Although I was told by an old FTO I know that a lot are not passing the psychological test due to PTSD. 

There are a lot of ex-military in law enforcement, I think about 40% of us have served or continue to serve in the reserves. I was in the Army before this and still serve in the Army Reserve. I think they compliment each other and to a point attract the same sort of person. Discipline, structure, chain of command, attractive polyester uniforms and the desire to serve. A diagnosis of PTSD in of itself is not a bar to joining, it’s more how it affects you and the extent of the diagnosis. A fair number of cops have been diagnosed with job related PTSD and we don’t just fire them.

Hello. are there certain arrests where you would love to take the assailant behind your patrol car and put a bullet in their head...? I know the answer to this is yes, so bearing in mind 95% of people are law abiding, do you think laws and punishment for certain crimes are much to lenient... And the rest of us normal humans should be allowed to live in peace and happiness. Thank You.

Well we get frustrated but I’ve never felt the desire to take the law into my own hands despite the frustrating sentencing, etc. I won’t say it’s never happened, especially in times past. Baltimore PD in the Freddie Grey case is an example. That case, and the fiasco of the subsequent trials, (and others like it) do more to make our lives hard than anything else. But then Baltimore PD is a case study in dysfunctional policing. Remember, the screenplay for the The Wire was written by a retired BPD officer based on his life….

Are laws & punishment too lenient? 

In some cases, yes, others no. I think the US justice system is too focused on the punishment side of things as opposed to rehab and re-integration.

Apologies I haven't read the complete thread.

You should, the guy answering the questions is amazing, insightful & charming (at least in his own mind 

I wanted to ask re something my US colleagues mentioned to me. Are checkpoints for alcohol limits allowed in the US? In Ireland we have them frequently where drivers will be stopped and checked for alcohol limits via breathalyzer. Colleagues say in the US you can't be pulled over unless you are aggressively speeding or driving erratically?

No, sobriety checkpoints don’t pass constitutional scrutiny here in the US. It was tried 10 years or so ago, courts threw it out right away. The officer has to have probable cause (PC) to pull you over. The initial stop gives you the PC (speeding, tail lights out, crossing the line, etc.), then you can figure out of there is alcohol involved and start the whole DD testing process. Drunk driving here is a huge problem despite the even increasing penalties. Your assessment is correct, Americans seem to have a lax attitude about it. You are smart, just don’t drink & drive, it’s 100% preventable. I won’t drive even with a glass of wine over dinner, too much to lose. A DD arrest is an automatic termination offense in my agency.

I've been driving in New Hampshire last couple of months. Regularly see police on the highway doing speed checks and cars pulled over. I might be generalizing but there does seem to be a more accepting attitude to having 2 or 3 drinks and driving. In Ireland it's gotten to the stage where you can't drink at all and drive. so, my colleagues here laugh at me when I won't take any alcohol and drive. just a rule I've had since I got behind the wheel. 

See above

sorry if it’s been asked and answered but have you previously served in the military? are many of your colleague’s former military or is that discouraged?

See above and many agencies give preferential hiring points to ex-military, almost the other way around. Exers are generally disciplined, fit, and a bit more life experienced.

In terms of inter-agency politics, have the feds ever come in to take over and have you/your chief ever said "don’t give me that jurisdiction crap".

More movie hype BS. If the crime is a federal offense, then the feds automatically have jurisdiction, the chief can’t tell the feds to fcuk off when he/she has not jurisdiction. Only the feds can work federal cases, and conversely, they can’t work state cases. For the most part it’s mutual cooperation, they might be working a case, especially drugs and for whatever reason, have a weak federal case, but it could be a stronger state case, so they’ll turn it over to a state or local agency for prosecution. In large, complex cases, there is more of an element of competition between bigger agencies and the feds (think LAPD, NYPD vs. FBI/DEA sort of thing). The movie “The Departed” spoke to this and was fairly accurate about the tension between a large PD (Boston), the Feds and the Mass. State Police. The feds I’ve worked with have been fine, we have a few officers seconded to the local DEA task force and it’s mutually cooperative.

In all seriousness, how often have you worked cross-agency and any interesting stories?

When I was on SWAT, we used to serve warrants for the DEA commonly. It was always amusing to watch a hard case be all tough guy, mouthing off to us, telling his family “call the lawyer, I’ll be back for dinner” sort of thing. Then it’s “Hello, I’m Special Agent Bloggs from the DEA and we have a federal warrant for you”. Now it’s all Mr. Nice Guy as he figures it’s the feds and a lot of federal statues have harsh minimum sentencing guidelines. I’ve literally watched a “hard case” become a cooperating witness in front of a DEA agent on scene. And yes, they do wear the blue DEA/FBI jackets on a mission like that. It’s is very important to be instantly recognizable as a cop when you carry a gun are around a raid/warrant service environment, you don’t want to get shot for been mistaken for a bad guy.

And what NFL team do you support?

Don’t follow American football, I enjoy the premier league & watching the rugby & a bit of GAA.

Community policing has been successful in Ireland, UK, and other places. One aspect of community policing is walking your beat. Do you walk a lot when patrolling your assigned areas, or do you mostly ride in a car or motorcycle?

I’m in a car are as 90% of us, our districts are big, walking would be ineffective. Downtown there is a walking beat and they use the Mtn. bikes and even horses. Motorbikes are for roads policing almost exclusively. I’m a fan of community policing, America lost that in the 1980’s recessions. Using a car an agency can cover more ground with fewer officers, and I don’t see us going back to much foot patrolling. There is a renewed push for community-oriented policing, (COP) kind of ironic really considering most urban policing was essentially COP until we got stretched thin, city grew, budgets got smaller.

Now officers in the states have to hesitate and weigh things in their minds to see if doing their job will make the papers and the talk shows and cause public outcry. We seem to be more concerned with the safety of thieves, rapists, murderers and drug dealers than we are for the safety of those hired to protect us. Do you think the rampant unfair public perception today in the US puts officers in more danger than ever before?

There has been some talk of that in the professional journals, I think it was Ottawa, Canada where an anonymous study of officers revealed an increased reluctance to engage as it’s just not worth the hassle. I know officers who won’t give a minority a traffic ticket (they get a written warning only) because they just don’t want to deal with it. This “slow rolling” is sad and a detriment to our profession. Having said that, it only seems to apply to low level offenses (traffic, etc.). No one is going to just sit in the car and say “I’m not going to that sexual assault call”, you’d be fired FFS. The Oklahoma City bomber was caught as a result of an OK State Trooper pulling McVeigh over for a “minor traffic violation” (expired number plate), amazing what you can find out with “minor traffic violations”, it’s called good policing. I don’t think we’re in more danger as such, we’re probably more accountable which is a good thing. The flip side to that is the proliferation of edited, curated YouTube & Facebook videos showing parts of a scene/call which can be easy to take out of context. (see my response to the two videos).

Can only imagine in Tx, the 2nd biggest state, a car is the only way to get about. (Guesstimate also), would be 'walking the beat' has diminished drastically across Ire & UK, funding reduction mixed with personal safety or practicality.

Seen a couple of lads on mountain bikes (cycles) doing traffic management and very low risk community stuff, that looks ideal (in fair weather). In Ldn, the Met spent a fortune on big fancy BMWGS600 type motor-bike units, but you never hear of them being used, on moped gangs, or anything other.

See above, don’t know about the Met. and their BMW’s, we use our motors for traffic enforcement mostly.

Do you avail of Minority Report-esq pre-crime software? (Not the soon to arrive 5G-FRS), but stats or ai-algorithms. E.g. Many emergency services can allow for +5% workflow demand simply due to a weekend's 'full moon' occurring.

We, like a lot of other agencies use CompStat a programme developed by or with NYPD, can’t remember. It’s a statistical analysis of crime statistics, by time, place, population density, etc. We use it focus our efforts on a particular area or crime. For example, there was a spike in car thefts in a certain area. Using CompStat, the analysis guys were able to narrow it down to two large apartment complexes. So, for a three-week period we added extra patrols working with the auto-theft task force d


Gang, it's just easier for me to do this as opposed to answering individual posts, so apologies as such, it's time management.

I work with a lot of retired and have a few friends who are active law enforcement. There are a lot who come from some sort of military background. Although I was told by an old FTO I know that a lot are not passing the psychological test due to PTSD. 

There are a lot of ex-military in law enforcement, I think about 40% of us have served or continue to serve in the reserves. I was in the Army before this and still serve in the Army Reserve. I think they compliment each other and to a point attract the same sort of person. Discipline, structure, chain of command, attractive polyester uniforms and the desire to serve. A diagnosis of PTSD in of itself is not a bar to joining, it’s more how it affects you and the extent of the diagnosis. A fair number of cops have been diagnosed with job related PTSD and we don’t just fire them.

Hello. are there certain arrests where you would love to take the assailant behind your patrol car and put a bullet in their head...? I know the answer to this is yes, so bearing in mind 95% of people are law abiding, do you think laws and punishment for certain crimes are much to lenient... And the rest of us normal humans should be allowed to live in peace and happiness. Thank You.

Well we get frustrated but I’ve never felt the desire to take the law into my own hands despite the frustrating sentencing, etc. I won’t say it’s never happened, especially in times past. Baltimore PD in the Freddie Grey case is an example. That case, and the fiasco of the subsequent trials, (and others like it) do more to make our lives hard than anything else. But then Baltimore PD is a case study in dysfunctional policing. Remember, the screenplay for the The Wire was written by a retired BPD officer based on his life….

Are laws & punishment too lenient? 

In some cases, yes, others no. I think the US justice system is too focused on the punishment side of things as opposed to rehab and re-integration.

Apologies I haven't read the complete thread.

You should, the guy answering the questions is amazing, insightful & charming (at least in his own mind 

I wanted to ask re something my US colleagues mentioned to me. Are checkpoints for alcohol limits allowed in the US? In Ireland we have them frequently where drivers will be stopped and checked for alcohol limits via breathalyzer. Colleagues say in the US you can't be pulled over unless you are aggressively speeding or driving erratically?

No, sobriety checkpoints don’t pass constitutional scrutiny here in the US. It was tried 10 years or so ago, courts threw it out right away. The officer has to have probable cause (PC) to pull you over. The initial stop gives you the PC (speeding, tail lights out, crossing the line, etc.), then you can figure out of there is alcohol involved and start the whole DD testing process. Drunk driving here is a huge problem despite the even increasing penalties. Your assessment is correct, Americans seem to have a lax attitude about it. You are smart, just don’t drink & drive, it’s 100% preventable. I won’t drive even with a glass of wine over dinner, too much to lose. A DD arrest is an automatic termination offense in my agency.

I've been driving in New Hampshire last couple of months. Regularly see police on the highway doing speed checks and cars pulled over. I might be generalizing but there does seem to be a more accepting attitude to having 2 or 3 drinks and driving. In Ireland it's gotten to the stage where you can't drink at all and drive. so, my colleagues here laugh at me when I won't take any alcohol and drive. just a rule I've had since I got behind the wheel. 

See above

sorry if it’s been asked and answered but have you previously served in the military? are many of your colleague’s former military or is that discouraged?

See above and many agencies give preferential hiring points to ex-military, almost the other way around. Exers are generally disciplined, fit, and a bit more life experienced.

In terms of inter-agency politics, have the feds ever come in to take over and have you/your chief ever said "don’t give me that jurisdiction crap".

More movie hype BS. If the crime is a federal offense, then the feds automatically have jurisdiction, the chief can’t tell the feds to fcuk off when he/she has not jurisdiction. Only the feds can work federal cases, and conversely, they can’t work state cases. For the most part it’s mutual cooperation, they might be working a case, especially drugs and for whatever reason, have a weak federal case, but it could be a stronger state case, so they’ll turn it over to a state or local agency for prosecution. In large, complex cases, there is more of an element of competition between bigger agencies and the feds (think LAPD, NYPD vs. FBI/DEA sort of thing). The movie “The Departed” spoke to this and was fairly accurate about the tension between a large PD (Boston), the Feds and the Mass. State Police. The feds I’ve worked with have been fine, we have a few officers seconded to the local DEA task force and it’s mutually cooperative.

In all seriousness, how often have you worked cross-agency and any interesting stories?

When I was on SWAT, we used to serve warrants for the DEA commonly. It was always amusing to watch a hard case be all tough guy, mouthing off to us, telling his family “call the lawyer, I’ll be back for dinner” sort of thing. Then it’s “Hello, I’m Special Agent Bloggs from the DEA and we have a federal warrant for you”. Now it’s all Mr. Nice Guy as he figures it’s the feds and a lot of federal statues have harsh minimum sentencing guidelines. I’ve literally watched a “hard case” become a cooperating witness in front of a DEA agent on scene. And yes, they do wear the blue DEA/FBI jackets on a mission like that. It’s is very important to be instantly recognizable as a cop when you carry a gun are around a raid/warrant service environment, you don’t want to get shot for been mistaken for a bad guy.

And what NFL team do you support?

Don’t follow American football, I enjoy the premier league & watching the rugby & a bit of GAA.

Community policing has been successful in Ireland, UK, and other places. One aspect of community policing is walking your beat. Do you walk a lot when patrolling your assigned areas, or do you mostly ride in a car or motorcycle?

I’m in a car are as 90% of us, our districts are big, walking would be ineffective. Downtown there is a walking beat and they use the Mtn. bikes and even horses. Motorbikes are for roads policing almost exclusively. I’m a fan of community policing, America lost that in the 1980’s recessions. Using a car an agency can cover more ground with fewer officers, and I don’t see us going back to much foot patrolling. There is a renewed push for community-oriented policing, (COP) kind of ironic really considering most urban policing was essentially COP until we got stretched thin, city grew, budgets got smaller.

Now officers in the states have to hesitate and weigh things in their minds to see if doing their job will make the papers and the talk shows and cause public outcry. We seem to be more concerned with the safety of thieves, rapists, murderers and drug dealers than we are for the safety of those hired to protect us. Do you think the rampant unfair public perception today in the US puts officers in more danger than ever before?

There has been some talk of that in the professional journals, I think it was Ottawa, Canada where an anonymous study of officers revealed an increased reluctance to engage as it’s just not worth the hassle. I know officers who won’t give a minority a traffic ticket (they get a written warning only) because they just don’t want to deal with it. This “slow rolling” is sad and a detriment to our profession. Having said that, it only seems to apply to low level offenses (traffic, etc.). No one is going to just sit in the car and say “I’m not going to that sexual assault call”, you’d be fired FFS. The Oklahoma City bomber was caught as a result of an OK State Trooper pulling McVeigh over for a “minor traffic violation” (expired number plate), amazing what you can find out with “minor traffic violations”, it’s called good policing. I don’t think we’re in more danger as such, we’re probably more accountable which is a good thing. The flip side to that is the proliferation of edited, curated YouTube & Facebook videos showing parts of a scene/call which can be easy to take out of context. (see my response to the two videos).

Can only imagine in Tx, the 2nd biggest state, a car is the only way to get about. (Guesstimate also), would be 'walking the beat' has diminished drastically across Ire & UK, funding reduction mixed with personal safety or practicality.

Seen a couple of lads on mountain bikes (cycles) doing traffic management and very low risk community stuff, that looks ideal (in fair weather). In Ldn, the Met spent a fortune on big fancy BMWGS600 type motor-bike units, but you never hear of them being used, on moped gangs, or anything other.

See above, don’t know about the Met. and their BMW’s, we use our motors for traffic enforcement mostly.

Do you avail of Minority Report-esq pre-crime software? (Not the soon to arrive 5G-FRS), but stats or ai-algorithms. E.g. Many emergency services can allow for +5% workflow demand simply due to a weekend's 'full moon' occurring.

We, like a lot of other agencies use CompStat a programme developed by or with NYPD, can’t remember. It’s a statistical analysis of crime statistics, by time, place, population density, etc. We use it focus our efforts on a particular area or crime. For example, there was a spike in car thefts in a certain area. Using CompStat, the analysis guys were able to narrow it down to two large apartment complexes. So, for a three-week period we added extra patrols working with the auto-theft task force d

Pigs.

Danzy

Lots of pigs but where is Jesus, back of the squad car?

Danzy

Lol.

I can't quote you again.

https://youtu.be/M-wcFU5fZwY

Peregrinus

santana75 wrote: »

Reading Luke 26-39, the story of a demon possessed man.....Jesus commands the evil spirits to come out of the man but they beg him not to send them into the "Bottomless pit", but instead they ask to be sent into a herd of pigs. Jesus actually agrees to this and the pigs end up throwing themselves into a lake and drowning.
What is this about? Why would Jesus allow any concession to demons? Why not just cast them out and throw them into the so called bottomless pit? It seems like a compassionate act by Jesus, but compassion for demons, why?

Check out the version of the same story in Mk 5 (which both Lk and Mt borrow from).

Note that the possessed man (Mk has only one man, not two) goes naked (= shameful, vulnerable) and also that he lives among the tombs. In the Jewish tradition, contact with the dead is defiling, and requires ritual purification. Also, he is isolated, he is violent, he is unhappy and he self-harms.

Right. Now note the parallels when the demons go into the pigs. Pigs are also shameful and unclean. And, the pigs also go mad and self-harm.

So, the common elements here tell us something about demons. They are unclean and degrading. And, whatever they inhabit, they destroy.

In all three versions of the story, the demons recognise Jesus as the Son of God and they start by asking him "what have you to do with us"? On the face of it, this is a bit puzzling. If they recognise him as the son of God, you'd think they know what his mission is, and how it affects them. But there's a clue in Matthew's version of the story, where the demons ask "Have you come here to torment us before the time?" This refers to a belief current in Judaism at that time that evil spirits are allowed by God to afflict humanity until the time of the final judgment.

And this is why Jesus doesn't simply destroy the spirits, or exile them from the world. It is not yet the time of final judgment. He shows mercy to the possessed man by removing the spirits from him, but he leaves them acting in the world in the same unclean and destructive way that they always do. The role of the pigs in the story is to illustrate this.

And, in Luke's story, there's a further twist. Matthew's demons beg Jesus "not to send them out of the country" (i.e. the country of the Gadarenes where, we are told, these events take place). But in Luke's version they ask him "not to command them to depart into the abyss". We kind of assume that this is a reference to hell but, actually, that's not clear. It could equally refer to the place of the dead - i.e. they are asking him not to kill them. Or it can refer to the dark and chaotic watery deeps of which, according to Genesis, creation consisted until God created light, separated the waters and the dry land, etc etc as recounted in Genesis.

Either way, Jesus sends them into the pigs (which what they ask him to do) where they immediately drive the pigs mad and take them over a cliff and into the sea - i.e. down to the watery abyss which is the very place they begged not to be sent. So this underlines again the self-destructive nature of the demons (and therefore of sin) - they fear destruction, but they also choose it.

Hoboo

Pigs are shameful and unclean? Alrighty then. Shame on Jesus for hurting gods creatures.

Peregrinus

Hoboo wrote: »

Pigs are shameful and unclean? Alrighty then. Shame on Jesus for hurting gods creatures.

Pigs are shameful and unclean in the Jewish tradition, Hoboo. I'm not suggesting that anybody needs to subscribe to or agree with this tradition; just that they need to understand it if they want to understand this story. It's not really a story about pigs; it's about demons. And about Jesus.

ChrisJ84

Effects wrote: »

He was just a man of flesh and blood. This cannot be disputed.

He’s just one part of the holy trinity, the weak, flesh bound part. Christianity won’t collapse as a result of that.

Of course pigs have souls, how else could the demons have inhabited them?

The whole of Christianity for the last 2000 years disputes the assertion that Jesus was only a man! The clear message of the Bible, the final authority for Christians in matters of faith, is unambiguous in this. Mark's gospel is a good place to start, the first half is constantly asking the question "Who is this man?", culminating in the last part of chapter 8 where Peter confesses that Jesus is the Christ. The second half starts to explain the implications of who Jesus is.

Even Christian traditions with which I have profound theological disagreement (Roman Catholicism being the most obvious example) do not deny Jesus' divinity, and in fact this is a basic mark of Christianity. To deny it is simply not a viable Christian position.

On the question of pigs souls, on reflection I think we need to be agnostic - it's not something that the Bible really addresses. Animals are said to have the "breath of life" in them (Gen 7:22), but whether this means they have a soul I don't know. If they do, then we can say that it is different from ours. Equally, I don't know if this incident of demons going into the pigs was a unique occurrence or not, or what kind of living things demons could occupy, again it's simply not something that the Bible addresses.

Effects

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Even Christian traditions with which I have profound theological disagreement do not deny Jesus' divinity, and in fact this is a basic mark of Christianity. To deny it is simply not a viable Christian position.

You can be just a man of flesh and blood and still be divine.
If Jesus wasn't flesh and blood then he couldn't have been crucified.
If he wasn't divine then he couldn't have been resurrected.

Animals are said to have the "breath of life" in them (Gen 7:22), but whether this means they have a soul I don't know. If they do, then we can say that it is different from ours.

It's the same as our soul, that's been proven a number of times already.
It just doesn't behave the same way our soul does. Same way pigs don't behave the same way we do when we are alive on earth.

Heaven would be a terribly boring place if it was inhabited by only the souls of humans.

ChrisJ84

Effects wrote: »

You can be just a man of flesh and blood and still be divine.
If Jesus wasn't flesh and blood then he couldn't have been crucified.
If he wasn't divine then he couldn't have been resurrected.

Apologies, maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. Jesus is of course fully human, but also fully God. The fact that he is God means that he has absolute authority over the demons, and they have no choice but to do what and go where he commands.

Effects wrote: »

It's the same as our soul, that's been proven a number of times already.
It just doesn't behave the same way our soul does. Same way pigs don't behave the same way we do when we are alive on earth.

Heaven would be a terribly boring place if it was inhabited by only the souls of humans.

Not sure what you mean by proven, the Bible doesn't have much to say on the topic. Personally, I like the idea of there being animals, and would love to be reunited with dearly loved pets etc., but again we don't have much data to go on. Either way, I don't think anyone will be bored in the new heavens and the new earth.

Effects

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

The fact that he is God means that he has absolute authority over the demons, and they have no choice but to do what and go where he commands.

I'm not sure I believe that. If he has absolute over demons then why does he let so many of them cause destruction all over the world?

Not sure what you mean by proven, the Bible doesn't have much to say on the topic.

I mean proven scientifically. The Bible doesn't have much to say about it as it's out of date. Science and keeping of pets wasn't really popular back then.

And to be honest, humans technically evolved from pets. Humans didn't just start having souls at a certain point in our evolution.

ChrisJ84

Effects wrote: »

I'm not sure I believe that. If he has absolute over demons then why does he let so many of them cause destruction all over the world?

If Jesus is God then by definition he has absolute authority over demons, they are created. Why they are allowed to cause destruction could be expanded into a more general question, why is there any evil, suffering or pain at all? The beginning of an answer from a Christian perspective is that God is good, and that evil, suffering and pain will all cease and be completely and justly put right when Jesus returns. The time between his first and second coming, which we live in now, gives people a chance to hear the good news of the gospel and experience salvation.

Effects wrote: »

I mean proven scientifically. The Bible doesn't have much to say about it as it's out of date. Science and keeping of pets wasn't really popular back then.

And to be honest, humans technically evolved from pets. Humans didn't just start having souls at a certain point in our evolution.

Science has proven the existence of the soul? I don't think so, as that isn't a question that science can shed any light on, at least in the way the Bible defines the soul.

When reading the Bible I am regularly struck by how current it is, and am often surprised by the immediacy with which it speaks into our experience in the 21st Century. Sure, in some ways lots has changed since it was written, and we have lots of questions it doesn't address, but it tells us everything we need to know for faith and salvation.

theological

Effects wrote: »

I'm not sure I believe that. If he has absolute over demons then why does he let so many of them cause destruction all over the world?

Two things briefly. Firstly sin and it's consequences entered the world at the Fall. As humanity said no to God and disobeyed Him the consequences of sin reigned. Death also entered the world at the Fall. Christianity has a robust view as to why the world is messed up unlike atheism that only can really say "just because" or "suck it up". Genesis is the book that sets up the whole Bible and the Biblical dilemma of how can a holy God dwell with a sinful rebellious people. The Bible maintains this tension the whole way through until the cross where God's wrath is satisfied so we can be forgiven. In short read Genesis 3.

Secondly God hands us over to our sin now because the judgement hasn't come. God does discipline His people in different ways now to make them more like Jesus (Hebrews 12) but universal judgement will come when Jesus returns. God hands us over to our wickedness until that day comes (Romans 1). God puts off judgement because He longs for more people to be saved and know Christ. (2 Peter 3).

Christianity is a rich and nuanced faith of life with answers to questions of substantial depth. The Bible is an incredible book in this regard. Atheists would do well to give it a good read before disregarding it as the writing of simplistic Iron Age goat herders.

santana75

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

When reading the Bible I am regularly struck by how current it is, and am often surprised by the immediacy with which it speaks into our experience in the 21st Century. Sure, in some ways lots has changed since it was written, and we have lots of questions it doesn't address, but it tells us everything we need to know for faith and salvation.

+1000. Sometimes when I read the scriptures its almost as if Im reading about current affairs. Its amazing how humanity repeats the same destructive patterns over and over. The Israelites were led out of captivity to the wilderness. They witnessed God's miracles first hand(parting of the red sea) and yet very quickly degenerated into complaining, idolatry and sexual immorality. Rulers become corrupted by power and serve themselves not their people. The same stories repeat over and over. Society is still the same because people are still the same(corrupted by sin).

ChrisJ84

santana75 wrote: »

+1000. Sometimes when I read the scriptures its almost as if Im reading about current affairs. Its amazing how humanity repeats the same destructive patterns over and over. The Israelites were led out of captivity to the wilderness. They witnessed God's miracles first hand(parting of the red sea) and yet very quickly degenerated into complaining, idolatry and sexual immorality. Rulers become corrupted by power and serve themselves not their people. The same stories repeat over and over. Society is still the same because people are still the same(corrupted by sin).

Absolutely spot on. As someone said, it's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that worry me the most, it's the parts that I do!

branie2

Did Mark Twain say that?

Effects

branie2 wrote: »

Did Mark Twain say that?

Homer Simpson actually.

Turtwig

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Absolutely spot on. As someone said, it's not the parts of the Bible I don't understand that worry me the most, it's the parts that I do!

Personally I don't think it should worry us. Many stories in the bible are allegories for the human condition. An effective exploration of society and morality should always bear some familiarity. The bible was used to teach people ethics. Its stories then will likely always bear some relevance.

antiskeptic

Turtwig wrote: »

The bible was used to teach people ethics.

It might have been used that way. But it's own intent was to show people that they can't be taught ethics. That they are corrupt and unable to make the grade.

The law is given so that people can see they can't keep the law.

From whence the idea that folk need saving from the consequences of their corruption.

Peregrinus

antiskeptic wrote: »

It might have been used that way. But it's own intent was to show people that they can't be taught ethics. That they are corrupt and unable to make the grade.

The law is given so that people can see they can't keep the law.

From whence the idea that folk need saving from the consequences of their corruption.

Definitely not the "own intent" of the bible, most of which, remember, is a legacy of Judaism. What you are offering here as "own intent" is a reading of the texts that Christians came up with, centuries after they were written. And it's a contested interpretation; Jews, obviously, don't share it.

ChrisJ84

Peregrinus wrote: »

Definitely not the "own intent" of the bible, most of which, remember, is a legacy of Judaism. What you are offering here as "own intent" is a reading of the texts that Christians came up with, centuries after they were written. And it's a contested interpretation; Jews, obviously, don't share it.

I think you're over-egging this slightly. The whole sweep of the old testament takes humanity from fall to promised salvation - as early as Genesis 3 God promises Adam and Eve that he will send a "serpent crusher" to undo sin. The choosing of Israel and their history through the OT is moving this narrative forward - throughout we see repeated promises of a future saviour, and hints that this will overflow from Israel to the whole world.

So I would summarise by saying that both a Jewish and a Christian reading of the old testament anticipates a saviour to be sent by God - the disagreement is that Christians maintain that this saviour has already come, in the person of Jesus.

Effects

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

So I would summarise by saying that both a Jewish and a Christian reading of the old testament anticipates a saviour to be sent by God - the disagreement is that Christians maintain that this saviour has already come, in the person of Jesus.

But in modern times, there's no way the Jewish people will accept anyone that may be deemed to be that saviour.

ChrisJ84

Peregrinus wrote: »

What you are offering here as "own intent" is a reading of the texts that Christians came up with, centuries after they were written.

This isn't something Christians came up with, but in fact something Jesus himself said (Luke 24:26-27). Which brings us to the nub of the issue - are Jesus' claims credible, and is he who he claims to be? If he is, then of course he can tell us how to interpret the bible, and for that matter will have no problems with making demons enter pigs.

Effects

The problem is with the reporting of what Jesus' said. We have no way to corroborate what the bible tells us Jesus said.

Peregrinus

We shouldn't pontificate with too much authority about how Jews read the Jewish scriptures; that is after all for Jews to say. But we must acknowledge that, while Jews expect a Messiah, they expect a very different Messiah from the one that Christian believe has already come. He's not going to redeem creation, or even redeem the whole of humanity, from its fallen nature; he has the more modest ambition of being a communal leader for the Jewish people who will restore theire fidelity to their Covenant with God. Various good things will follow from this, but (a) they are mostly worldly good things (general prosperity, a reign of justice, the people of Israel become a light to other nations, that kind of thing) and (b) they are incidental; the point of the messianic reign is not to secure these advantages and benefits, but simply to promote fidelity to the Covenant - an inherently good thing that justifies itself. Thus the arc of history that Jews find in the scriptures isn't one from Fall to Redemption/Salvation, involving the whole of creation, but from infidelity to fidelity, involving the whole Jewish people.

In short, the Jewish/Christian disagreement is about much more thant the person of the saviour; it's about the whole notion of saviour, who or what he saves, and what it is that he saves from.

ChrisJ84

Effects wrote: »

But in modern times, there's no way the Jewish people will accept anyone that may be deemed to be that saviour.

I know very little about modern Judaism to be honest, but would draw a parallel.

Many people who say they are Christians or come from a Christian heritage would deny the need for a saviour, or at least a saviour as presented by the bible and the orthodox Christian faith. They would say that we are all basically good, that everyone goes to heaven etc.

Not that's fine and people can believe what they like, but we need to ask whether those beliefs stack up with what Christianity is and teaches, or whether they should properly be called something else.

ChrisJ84

Peregrinus wrote: »

We shouldn't pontificate with too much authority about how Jews read the Jewish scriptures; that is after all for Jews to say. But we must acknowledge that, while Jews expect a Messiah, they expect a very different Messiah from the one that Christian believe has already come. He's not going to redeem creation, or even redeem the whole of humanity, from its fallen nature; he has the more modest ambition of being a communal leader for the Jewish people who will restore theire fidelity to their Covenant with God. Various good things will follow from this, but (a) they are mostly worldly good things (general prosperity, a reign of justice, the people of Israel become a light to other nations, that kind of thing) and (b) they are incidental; the point of the messianic reign is not to secure these advantages and benefits, but simply to promote fidelity to the Covenant - an inherently good thing that justifies itself. Thus the arc of history that Jews find in the scriptures isn't one from Fall to Redemption/Salvation, involving the whole of creation, but from infidelity to fidelity, involving the whole Jewish people.

In short, the Jewish/Christian disagreement is about much more thant the person of the saviour; it's about the whole notion of saviour, who or what he saves, and what it is that he saves from.

Agreed, it is more complex than the mere fact of whether Jesus is the messiah or not. My point is that the Christian reading of the old testament is coherent and consistent.

Effects

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Not that's fine and people can believe what they like, but we need to ask whether those beliefs stack up with what Christianity is and teaches, or whether they should properly be called something else.

What do you expect with the examples they are given?

The upper echelons of the Catholic church preach from palaces, worship gold, false gods and power over everything else.

realdanbreen

I've asked this question before but never got a straight answer.

Humans are on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years so therefore why would God only decide to send his son, Jesus, to earth only 2000 or so years ago? What became of the billions of humans who lived and died before God sent his son to spread the word?

Effects

realdanbreen wrote: »

I've asked this question before but never got a straight answer.

Humans are on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years so therefore why would God only decide to send his son, Jesus, to earth only 2000 or so years ago? What became of the billions of humans who lived and died before God sent his son to spread the word?

Well there's only two things that could have happened.

God created the world, and started the ball rolling in terms of evolution.
He then stepped back to see what his creation would become. He had no idea how man was going to turn out.

The other option is that, again, he started the process of evolution, but he knew exactly how Homo Sapiens was going to evolve and become the dominant species of the genus Homo.

In either case, God knew that he had to wait until the right time to introduce his son Jesus to the world, to be born of a fallen woman, Mary.
Mary was most certainly not a virgin, but this narrative fits the misogynistic views of the bible/catholic church.

To add to your question, I think it's more important to discuss when souls became existent. Did god only introduce them with homo sapiens, or do earlier precursors to modern humans have them?
Do they go to the same heaven as we do, or is it a different existence?

realdanbreen

Effects wrote: »

Well there's only two things that could have happened.

God created the world, and started the ball rolling in terms of evolution.
He then stepped back to see what his creation would become. He had no idea how man was going to turn out.

The other option is that, again, he started the process of evolution, but he knew exactly how Homo Sapiens was going to evolve and become the dominant species of the genus Homo.

In either case, God knew that he had to wait until the right time to introduce his son Jesus to the world, to be born of a fallen woman, Mary.
Mary was most certainly not a virgin, but this narrative fits the misogynistic views of the bible/catholic church.

To add to your question, I think it's more important to discuss when souls became existent. Did god only introduce them with homo sapiens, or do earlier precursors to modern humans have them?
Do they go to the same heaven as we do, or is it a different existence?

So if the humans that lived and died pre Jesus arriving are gone to heaven then did we not get the short straw insofar as we can end up in hell?

Peregrinus

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Agreed, it is more complex than the mere fact of whether Jesus is the messiah or not. My point is that the Christian reading of the old testament is coherent and consistent.

Oh, sure, I wouldn't disagree. But I think we have to acknowledge that it's a reading that is heavily influenced by (a) faith in Jesus Christ, and our reflections on the implication of that faith, and (b) reading the Jewish scriptures together with, and in the light of, the New Testament texts. And, obviously, these are factors which were not at work, cannot have been at work, when the OT scriptures were produced, and when they were first received as inspired scripture.

So, Christian readings of the OT texts are driven by something outside the OT texts themselves. Which doesn't in any way invalidate those readings, or make them incoherent or inconsistent. It just means we can't claim that the Christian readings reflect the texts' "own intent", which is the claim I came in to argue with. I think Jewish readings of the OT texts have a much better claim to reflect the "own intent" of those texts than Christian readings do.

Peregrinus

realdanbreen wrote: »

I've asked this question before but never got a straight answer.

Humans are on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years so therefore why would God only decide to send his son, Jesus, to earth only 2000 or so years ago? What became of the billions of humans who lived and died before God sent his son to spread the word?

The Christian view is that the sacrifice of Christ is for the redemption of the whole of humanity. There is no distinction between those who lived and died before Jesus's time, Jesus's contemporaries, or those who came after.

gozunda

Effects wrote: »

Well there's only two things that could have happened.

God created the world, and started the ball rolling in terms of evolution.
He then stepped back to see what his creation would become. He had no idea how man was going to turn out.

The other option is that, again, he started the process of evolution, but he knew exactly how Homo Sapiens was going to evolve and become the dominant species of the genus Homo.

In either case, God knew that he had to wait until the right time to introduce his son Jesus to the world, to be born of a fallen woman, Mary.
Mary was most certainly not a virgin, but this narrative fits the misogynistic views of the bible/catholic church.

To add to your question, I think it's more important to discuss when souls became existent. Did god only introduce them with homo sapiens, or do earlier precursors to modern humans have them?
Do they go to the same heaven as we do, or is it a different existence?

Why would mary have been a 'fallen woman'?

realdanbreen

Peregrinus wrote: »

The Christian view is that the sacrifice of Christ is for the redemption of the whole of humanity. There is no distinction between those who lived and died before Jesus's time, Jesus's contemporaries, or those who came after.

But the people who lived before Jesus arrival never heard the word of God so can't have been judged in the same way as those who did hear the word of God. So if you happen to believe in heaven and hell then the early humans got the better deal?

Peregrinus

realdanbreen wrote: »

But the people who lived before Jesus arrival never heard the word of God so can't have been judged in the same way as those who did hear the word of God. So if you happen to believe in heaven and hell then the early humans got the better deal?

We can't say that they never heard the word of God; only that they never heard the word of God (a) in the person of Jesus Christ (b) during their own earthly lives. The Christian tradition is that Jesus preached salvation to the dead also, and they had the same opportunity to respond as the rest of humanity; you just didn't observe it because you weren't dead at the time. Google the "harrowing of hell' for artistic representations of this theological concept.

realdanbreen

Peregrinus wrote: »

We can't say that they never heard the word of God; only that they never heard the word of God (a) in the person of Jesus Christ (b) during their own earthly lives. The Christian tradition is that Jesus preached salvation to the dead also, and they had the same opportunity to respond as the rest of humanity; you just didn't observe it because you weren't dead at the time. Google the "harrowing of hell' for artistic representations of this theological concept.

I'm afraid when it all starts getting a little fuzzy like this that is when I get even more sceptical about the whole thing.. Let me pose another simple question. About say 60 years ago the seminaries were overflowing with guys who had received a 'calling or vocation' from God to become priests( mind you the vast majority of these callings were received by sons of big farmers and businessmen). Why is God not sending out these 'callings' today?

Peregrinus

You're making two assumptions there, Dan. The first is that, 60 years ago, the people who thought they had a calling to the priesthood did in fact have a calling to the priesthood. The second is that, today, people who don't discern a calling to the priesthood aren't in fact called to the priesthood.

I myself am a little more sceptical than you, because I'm not prepared to make either of those assumptions.

realdanbreen

Peregrinus wrote: »

You're making two assumptions there, Dan. The first is that, 60 years ago, the people who thought they had a calling to the priesthood did in fact have a calling to the priesthood. The second is that, today, people who don't discern a calling to the priesthood aren't in fact called to the priesthood.

I myself am a little more sceptical than you, because I'm not prepared to make either of those assumptions.

It's fierce early in the morning for me to be getting my head around this Pere.
I suppose I should cut to the chase. As a young fella growing up I had a faith/belief in the existence of God as most of my peers had. Now as I've grown older I am a little less inclined to have that faith/belief. Would you, or other posters here, feel much the same?

Peregrinus

I think pretty well everyone who has grown older has a different faith or belief from the one they had as a youth; that comes with the territory of growing up.

And one of the things I notice - don't take this personally; it's not a dig at you or at anyone in particular - is that a lot of atheist critiques of faith are framed as critiques of a very childish, simplistic faith. This is partly because (a) it's easy to critique; it's like shooting fish in a barrel, but possibly also because (b) what they are actually critiquing is their own childish faith that they rejected when they stopped being children, because that's the form of faith they are most familiar with.

No doubt there are adult believers who still hold a very child-like, simple faith. I could name one or two. But it's not typical, or normal. Your question about vocations assumed that all the vocations in the 1950s were genuine spiritual vocations (and had nothing to do with, e.g., the social capital that priesthood represented at the time; the limited other opportunities that people had) and that the current lack of vocations is simply the result of God not calling people, and is not influenced by other factors. I doubt that many adult Christians believe either of those things, so your question doesn't really pose much of a challenge to their faith.