![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2020\/01\/JesusDemoniacs.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Atheist and anti-theist\u00a0Bob Seidensticker<\/a>,\u00a0who was\u00a0\u201craised Presbyterian\u201d<\/a>,\u00a0runs the influential\u00a0Cross Examined<\/em><\/a>\u00a0blog. He asked me there,\u00a0on 8-11-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cI\u2019ve got 1000+ posts here attacking your worldview. You just going to let that stand? Or could you present a helpful new perspective that I\u2019ve ignored on one or two of those posts?\u201d<\/span>\u00a0He also made a general statement\u00a0on 6-22-17<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cChristians\u2019 arguments are easy to refute . . . I\u2019ve heard the good stuff, and it\u2019s not very good.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>He added\u00a0in the combox<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIf I\u2019ve misunderstood the Christian position or Christian arguments, point that out. Show me where I\u2019ve mischaracterized them.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Such confusion would indeed be\u00a0predictable<\/em>, seeing that Bob himself admitted\u00a0(2-13-16<\/a>):\u00a0\u201cMy study of the Bible has been haphazard, and I jump around based on whatever I\u2019m researching at the moment.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0I\u2019m always one to oblige people\u2019s wishes if I am able, so I decided to do a series of posts in reply.\u00a0It\u2019s also been said,\u00a0\u201cbe careful what you wish for.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0\u00a0If Bob responds to this post, and makes me aware of it, his reply will be added to the end along with my counter-reply. If you don\u2019t see that, rest assured that he either\u00a0hasn\u2019t<\/em>\u00a0replied, or didn\u2019t\u00a0inform<\/em>\u00a0me that he did.\u00a0But don\u2019t hold your breath.<\/p>\n Bob (for the record) virtually\u00a0begged<\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0pleaded<\/em>\u00a0with me to dialogue with him in May 2018, via email. But by\u00a010-3-18<\/a>,\u00a0following\u00a0massive, childish name-calling attacks<\/a>\u00a0against me,\u00a0 encouraged by Bob on his blog (just prior to his\u00a0banning<\/em>\u00a0me from it), his opinion was as follows:\u00a0\u201cDave Armstrong . . . made it clear that a thoughtful intellectual conversation wasn\u2019t his goal. . . . [I] have no interest in what he\u2019s writing about.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n And on 10-25-18, utterly oblivious to the ludicrous irony of\u00a0his<\/em>\u00a0making the statement, Bob\u00a0wrote in a combox<\/a>\u00a0on his blog:\u00a0\u201cThe problem, it seems to me, is when someone gets these clues, like you, but ignores them. I suppose the act of ignoring could be deliberate or just out of apathy, but someone who\u2019s not a little bit driven to investigate cognitive dissonance will just stay a Christian, fat \u2018n sassy and ignorant.\u201d\u00a0<\/span>Again,\u00a0Bob mocks some Christian in his combox on\u00a010-27-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cYou can\u2019t explain it to us, you can\u2019t defend it, you can\u2019t even defend it to yourself. Defend your position or shut up about it. It\u2019s clear you have nothing.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0And again\u00a0on the same day<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cIf you can\u2019t answer the question, man up and say so.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0And on\u00a010-26-18<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cyou refuse to defend it, after being asked over and over again.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0And\u00a0again<\/a>:\u00a0\u201cYou\u2019re<\/i>\u00a0the one playing games, equivocating, and being unable to answer the challenges.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Bob\u2019s cowardly hypocrisy knows no bounds. Again,\u00a0on 6-30-19<\/a>, he was chiding someone who (very much like he himself and my 35 critiques) was (to hear\u00a0him<\/em>\u00a0tell it) not backing up his position:\u00a0\u201cSpoken like a true weasel trying to run away from a previous argument. You know, you could just say, \u2018Let me retract my previous statement of X\u2019 or something like that.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0Yeah,\u00a0Bob<\/em>\u00a0could!\u00a0\u00a0He still hasn\u2019t yet uttered one peep in reply<\/a>\u00a0to \u2014 now \u2014 35 of my critiques of his atrocious reasoning.\u00a0As of 7-9-19<\/a>, this is how Bob absurdly rationalizes his non-response to these 35 articles:\u00a0\u201cHe\u2019s written several blog posts titled, in effect, \u2018In Which Bob Seidensticker Was Mean to Me.\u2019 Normally, I\u2019d enjoy a semi-thoughtful debate, but I\u2019m sure they weren\u2019t.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Bible-Basher Bob\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.\u00a0To find these posts, word-search \u201cSeidensticker\u201d on my\u00a0atheist page<\/a>\u00a0or search \u201cSeidensticker Folly #\u201d in my sidebar search (near the top).<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Bob\u2019s article, \u201cJesus Thought Demons Cause Disease (Doctors Disagree)\u201d<\/a> [1-3-20] is a virtual encyclopedic catalogue of lies, whoppers, distortions, misrepresentations, cynically ignoring of relevant texts, and half-truths regarding Jesus and biblical teaching. Apologists (of which I am one) dream at night about finding such articles: that we can systematically refute and dismantle, so that Christianity and the Bible can be vindicated again for the umpteenth time, and the imbecilities of anti-theist Bible-bashing atheism can be yet again exposed for what they are. This is a gift<\/em>!<\/p>\n Jesus cured disease with exorcisms. <\/span><\/p>\n Sometimes<\/em> He did. Most times that He healed did not<\/em> involve exorcisms or demons.<\/p>\n But if demons really are a cause of disease, why isn\u2019t exorcism a part of medical practice today?<\/span><\/p>\n Quite obviously (for those who aren\u2019t blinded by bigotry), because exorcism is a religiously-based ritual (confined mostly to Catholicism, within larger Christianity), not a scientific \/ medical exercise. It\u2019s not part<\/em> of science, by definition, and thus, no one would or should expect medical doctors qua<\/em> doctors to perform it, just as we wouldn\u2019t want a non-medically trained priest or pastor to perform heart surgery or to even give a simple shot.<\/p>\n That said, there are many instances of medical doctors and psychiatrists noting that they can\u2019t explain<\/em> from a scientific perspective, various phenomena that have been documented and recorded with regard to exorcisms of people who are thought to be possessed by a demon or demons (i.e., those who believe in faith that demons exist \u2014 as part of historic Christian belief \u2014 , think that they are in play in these cases). They are honest (and in effect, also humble) about their limitation of knowledge.<\/p>\n William Friedkin, director of the famous 1973 film, The Exorcist<\/em>, wrote an article in Vanity Fair<\/em>\u00a0(10-31-16)<\/a>, in which he noted the opinions of eminent doctors and psychiatrists about exorcism:<\/p>\n Dr. Neil Martin is chief of neurosurgery at the UCLA Medical Center. He has performed more than 5,000 brain surgeries and is regularly cited as in the top 1 percent of his specialty. On August 3, I showed him the video of Rosa\u2019s exorcism. This is his response: \u201cAbsolutely amazing. There\u2019s a major force at work within her somehow. I don\u2019t know the underlying origin of it. She\u2019s not separated from the environment. She\u2019s not in a catatonic state. She\u2019s responding to the priest and is aware of the context. The energy she shows is amazing. The priest on the right is struggling to control her. He\u2019s holding her down, as are the others, and the sweat is dripping off his face at a time when she\u2019s not sweating. This doesn\u2019t seem to be hallucinations. She appears to be engaged in the process but resisting. You can see she has no ability to pull herself back.\u201d<\/p>\n I asked Dr. Martin if this was some kind of brain disorder. \u201cIt doesn\u2019t look like schizophrenia or epilepsy,\u201d he said. \u201cIt could be delirium, an agitated disconnection from normal behavior. But the powerful verbalization we\u2019re hearing, that\u2019s not what you get with delirium. With delirium you see the struggling, maybe the yelling, but this guttural voice seems like it\u2019s coming from someplace else. I\u2019ve done thousands of surgeries, on brain tumors, traumatic brain injuries, ruptured brain aneurysms, infections affecting the brain, and I haven\u2019t seen this kind of consequence from any of those disorders. This goes beyond anything I\u2019ve ever experienced\u2014that\u2019s for certain.\u201d<\/p>\n I also showed the video to Dr. Itzhak Fried, a neurosurgeon and clinical specialist in epilepsy surgery, seizure disorder, and the study of human memory. He is based at both UCLA and the Tel-Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. This was his conclusion: \u201cIt looks like something authentic. She is like a caged animal. I don\u2019t think there\u2019s a loss of consciousness or contact, because she\u2019s in contact with the people. She appears to respond to the people who talk to her. It\u2019s a striking change in behavior. I believe everything originates in the brain. So which part of the brain could serve this type of behavior? The limbic system, which has to do with emotional processing of stimuli, and the temporal lobe. I don\u2019t see this as epilepsy. It\u2019s not necessarily a lesion. It\u2019s a physiological state. It seems to be associated with religious things. In the temporal lobe there\u2019s something called hyper-religiosity. You probably won\u2019t have this in somebody who has no religious background. Can I characterize it? Maybe. Can I treat it? No.\u201d<\/p>\n I asked Dr. Fried if he believed in God, and he took a long pause before answering: \u201cI do believe there is a limit to human understanding. Beyond this limit, I\u2019m willing to recognize an entity called God.\u201d<\/p>\n The reaction of the neurosurgeons took me by surprise. I had expected they would quickly dismiss Rosa\u2019s symptoms as madness or unintentional fraud or suggest that she might be cured by brain surgery. They did not.<\/p>\n They wouldn\u2019t come out and say, \u201cOf course this woman is possessed by Satan,\u201d but they seemed baffled as to how to define her ailment, and both agreed it was not something they would attempt to cure with surgery.<\/p>\n I was eager to pursue another path, one devoted to the treatment and prevention of mental disorder. I took the video to a group of some of the leading psychiatrists in the country, all in residence at Columbia University: Jeffrey Lieberman, director of the New York State Psychiatric Institute; Michael B. First, professor of clinical psychiatry; Roberto Lewis-Fern\u00e1ndez, president-elect of the World Association of Cultural Psychiatry; and Ryan Lawrence, M.D., assistant professor of clinical psychiatry.<\/p>\n After showing the Columbia psychiatrists the video on a 36-inch screen, they had an open discussion about it for an hour and a half. . . .<\/p>\n I went to these doctors to try to get a rational, scientific explanation for what I had experienced. I thought they\u2019d say, \u201cThis is some sort of psychosomatic disorder having nothing to do with possession.\u201d That\u2019s not what I came away with. Forty-five years after I directed\u00a0The Exorcist<\/em>, there\u2019s more acceptance of the possibility of possession than there was when I made the film.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Note that Friedkin himself characterizes his philosophical \/ religious view as \u201cagnostic\u201d in the article. He has no \u201cChristian agenda.\u201d<\/p>\n The Bible records Jesus performing<\/span>\u00a0seven distinct exorcisms<\/a>\u00a0(sometimes repeated between the gospels). The most famous may be the Gerasene demoniac, a man possessed by many demons. Jesus cured him by expelling the demons into pigs, which then drowned.<\/span><\/p>\n Some of the sick people in these exorcism stories had what we would probably diagnose as mental illness, but some illnesses were physical. For example, Jesus healed a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute (Matthew 12:22\u201332).<\/span><\/p>\n These things can be mixed together. For example, a person could suffer from any number of physical maladies, and also from schizophrenia. The same person might eventually become demon-possessed. The presence of the latter doesn\u2019t instantly wipe out the two former conditions. These aren\u2019t \u201ceither\/or\u201d propositions. Doctors and psychiatrists also point out that diagnosis is often a very complex, tricky process.<\/p>\n Moreover, it can\u2019t be absolutely denied (granting the existence of a devil and demons) that these evil forces may have some interference or causative influence on mental illness, generally speaking, or broadly considered. In Christian belief, demons love to make human beings miserable and to lead them away from happiness and fulfillment, and away from God. Mental illness is no picnic for anyone to experience.<\/p>\n So it\u2019s possible to conceive<\/em> that the devil and\/or demons contribute in some<\/em> way to the whole process, even short of visible manifestations deemed to be \u201cpossession.\u201d But I\u2019m simply speculating here and thinking out loud. Christians are not nearly as arbitrarily limited and bound as atheists, in terms of eliminating possibilities form the outset. We\u2019re far more open-minded and willing to follow evidence (of all sorts) where it leads.<\/p>\n To make the picture more complicated still, one final category of illness is that caused by sin. Jesus cured the invalid at the pool of Bethesda (John 5:1\u201316) and cautioned him, \u201cSee, you are well again.\u00a0Stop sinning or something worse may happen to you.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I think it\u2019s self-evident and indisputable that sometimes<\/em>\u00a0(not all<\/em> the time: either biblically or scientifically) sickness can be adversely influenced<\/em> by sinful (and\/or \u201cunhealthy\u201d) behavior. Two brief examples will suffice to demonstrate this:<\/p>\n 1) a person who keeps drinking to the point of alcoholism (the biblical sin of \u201cdrunkenness\u201d) will eventually develop a much greater likelihood of contracting\u00a0cirrhosis of the liver<\/a>.<\/p>\n 2) People who habitually worry too much (the biblical lack of faith or excessive anxiety) \u2014 or react<\/em> to stress in unhealthy ways \u2014 can develop any number of debilitating conditions, such as high blood pressure<\/a> or heart disease<\/a>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It\u2019s also well-known and utterly uncontroversial that various states of mind or emotions<\/a> can affect physical health.\u00a0Solomon understood this in several of his Proverbs: written around 950 BC (Prov 14:30; 15:30; 16:24; 17:22).<\/p>\n Sin and illness are also connected in the story of the paralyzed man lowered through the roof (Mark 2:1\u201312) and when Jesus\u2019s disciples asked about a blind man, \u201cWho sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?\u201d (John 9:1\u20137).<\/span><\/p>\n What Bible-Basher Bob deliberately ignores in the latter passage, is that it refutes<\/em> his effort to pretend that the Bible wants to always or usually connect disease with sin. Jesus here expressly denied that the man\u2019s blindness was caused by sin:<\/p>\n John 9:3<\/strong> (RSV)\u00a0Jesus answered, \u201cIt was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n He reiterated the same thought at another time:<\/p>\n Luke 13:1-5<\/strong>\u00a0There were some present at that very time who told him of the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices.\u00a0[2] And he answered them, \u201cDo you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans, because they suffered thus?\u00a0[3] I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.\u00a0[4] Or those eighteen upon whom the tower in Silo\u2019am fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who dwelt in Jerusalem?\u00a0[5] I tell you, No; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This sin\/disease connection comes from the Old Testament. In the book of Job, Job\u2019s friends assured him that his difficult situation must\u2019ve been caused by his own sin, since God wouldn\u2019t inflict this without cause.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is ludicrous. That book does not<\/em> teach that Job was afflicted because of his sin. This was only the jaded, false view of the notorious group known to posterity as \u201cJob\u2019s comforters.\u201d The overall thrust of the book \u2014 indeed, its central message \u2014 is quite to the contrary. I dealt with similar questions in refuting atheist David Madison<\/a>:<\/p>\n God describes Job: \u201cthere is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, who fears God and turns away from evil\u201d (1:8; cf. 2:3). Yet the entire book is about his extreme sufferings. Obviously, the teaching and \u201cmoral\u201d of that book is not that he suffered\u00a0because<\/em>\u00a0of his sins, but rather, in a state of extraordinary\u00a0holiness<\/em>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The comforters and Job himself were roundly rebuked by God at the end of the book, for their lack of faith and their extreme presumption:<\/p>\n Job 38:2-5<\/strong>\u00a0\u201cWho is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?\u00a0[3] Gird up your loins like a man,\u00a0I will question you, and you shall declare to me.\u00a0[4] \u201cWhere were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?\u00a0Tell me, if you have understanding.\u00a0[5] Who determined its measurements \u2014 surely you know! . . .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Etc., etc.<\/p>\n Moses lectured Israel that they\u2019d better follow all of God\u2019s commands. Of the many curses they would receive if they didn\u2019t, \u201cThe LORD will plague you with diseases\u201d (Deuteronomy 28:15\u201322).<\/span><\/p>\n But this is the judgment of God, which is a special case. It doesn\u2019t establish that there is a direct causal connection of sin every time there is illness and sickness or any kind of malady. This connection was expressly denied<\/em> by Jesus in John 9:3 and Luke 13:1-5 (above). Moreover, the lack of such a universal connection is shown in the Old testament dietary laws and other observances: given by God to the Jews. I demonstrated at length (in response to Dr. David Madison elsewhere<\/a>) that the principles of germs, related to disease, and hygiene, were present in the Old Testament, long before they were discovered by modern science. I cite this paper of mine:<\/p>\n The\u00a0Bible Ask<\/em>\u00a0site has an article,\u00a0\u201cDid the Bible teach the germs theory?\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(5-30-16):<\/p>\n The Bible writers did not write a medical textbook. However, there are numerous rules for sanitation, quarantine, and other medical procedures (found in the first 5 book of the OT) . . .<\/p>\n Had the medical community paid attention to God\u2019s instructions that were given 3000 years before, many lives would have been saved. The Lord gave the Israelites hygienic principles against the contamination of germs and taught the necessity to quarantine the sick (Numbers 19:11-12<\/a>). And the book of Leviticus lists a host of diseases and ways where a person would come in contact with germs (Leviticus 13:46<\/a>).<\/p>\n Germs were no new discovery in 1847. And for this fact, Roderick McGrew testified in the\u00a0Encyclopedia of Medical History<\/em><\/a>: \u201cThe idea of contagion was foreign to the classic medical tradition and found no place in the voluminous Hippocratic writings. The Old Testament, however, is a rich source for contagionist sentiment, especially in regard to leprosy and venereal disease\u201d (1985, pp. 77-78). . . .<\/p>\n 1. The Bible contained instructions for the Israelites to wash their bodies and clothes\u00a0in running water<\/em>\u00a0if they had a discharge, came in contact with someone else\u2019s discharge, or had touched a dead body. They were also instructed about objects that had come into contact with dead things, and about purifying items with an unknown history with either fire or running water. They were also taught to bury human waste outside the camp, and to burn animal waste (Num 19:3-22;<\/a>Lev. 11:1-47<\/a>;\u00a015:1-33;<\/a>Deut 23:12<\/a>). . . .<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0It was\u00a0not until 1873<\/a>\u00a0that leprosy was shown to be an infectious disease rather than hereditary.\u00a0Of course, the laws of Moses already were aware of that\u00a0<\/span>(Lev 13, 14,\u00a022;\u00a0Num 19:20<\/a>). It contains instructions\u00a0<\/span>about quarantine and about quarantined persons needing to\u00a0thoroughly shave and wash. Priests who cared for them also were instructed to change their clothes and wash thoroughly.\u00a0The Israelites were the only culture to practice quarantine until the 19th century, when medical advances discovered the biblical medical principles and practices.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0Hippocrates, the \u201cfather of medicine\u201d (born 460 BC), thought \u201cbad air\u201d from swampy areas was the cause of disease.<\/p>\n See also:\u00a0\u201cOld Testament Laws About Infectious Diseases.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n The\u00a0entry on \u201cHealth\u201d<\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0Baker\u2019s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology<\/em>\u00a0reveals that ordinary medicinal remedies were widely practiced in Bible times. There wasn\u2019t\u00a0solely<\/em>\u00a0a belief that sin or demons caused all disease (as Bob often implies in his anti-Christian writings, and in this paper:\u00a0\u201cAccording to the Bible, evil spirits cause disease.\u201d). There was also a natural cause-and-effect understanding:<\/p>\n Ordinary means of healing were of most diverse kinds. Balm (\u00a0Gen 37:25<\/a>\u00a0) is thought to have been an aromatic resin (or juice) with healing properties; oil was the universal emollient (\u00a0Isa 1:6<\/a>\u00a0), and was sometimes used for wounds with cleansing wine (\u00a0Luke 10:34<\/a>\u00a0). Isaiah recommended a fig poultice for a boil (\u00a038:21<\/a>\u00a0); healing springs and saliva were thought effectual (\u00a0Mark 8:23<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a0John 5<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a09:6-7<\/a>\u00a0). Medicine is mentioned (\u00a0Prov 17:22<\/a>\u00a0) and defended as \u201csensible\u201d ( Sirach 38:4). Wine mixed with myrrh was considered sedative (\u00a0Mark 15:23<\/a>\u00a0); mint, dill, and cummin assisted digestion (\u00a0Matt 23:23<\/a>\u00a0); other herbs were recommended for particular disorders. Most food rules had both ritual and dietary purposes, while raisins, pomegranates, milk, and honey were believed to assist restoration. . . .<\/p>\n Luke\u2019s constant care of Paul reminds us that nonmiraculous means of healing were not neglected in that apostolic circle. Wine is recommended for Timothy\u2019s weak stomach, eye-salve for the Thyatiran church\u2019s blindness (metaphorical, but significant).<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n All of this establishes beyond doubt that the Bible is not \u201canti-scientific\u201d. It doesn\u2019t contradict<\/em> the findings of science as we know them today. Nor is it fundamentally opposed to scientific inquiry and a reasoned approach to alleviation of physical maladies. And we have to somehow explain how the ancient Jews (though \u201cpre-scientific\u201d as opposed to, for example, the ancient Greeks), were able to obtain such remarkable knowledge regarding contagious disease over 3000 years before modern science figured it out. We explain it by supernatural revelation form God. And what alternate<\/em> explanation is there?<\/p>\n And it demonstrates (our immediate purpose in this paper) how the biblical understanding of afflictions and disease is predominantly natural<\/em>\u00a0(natural causation, ruled by the laws of nature and science), while not ruling out other<\/em> (or additional \/ multiple) causes in some<\/em> cases, such as demons and God\u2019s judgment or permissive will (as the case may be).<\/p>\n I see three explanations.<\/span><\/p>\n The Christian might argue that the Bible is accurate and that some diseases were caused by demons and others by sin. However, it doesn\u2019t work that way today, and now all illness has an organic cause.<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019ve already shown how medical doctors and psychiatrists cannot<\/em> explain instances that Christians would characterize as demon possession. So in those cases, they do not<\/em> know the \u201corganic cause.\u201d<\/span> They can\u2019t explain it by present scientific knowledge and are honest enough to admit it. That is a truly agnostic and neutral, objective position; whereas on the other hand, an atheist like Bob would simply dogmatically deny<\/em> that any supernatural explanation could possibly<\/em> be correct. He can\u2019t prove<\/em> that. It\u2019s a matter of blind faith for him: made necessary by his prior atheism and epistemologically outlandish belief that no miracle or supernatural occurrence could ever<\/em> possibly happen anywhere<\/em>.<\/p>\n To say, \u201cwe simply don\u2019t know [according to science]\u201d is vastly different from saying, \u201cdemon possession can\u2019t possibly be the explanation, in any possible universe.\u201d The first outlook recognizes its own ignorance and limitations (something Socrates praised and advocated). The second is equal parts intellectually arrogant and pretentious, and ludicrous. We shouldn\u2019t pretend to know what we do not know.<\/p>\n This, of course, is stated without evidence. The Bible doesn\u2019t say this. <\/span><\/p>\n Yes, that\u2019s correct. Once in a blue moon, Bob gets it right. The Bible never states that demonic activity would cease over time. People simply stopped believing in it, at the same time, they stopped believing in any number of Christian beliefs. It\u2019s a function of the general loss of faith, that can happen over centuries in formerly Christian cultures and societies.<\/p>\n The naturalistic explanation, as usual, is sufficient: we have categories labeled Pseudoscience and Mythology for stories like these.<\/span><\/p>\n It wasn\u2019t sufficient for the neurosurgeons and psychiatrists interviewed by agnostic film director William Friedkin: documented above. They were intellectually honest and didn\u2019t have a cynical agenda, like Bob does. So they are objective, whereas Bob is not at all.<\/p>\n This is what faith healers like Benny Hinn would tell us. I\u2019d be more convinced by his claims if he weren\u2019t taking money from desperate people who have exhausted conventional medicine or if he were magically curing people in hospitals or if he convinced skeptics like James Randi.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s what the Bible, Jesus, and Christianity teach, and we continue to observe people acting very strange, in a way that is not inconsistent with the hypothesis of demon possession. Christian belief is not confined to faith healers (real or so-called), and belief in demons does not depend on folks who are \u201ctaking money\u201d<\/span> (often unethically) from (in many cases) dupes. Bob does the old polemical trick of collapsing a belief-system into only the belief of lunatics, bad people, and other questionable characters. To say, \u201cx<\/em> is untrue because bad character y<\/em> believes it\u201d is merely the genetic fallacy (with a dose of good ol\u2019 ad hominem<\/em> thrown in), and of no explanatory or persuasive value. This is what he routinely does with Christians and the Bible. He\u2019s a bigot, and a highly ignorant and obnoxious one to boot.<\/p>\n Different New Testament authors handled exorcisms and cures differently.<\/span><\/p>\n Now Bob will attempt to play the game of pitting biblical authors against each other, and I will shoot it down and expose the illogical and untrue nature of this pseudo-argument, built upon suspicious and factually untrue false premises.<\/p>\n The gospel of John had plenty of miracles but no exorcisms.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus refers to demons, when He was asked if He was possessed by one Himself (Jn 8:48): \u201cI have not a demon\u201d (Jn 8:49). Note that He doesn\u2019t say, \u201cthere is no such thing<\/em> as a demon.\u201d He denies that He is possessed<\/em> by one, while assuming that it is possible<\/em> (therefore, deductively, that a removal<\/em> of one, or exorcism, is also<\/em> possible). Jesus also expressly accepts the existence of the devil (Satan):<\/p>\n John 8:44\u00a0<\/strong>You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father\u2019s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is an important expression of New Testament belief in Satan. The author \/ narrator refers to \u201cthe devil\u201d (Jn 13:2) and states that \u201cSatan entered into\u201d Judas Iscariot (Jn 13:27), and Jesus (Jn 6:70-71) calls Judas \u201ca devil\u201d (i.e., a demon; in context, \u201cone whose actions are controlled or dominated or inspired by a demon or the devil\u201d). Thus, supernatural evil spirits (demons) and Satan, who leads them, are hardly absent from the Gospel of John. And possession is referred to. Thus, exorcism is implicitly acknowledged (in complete harmony with the data in the other three Gospels).<\/p>\n Paul has\u00a0no<\/em>\u00a0mention of healings;\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This is untrue:<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 12:9<\/b>\u00a0to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of\u00a0<\/b>healing by the one Spirit,<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 12:<\/b>28<\/b>\u00a0And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then\u00a0<\/b>healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n St. Paul mentions his own supernatural conversion (i.e., a spiritual healing) and subsequent healing of his supernaturally-induced blindness, as recorded in the book of Acts:<\/p>\n Acts 22:6-13<\/strong> \u201cAs I made my journey and drew near to Damascus, about noon a great light from heaven suddenly shone about me.\u00a0[7] And I fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to me, `Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?\u2019\u00a0[8] And I answered, `Who are you, Lord?\u2019 And he said to me, `I am Jesus of Nazareth whom you are persecuting.\u2019\u00a0[9] Now those who were with me saw the light but did not hear the voice of the one who was speaking to me.\u00a0[10] And I said, `What shall I do, Lord?\u2019 And the Lord said to me, `Rise, and go into Damascus, and there you will be told all that is appointed for you to do.\u2019\u00a0[11] And when I could not see because of the brightness of that light, I was led by the hand by those who were with me, and came into Damascus.\u00a0[12] \u201cAnd one Anani\u2019as, a devout man according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there, [13] came to me, and standing by me said to me, `Brother Saul, receive your sight.\u2019 And in that very hour I received my sight and saw him.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n St. Paul also referred to a miraculous vision that he had experienced:<\/p>\n 2 Corinthians 12:1-7\u00a0<\/strong>I must boast; there is nothing to be gained by it, but I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord.\u00a0[2] I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven \u2014 whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows.\u00a0[3] And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise \u2014 whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows \u2014\u00a0[4] and he heard things that cannot be told, which man may not utter.\u00a0[5] On behalf of this man I will boast, but on my own behalf I will not boast, except of my weaknesses.\u00a0[6] Though if I wish to boast, I shall not be a fool, for I shall be speaking the truth. But I refrain from it, so that no one may think more of me than he sees in me or hears from me.\u00a0[7] And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Moreover, Acts records that he healed several people:<\/p>\n Acts 28:8-9\u00a0<\/strong>It happened that the father of Publius lay sick with fever and dysentery; and Paul visited him and prayed, and putting his hands on him healed him.\u00a0[9] And when this had taken place, the rest of the people on the island who had diseases also came and were cured.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n . . . and that he did other miracles, and \u201cindirect\u201d healings (including exorcisms):<\/p>\n Acts 19:11-12<\/strong> And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul,\u00a0<\/strong>[12] so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n in fact, Paul mentions no Jesus miracles of any sort.<\/span><\/p>\n This is also massively untrue. St. Paul repeatedly refers to Jesus rising from the dead. Jesus said that this was a miracle that He Himself performed:<\/p>\n John 2:19-21\u00a0<\/strong>Jesus answered them, \u201cDestroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.\u201d\u00a0[20] The Jews then said, \u201cIt has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?\u201d\u00a0[21] But he spoke of the temple of his body.<\/p>\n John 10:17-18<\/strong> \u201cFor this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life, that I may take it again.\u00a0[18] No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again; this charge I have received from my Father.\u201d<\/p>\nWhere does disease come from?<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
1. Demons\/sin caused disease in the time of Jesus but not today<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
2. Demons\/sin caused disease 2000 years ago, and that\u2019s still true today<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n
3. Demons\/sin never caused disease, and the gospels are simply the product of a prescientific time<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n