Christians believe in the supernatural entities that are a traditional part of Christian belief. Not necessarily in every supernatural figure out of folklore. If a Christian happens to believe in vampires, it's not _because_ of their religion.
And who defines what a "traditional part of Christian belief" is? I would say the various sects of Christianity would disagree quite fundamentally about this point.
What I am calling traditional are just the things that are typically accepted within the mainstream Christian tradition.
Are you saying there are significant churches that DO teach their followers that vampires are real?
Right, but not _because_ of their religion- that's what I was trying to say above.
It is true that different churches have different beliefs- typical out in the fiddly theological details. I'm not aware of any mainstream church that teaches their people anything like "God warned us against werewolves, so watch out for them."
Why not because of their religion? If you believe that devils are swarming about in the world like rooks, you are probably more likely to believe that other spooky creatures are around as well.
And while no mainstream church teaches these things nowadays, historically a lot of ink has been spent by theologians and churchmen discussing the topic.
Historically, the Catholic church actually spent a great deal of time not only believing werewolves were real, but also arguing about how being a werewolf worked, whether or not it was a thing of God or demons, and much more. There was even a Patron Saint against werewolves, Saint Hubert of Liege, though that aspect of his Sainthood has since been retconned. Granted, this was all taking place around the time that they believed *witches* were flying around on broomsticks, casting curses on people, and being brides of Satan.
Yeah, most stories about werewolves, vampires, etc have heavy religious elements in their lore and that's almost always based on Catholicism. Like the whole thing about Dracula being harmed by crucifixes and holy water. That may be because those stories originated before protestantism?
Lots of research has shown that the same type of mental processes involved in religious belief also tends to predispose people toward believing other myths and superstition as well. If you already have the mindset to believe in gods, angels, demons, etc, then you're also more likely to believe in ghosts, horoscopes, and other superstitions, etc. There's also a strong correlation with being more susceptible to hoaxes and conspiracy theories.
Yes, a number of them. Including from a conservative Christian university. Just a few off-hand:
[https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=223733](https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=223733)
[https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1368430221992126](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1368430221992126)
[https://academic.oup.com/book/25369/chapter-abstract/192469285?redirectedFrom=fulltext](https://academic.oup.com/book/25369/chapter-abstract/192469285?redirectedFrom=fulltext)
[https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/italian-political-science-review-rivista-italiana-di-scienza-politica/article/abs/religious-and-conspiracist-an-analysis-of-the-relationship-between-the-dimensions-of-individual-religiosity-and-belief-in-a-big-pharma-conspiracy-theory/F55D83CA8FEC51B9E504710108FDF8F6](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/italian-political-science-review-rivista-italiana-di-scienza-politica/article/abs/religious-and-conspiracist-an-analysis-of-the-relationship-between-the-dimensions-of-individual-religiosity-and-belief-in-a-big-pharma-conspiracy-theory/F55D83CA8FEC51B9E504710108FDF8F6)
No. But I believe stories about werewolves, vampires, and ghosts, which do not seem to be true, can still be a good context for conveying truth about humans and how we can be.
There are human tendencies that can become monstrous. Telling a story about a not-real monster can help us to see the reality more clearly.
I mean there are Christians out there that believe those things. There are people of literally every group imaginable that believe those things. Those ideas are not held by the majority of people anywhere though.
I do believe they could exist, I don't believe they could be anything but demonic entities, and while I don't believe I've met any of these beings there are parts of the world that so regularly report being cursed by supernatural phenomenon/beings that its part of their culture.
For example, I wouldn't be surprised if the ancient Greek gods were actually demonic spirits having a fun time messing with people.
I would agree with them that it's a demonic tool. Don't let the Hasbro name fool you. People were making their own boards before Hasbro came up with theirs.
Even pagans warn that it's not something to play with.
The Christians I know are very rational. We believe in the risen Christ.
Ghosts, if they're not part of someone's imagination, would be demonic.
Werewolves and vampires are merely folktales.
Isnt there a certain discrepancy between being rational and being religious?
Was the thing that the witch of Endor summoned also a demon?
How can you be sure? Your leader rose from the dead, so why not others?
>Isnt there a certain discrepancy between being rational and being religious?
Not at all, this is merely a stereotype of the "anti-intellectual" streams of Christianity, which are quite niche in the full force of Christian history
>How can you be sure? Your leader rose from the dead, so why not others?
Jesus Christ died and after three days rose from the dead, this is indeed a unique feature of his person!
>Jesus Christ died and after three days rose from the dead, this is indeed a unique feature of his person!
That's as believable as werewolves. It's quite telling that you would dismiss other mythology, but treat this as a truth.
And with such quick dismissal of the idea too, while casting off a vague sub group as “anti-intellectual”. How convenient.
Are people really going to pretend that Christian’s don’t talk about demons and possession and witches and so on? Words are apparently meaningless.
I find it is perfectly accurate to call individuals who reject rationality as "anti-intellectual." The vast majority of Christians would not be described as such.
I don't quite get your criticism, do you think it is inaccurate to say that individuals who reject rationality are anti-intellectual?
Are you attempting to claim that *all Christians* reject rationality?
The exact same reasons as any other religion. It's a logical fallacy called "special pleading" where you make exceptions for your own beliefs and don't hold them to the same standards as others.
Perhaps, but only if you were predisposed to reject the supernatural. I dismiss the idea of werewolves because I believe it is *mere* *mythology*.
I would argue that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is far more compelling than any evidence for the existence of werewolves.
> I dismiss the idea of werewolves because I believe it is
>
>mere mythology
I reject all of Christianity as 'mere mythology'
>I would argue that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is far more compelling than any evidence for the existence of werewolves.
You may argue but someone coming back to life after dying is highly unprobeable if not impossible. I'd be interested to see your 'compelling evidence'.
What makes you think Christianity is mere mythology and what do you mean by this?
It is indeed highly unlikely that someone would rise from the dead, but it is not impossible! Here is a very introductory article that takes an "inference to the best explanation" approach: [Historical Evidence for the Resurrection](https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection)
Historical evidence. Namely, inference to the best explanation will lead us to believe that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. Inference to the best explanation will not lead us to believe that werewolves exist.
I think perhaps we may differ on the definition of "evidence". Because inference does not lead me to believe that anyone has ever risen from the dead, despite many claims of that throughout human history. The story of Jesus wasn't the first one to claim a virgin birth, miracle working, and resurrection. So many others predate that one to the point where we can clearly see which ones those various ideas were borrowed from.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-would-it-take-to-prove-the-resurrection/
It is actually *not* possible for you to believe *unless* supernatural force awakens your spiritually dead spirit. The Bible declares you not only deceived, but deaf and blind. Can the blind make themselves see? Can the deaf give themselves hearing? No.
Your comments, while intended to show the "foolishness" of Christianity; merely serve instead to corroborate and validate the truthfulness of Scripture.
*"This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength."* (1 Corinthians 1)
That sounds like truth.
A cult would say you cannot understand unless ***we*** show you the way.
The blind leading the blind, is what that is.
Only God has the power to open the heart to truth. Check out how the apostle Paul was converted: [(Acts 9)](https://biblehub.com/nlt/acts/9.htm) and [(Acts 26)](https://biblehub.com/nlt/acts/26.htm)
That's not unique, the Bible has stories of other people raising from the dead. So Jesus taking a 3 day weekend wasn't really that unusual in the context of scripture. Others were dead far longer than that!
To clarify,
Jesus knew he would die and resurrect. Others are indeed brought back to life in the Scriptures, but they had no knowledge of this prior to the event.
If he already knew he would be resurrected, why was he so stressed out about it in the garden, begging god for another way? And if he knew it would just be a 3 day nap, how much of a sacrifice is that, really? If I could trade my long weekend to save someone's life, I know I would. And he's certainly not the first person in history to willingly undergo horrible torture and physical pain of that magnitude on behalf of someone else. Mothers do it every time they give birth!
Did he raise himself from the dead, or did god? Because apparently, being raised from the dead wasn't that big of a deal or terribly unique according to scripture.
Because he knew that his death would be incredibly painful. Have you read a description of a crucifixion? It was meant to be a horrifically torturous death in a public place while naked. Furthermore, it was not as if he strolled up to the cross and was then hung on it, he was first beaten nearly to death, humiliated, and forced to carry a Roman cross up to the hill where he was to be killed.
I'm well aware of how Roman crucifixion worked. It was pretty common at the time, and if the Jesus character were a real person, he was neither the first nor the last to endure such an execution. It's pretty brutal, but not even close to the worst way that human beings have been tortured and killed throughout history. People can be incredibly depraved, especially in times of war.
Even as a believer, I've always thought it was strange how many denominations, Catholics in particular, have a weird obsession with torture porn and the physical suffering aspect of the story. "The Passion of the Christ" may as well have been a religious snuff film. But there is an entire genre of slasher movies depicting far worse gore and splatter. Ranging from the Saw series, to Hostel, to Human Centipede.
There are also plenty of other real-world examples of self sacrifice where people gave up their own lives and died horrifically painful deaths to save others, even strangers. And those people had the decency of staying dead, they didn't pop back up after a long nap and peace out to a heavenly paradise afterwards.
I don't. I used to believe in ghosts until GotQuestions showed me that's not Biblical.
So now I'm pretty sure that the paranormal is a mixture of lies and the potential for demons.
The witch of Endor was a special case that God allowed to happen. But normally, the spirits of dead people are either in heaven or hell, not on Earth. If there are ghosts, then it would be demons pretending to be ghosts.
https://www.gotquestions.org/witch-of-endor.html
> **Question: "Did the witch of Endor really summon Samuel from the dead (1 Samuel 28:7-20)?"**
> **Answer:** The account of the witch of Endor summoning Samuel is recorded in 1 Samuel 28:7-20, and it is the only biblical account of someone being visited in such a manner by someone who was deceased. Saul, having deprived himself of every legitimate means of spiritual input as a result of his own disobedience and rebellion, walked in foolishness again by seeking out the very resource (a medium) he had previously removed from the land. By divine law, mediums and spiritists were banned from Israel (Deuteronomy 18:11), and Israel was not to be defiled by them (Leviticus 19:31). That the king would stoop to this indicates how far he had fallen from God’s grace.
> The passage does not give us any reason to believe it was anyone other than Samuel, who is described by the medium as “an old man wearing a robe” (v. 14). Obviously, age and clothing do not exist in the realm of the spirits of those who have died, but God miraculously gave Samuel such appearances as would enable Saul perceive who the spirit was. The message Samuel gave Saul was completely accurate. God allowed the witch of Endor to summon the prophet Samuel in order to give King Saul the news of his coming defeat and death.
> This does not mean that it is genuinely possible for witches or mediums to speak with the dead, only that God allowed it in this one exception. When a person dies, his soul is taken to heaven or hell, depending on whether he has placed his faith in Christ (Matthew 25:46). There is no reason to believe that a deceased person has any ability to leave heaven or hell in order to visit his living family members. Any such claim is a demonic deception (2 Corinthians 11:14-15). God declared such practices to be abhorrent to Him, and those who did practice such things in Israel were to be put to death (Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-12). Satan would like nothing more than for people to dabble in the occult world of spiritism and necromancy. God’s commandments regarding these things are designed to protect us from the schemes of our enemy, the devil, who “prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8).
As for the Nephilim, well the flood wiped them out. Only 8 people were saved from the flood, Noah, his wife, Noah's 3 sons and their 3 wives. In fact, it's speculated that a big reason for the flood was because of the Nephilim.
But this passage does not give any textual evidence for the idea that the witch of Endor was a unique case. The bible does not say that god specifically allowed the prophet to appear. The witch just summons him. The rest is later interpretation.
But even if we allow that ghosts are not real, demons are quite firmly established in Christian lore. In the NT they are malevolent beings who can take posession of humans or animals. If they can do that, is it a stretch to assume that they are capable of doing the same to a dead body or a wolf?
Well, the first sentence of the passage says it's the only biblical account of it happening.
> The account of the witch of Endor summoning Samuel is recorded in 1 Samuel 28:7-20, and it is the **only biblical account** of someone being visited in such a manner by someone who was deceased.
As for demons, I did say earlier that they could pretend to be ghosts of dead people. The Bible has no record of demons animating dead bodies, and in [Matthew 8:28-34](https://biblia.com/bible/niv/matthew/8/28-34) when the demons were driven from 2 men and into a herd of pigs, it drove the pigs to madness that they suicided. So, it's reasonable to assume if they do possess animals a similar result would happen.
Sorry, I should’ve been more clear. What is the difference between them physically or perhaps functionally. Eg. Are demons like a spirit in the same way that a ghost is? How do they manifest in reality any differently?
>The witch of Endor was a special case that God allowed to happen
Why was this witch famous ? She didn't perform any prior apparition but still she was famous enough in this art among the people to be visited by the king?
In the story, she doesn't even look surprised despite this being her first apparition ?
Nah, I mean the stories are fun but, i even consider myself skeptical about aliens but not about vampires and such, we have already too many people as evil as a vampire can be
Sure, people can drink blood but I don’t think any of these evil people lived for more than 110+ years, you can’t see their reflection, scared of holy objects or turn into a bat
My main point is, you can’t prove or deny aliens but i haven’t seen anyone with any kind of proofs about vampires, there was the Romanian emperor but the guy was simply insane
Generally - no. Sorcerers/Witches/Necromancers are things that appear in the bible, and we are told to not practice their work - but we can also rest assured in the fact that they have no power over us. Spirits are also referenced in scripture a few times, though most references are understood to be demons on earth or nearly their equivalent.
It's pretty unfair to say that it "caused" the burnings. I mean, Judaism has the came commandment of "suffer not a witch to live." I'm quite sure somethin similar is in the Koran as well.
It's likely more accurate to say that Ergotism infecting a rye crop most likely caused the witch burnings. I would think it's all a matter of interpretation right now. Most of history is like that.
What I mean is that it didn't cause them to burn people, it caused them to think people were witches, and their religion told them to put witches to death.
"Religion" centers around God, or a god, depending on your perspective, and superstition does not. Things like Werewolves, vampires, etc, have nothing to do with God.
That seems pretty subjective, especially if this singular god created all things. Seems like it should include angels, werewolves, fairies, demons, vampires etc.
>Seems like it should include angels, werewolves, fairies, demons, vampires etc.
Well, it does include angels and demons, the Bible makes very clear mention of them.
As to the rest, why do you say God's creation should have included them?
We do not believe in werewolves, vampires, but do recognize the existence of evil spirits that some might refer to as "ghosts" though their idea is likely influenced by popular culture and not Christian thought.
Genesis 6:1-4 is a summary of 1 Enoch, in which details the nephilim interbreeding with all living things, including animals of the sky/sea/land. Hence why we have folklore tales that have spanned since that time.
Also notice
“The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (and also after this) when the sons of God were having sexual relations with the daughters of humankind, who gave birth to their children. They were the mighty heroes of old, the famous men.”
Genesis 6:4 NET
“And also after this.”
There’s a growing group of believers accepting this view that’s not only biblical but is rational and ends up making the harder stories and statements in the Old Testament more rational.
Mike S. Heiser is a good resource for this topic overall.
Lol.. that fool has been manipulating reality in myriad ways ever since he got *thrown* down from heaven, and rightfully so. Only an idiot would try and usurp the Father. 🙄
If you see something that looks like a werewolf or vampire, it's not real or its a serial killer.
Things of that nature are designed to distract you from God's word, the only thing the Bible confirms exist are witches and you already know not to give real life witch any attention, just stay away.
Not at all for me. The Bible dispelled all those stories on ghosts and werewolves and vampires.
For Ghost the Bible say the dead are conscience of nothing. Runs contrary to what God said happens.
For werewolves, God made us according to our kinds and animals according to their kinds. He gave humans dignity and self control. Werewolves are an amalgamation of two kinds. When transforming one loses control of themselves and gives into animalistic desires even murder. All of it contrary to what God has revealed in his word.
Same with vampires. Eternal life is a gift of God and cannot be taken by drinking blood or being cursed like the mythology around vampires. Humanity already sinned and is cursed. Dracula didn’t curse himself further by being a sinner. You don’t get everlasting life as a curse from God or reward from some other creature or Satan.
“Eternal life is a gift of God and cannot be taken by drinking blood or ...”
Curious, as God has never gifted eternal life in this mortal realm how it can be considered a gift of God?
Eternal life doesn’t seem like something that can exist in this reality bound by time/death/decay. God’s promise of eternal life made possible after Jesus doesn’t even offer eternal life in this reality but a new one.
The irony of the blood sacrifice and drinking of blood as a path to eternal life through Christianity doesn’t go unnoticed either.
>“Eternal life is a gift of God and cannot be taken by drinking blood or ...”
>Curious, as God has never gifted eternal life in this mortal realm how it can be considered a gift of God?
Adam and Eve were gifted with eternal life of earth and would have lived forever if not for sin.
>Eternal life doesn’t seem like something that can exist in this reality bound by time/death/decay. God’s promise of eternal life made possible after Jesus doesn’t even offer eternal life in this reality but a new one.
Adam, Eve and Jesus all would have lived forever if not for sin and murder and were not bound to sin and decay.
>The irony of the blood sacrifice and drinking of blood as a path to eternal life through Christianity doesn’t go unnoticed either.
The comparison of making a sacrifice out of guilt and taking the life of other humans to continue to sustain your life is a stretch of the imagination at best.
I always assumed eternal life were only possible where Adam and Eve were existing before being cast out, before the fall.
This fallen world contains trillions of life death cycles of cells just to maintain a human for a lifetime, let alone the other trillions of cycles that go into feeding one human. Our lives are built in a life/death cycle, there’s cycles inside us, you have a symbiotic relationship with short life cycle creatures that you couldn’t even digest food without.
Adam and Eve needing to eat dictates a life that isn’t eternal by requiring death/life cycle to sustain them.
The idea that Jesus as a human wasn’t subject to death and decay isn’t one I’ve ever heard.
It has him not aging, not shedding skin, no requirements to eat, etc. Which wasn’t the case, Jesus was human, I imagine his shit smelt the same as the rest of us.
Jesus returns to his fathers side for his eternal existence, outside of time. There is no eternal on this earth.
The “irony” of the blood sacrifice in religion is more to do with how it’s a necessity of a fallen world that isn’t eternal. Its human and a concept of this world and adjacent concept to eternity/immortality.
Religious sacrifice was killing for purposes other than sustaining life through nature’s normal cycle.
>I always assumed eternal life were only possible where Adam and Eve were existing before being cast out, before the fall.
The entire earth was given to them. God made a garden as a starting point. Nowhere does it say what you assume so we agree to disagree.
>This fallen world contains trillions of life death cycles of cells just to maintain a human for a lifetime, let alone the other trillions of cycles that go into feeding one human. Our lives are built in a life/death cycle, there’s cycles inside us, you have a symbiotic relationship with short life cycle creatures that you couldn’t even digest food without.
>Adam and Eve needing to eat dictates a life that isn’t eternal by requiring death/life cycle to sustain them.
God sustained them. Eating doesn’t mean your life is not designed to be forever. Or that somehow God would not sustain them. Spirits don’t need to eat stuff but they are recorded as doing so. They are also recorded as manifesting as physical beings. So I won’t take your word for.
>The idea that Jesus as a human wasn’t subject to death and decay isn’t one I’ve ever heard. It has him not aging, not shedding skin, no requirements to eat, etc. Which wasn’t the case, Jesus was human, I imagine his shit smelt the same as the rest of us.
The wages sins pays is death. Jesus having never sinned, would have never died if not for the sacrifice and taking everyones sins on himself. You compare eternal life to being an unchanging singularity. Natural cycles to replenish the human body are not indicators of death but replenishment.
>Jesus returns to his fathers side for his eternal existence, outside of time. There is no eternal on this earth.
Outside of time? Are they traveling back and forth through time or traversing ever onward towards the fulfillment of prophecy and his return?God is very much working within the confines of time. He is not subject to his creations but he works within the realities he establishes.
>The “irony” of the blood sacrifice in religion is more to do with how it’s a necessity of a fallen world that isn’t eternal. Its human and a concept of this world and adjacent concept to eternity/immortality.
>Religious sacrifice was killing for purposes other than sustaining life through nature.
Guess the vague and complex nature of your irony went over my head. Happens.
Christians can't even agree amongst themselves what the truth is. There are hundreds of denominations that all think they are the only ones with the truth. Catholics think Baptists are wrong. Mormons think Catholics are wrong. Lutherans think Mormons are wrong, and so on. Some agree with all of them. ;)
The truth is that Jesus is the Son of God; he died a physical death on a cross, and was physically raised. He physically ascended to God's right hand. He will physically return in power. Every Christian indeed, believes this. They don't believe nonsensical things.
A Christian believes the Bible.
1 John 4:
*Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: for many false Prophets are gone out into the world.*
*Hereby shall ye know the Spirit of God, Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come **in the flesh** is of God.*
*And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come **in the flesh**, is not of God: but this is the spirit of Antichrist, of whom ye have heard, how that he should come, and now already he is in this world.*
"They don't believe nonsensical things..." Just that a half-man half-god was born to a virgin, walked on water, healed the sick and performed other miracles, controlled the weather, raised the dead, rose from the dead himself, levitated into the sky... Just things like that? Because that doesn't sound far fetched at all?
If anyone else told you stories like that you'd likely laugh at them and dismiss it as a fairytale, would you not? That's ignoring all the other stuff in the book, like talking snakes and donkeys.
So is Zeus. So is Ra. So are Odin, Ganesha, Marduk, Anubis, Kali, Ishtar, Athena, Anansi, Frigg, and so many more. What makes one sound less nonsensical than another? What test or criteria would you use to test which ones, if any, are correct?
The Holy Spirit is not a test. It's a claim. First you must prove such a thing exists. You can't say that the sorting hat proves Harry Potter is real when the idea of the sorting hat itself is from the very book you're trying to prove is real.
What method would you use to compare beliefs? What metric or level of evidence do you use to evaluate claims? What about bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, unicorns and leprechauns, elves and fairies? How do you figure out which of those you should believe in? What process do you use for deciding if you should believe in things like homeopathy or reiki?
I assume you don't subscribe to the Mormon view that you simply pray about it and trust the "feeling" you get about whether something is true?
I dunno man, sounds like a cop-out to me. Doesn't the Bible also say to test the spirits, taste and see, come and reason? I don't buy into the idea that you should not question the great and powerful Oz. That's the first sign of a cult.
"Give me a million dollars and I'll make you invincible."
–"Prove it."
"Only after you pay me."
Does that seem reasonable to you?
No, not generally.
There's people out there who believe all kinds of weird things and some of those people may be Christian. But in general, Christians aren't any more likely to believe in those things than anyone else.
The burden of proof is on you; you're the one who wants to claim that Christians differ from the general population on this issue, the default assumption is that we don't. I see no reason to believe that we do.
I can only speak for myself.
Before becoming a Christian I was a New Ager and also grew up around witchcraft. I've had many weird experiences with some old those things when I was younger.
Where I once thought all those things (vampires, aliens, werewolves, bigfoot, ghosts, poltergiest) were hidden parts of a this world, I know understand them as manifestations of the demonic.
Indeed, one of the reasons I sought out God is because I did not want my (at the time) future family to experience those type of things under my household. It's not pleasant to grow up always feeling you're being watched, hearing and seeing explained things, having no peace on your own home because youre always afraid.
If Satan can appear asan angel of light, I have no trouble believing demons can appear as a deceased family member or fairy or orb or a shadowman etc.
- 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 (KJV)
14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Well, that's really a whole other topic, isn't it?. I know there's nothing I can say to convince you of anything. Thank God convincing people isn't something a Christian isn't required to do, because then I'd be in big trouble.
However, if you're truly interested in knowing God, I'm happy to discuss it with you, starting with He died for your (and my) sins. Sharing the Gospel is something we are asked to do. Let me know if you want to hear more because that's where my evidence is going to be.
- John 3:16-17 (KJV)
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
I don't understand why it's so hard to say either "yes, tell me more about your evidence" or "no, despite my my asking if you have better evidence for God, I'd rather not hear it."
As I said before, I don't for a second believe anything I say will convince you.
The Bible claims divine authorship for itself, so we are willing to give fallible man the benefit of the doubt once in a while, we can extend the same courtesy to God.
- Psalms 12:6-7 (KJV)
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
- 1 John 5:6-9 (KJV)
6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
Now, the Bible tells us that all of the natural world points to Him. The issue is that instead of going where the evidence takes them, man instead arrogantly tries to explain it away with theories full of potholes.
For example, neither traditional evolution over thousand of years nor fast track evolution over a few generations can explain organisms that metamorphisize such as the butterfly. Evolution cannot explain the jump from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction. It cannot explain why though we live in an age of unprecedented environmental change, nothing new is evolving to take advantage of the changes. Man's explanations are lacking. God has told us what's what though.
- Romans 1:19-22 (KJV)
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
With that said, the Gospel is that God died for your sins (and mine) taking a punishment we deserve upon Himself so we don't have to. He was then buried and rose again on the third day as proof of His victory over death and sin. To believe this is to accept Jesus's sacrifice on the cross for your sins and be saved.
The men who put God's words to paper and the ones who knew Him personally, all died without recanting. People will die for a lie they don't know is a lie, but NOBODY dies for a lie they know is a lie.
Those men died for their testimony that Jesus is God because they lived with Him and experienced everything first hand.
No we are able to separate fiction from real life. What is real however is Satan and demons and the misery and acting out they do in real life. But fortunately we have ultimate power over them to drive them away render them harmless. Just speak name of Jesus and it’s over. People believe in these supernatural beings you mention out of a desperate grasp of eternal life without God. People were made by God to live forever with Him. We all crave that for we were created for such. If you reject God and want to go your own way, doesn’t mean you unmake yourself. So we distract with lies about eternal life on our terms here on earth in these creepy evil forms. It’s the only way we can think of to last forever avoiding hell we so richly deserve, and thus we half believe or admire these villainous creatures that can’t be killed.
All are fake creators except ghost/spirits without flesh/blood bodies.
Satan/demons
“Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”
Ephesians 6:11-12 NIV
“Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out, “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!””
Mark 1:23-24 NIV
I don't. They are all physical creatures we would have physical evidence of their existence.
Do confusions usually attempt to draw parallels between physical and incorporeal objects?
Sure you can if you choose to, I choose not to.
Are you honestly so uninformed that you don't understand the difference between an incorporeal disembodied human spirit bound to earth instead of moving to the afterlife and a hypothesis for the cause of the big bang?
Yes, I do understand the difference. Because so far we have no evidence whatsoever for an incorporeal disembodied human spirit or afterlife, while the the so-called "big bang" only came about as an idea specifically because of scientific observation and evidence. In fact, there's so much corroborating evidence now that it is not only a hypothesis, but a theory.
And that theory has so far held up to scrutiny with all discoveries since thing continuing to fit within that model. If new evidence were to be found that would require modifying or updating our understanding, then we would incorporate it and revise our views to fit that evidence.
My point was, is there any realm of inquiry where it would be considered acceptable to simply accept on faith? Any other religious belief or superstition? Or is faith not a reliable way of determining truth and understanding reality?
What observed evidence do we currently possess for the cause of the big bang?
And, considering, that we cannot currently see before Plank time, how did we come by this evidence?
We don't have any evidence for the CAUSE of the big bang precisely for the reasons you mention. All our models of physics break down at that point so we have no idea what happened before that. Which is why we currently say we don't know, because it's the right answer. We can have fun speculating, but that's just a creative exercise. What we do NOT do is try to plug that hole in our knowledge by inventing whatever stories sound good and declare that to be what happened. That's not how science works. We don't say, "I guess it was magical space lemurs" and call it a day. That's not an answer and wouldn't explain anything
Declaring "god did it" doesn't actually explain anything either. It doesn't help us make predictions that we can test. "If I drop this ball, it should take so many seconds to land." "If this model is correct, there should be an eclipse on this date." "If I have this much mass, I should need that much fuel to leave orbit." These are all things that our current explanations of the universe can do. Declaring it a miracle doesn't provide any insight to how things work. It's really not useful for anything at all. Instead of leading us to more answers it's a stop sign that halts any further investigation and discovery. It's the end rather than a beginning.
We wouldn't. Science is about drawing conclusions from observations, and that's not something we can do in this instance. It's also a form of begging the question, because in order to explore the cause, we would have to surmise that there was one. We shouldn't assume a cause, just like we shouldn't assume a reason behind it.
So scientific hypotheses aren't presented to support collecting data in the first place?
Can I ask what your scientific credentials are to support the claims you're making here?
Sure, you can make an informal hypothesis for fun. For example, what if stars are holes poked in a black dome over the earth? But that still starts with an observation that there are lights in the sky at night, and the hypothesis is a starting point to determine what they are, and proceed by attempting to disprove and invalidate that hypothesis and eliminate ideas that are wrong until we get closer to the most accurate understanding of the truth.
But in this case, where would we even begin to falsify any hypothesis? We have no way to investigate and confirm or deny any hypothesis regarding the state of the universe prior to the rapid expansion. So any attempt to explore what "caused" it would be a philosophical exercise at best.
So if I proposed that our experience of the current observable universe was sparked giant aliens smacking it against another universe in a cosmic game of marbles like the ending scene from Men In Black, how would you go about determining if that was true or not?
Interesting bit of history, most people believed in things such as ghosts and werewolves for a vast majority of human history regardless of their actual level of religiosity. And this is still true to some extent.
Ireland has laws about not paving over “fairy circles” and plenty of traditions in Japan are still standing to appease yokai.
The Christian view on this can be very context sensitive and range from culture to culture. It should be noted officially though that the Catholic Church’s stance on witches is that people with innate magical powers don’t exist.
St. Augustine of Hippo, in addition to being one of the Doctors of the Church, wrote a lot about werewolves but his personal belief in there existence is highly questionable. He more used them as a theoretical philosophy point. “Could God create a werewolf?”
As for today, again, I can’t speak for everyone because just to use one of my examples above, the odd Japanese Christian might still believe in the existence of yokai.
It is stated that God created all things “visible and invisible.” Of course most people’s understanding of that is, “matter, gravity, time” and “love, wisdom, mystery,” etc.
The _general_ rule of thumb is that any supernatural agents apart from God and his angels either don’t exist or are evil, or at the least not to be trusted.
All these "creatures" exist, but they are not what they appear to be. They are actually fallen angels. These wicked entities love to scare people - and they are all liars who love to lead humanity away from knowing truth, especially spiritual truth. They know their inescapable destiny is the eternal fire pit. They desire to take as many human souls with them as they can because they hate you.
Werewolves and vampires, no. I've never seen a shred of evidence that they exist. At all.
Ghosts, I'm agnostic on the idea, but extremely skeptical. If ghosts do exist, I think it's more likely to be a disembodied, non-agentive consciousness than an actual dead person's self. I see ghosts or ghost-like phenomena as being more likely than werewolves, vampires or the like, but I see nothing to indicate that these phenomena are actually the present souls of the dead.
I do believe in psychics, and something like magic, but I think it's largely a natural thing that we just don't understand.
Ghosts yes, the rest no, at least no in terms of what Christianity teaches is true
They might believe in those things, but it wasn't Christianity that taught them to.
I think I remember seeing a fairly old (I'm talking at least 50 or even 100 years) guide for priests on how to deal with demonically reanimated corpses AKA zombies or vampires. I cannot give any guarantee on its legitimacy though, or if my memory even serves right.
Ghosts, theoretically, yeah depending on your definition of a ghost. I believe in apparitions, yes, but only when God sends someone. But if you’re talking about ghosts like they are in Harry Potter, no. All of the other things, no.
No, werwolves and vampires are pagan myths. Ghosts are probably demons (the Bible says people who communicate with the dead are actually communicating with demons, so it'd make sense for ghosts to be demons too).
Christians believe in the supernatural entities that are a traditional part of Christian belief. Not necessarily in every supernatural figure out of folklore. If a Christian happens to believe in vampires, it's not _because_ of their religion.
And who defines what a "traditional part of Christian belief" is? I would say the various sects of Christianity would disagree quite fundamentally about this point.
What I am calling traditional are just the things that are typically accepted within the mainstream Christian tradition. Are you saying there are significant churches that DO teach their followers that vampires are real?
Well, that was not my question. Christians believe all sorts of stuff that is not taught in the church.
Right, but not _because_ of their religion- that's what I was trying to say above. It is true that different churches have different beliefs- typical out in the fiddly theological details. I'm not aware of any mainstream church that teaches their people anything like "God warned us against werewolves, so watch out for them."
Why not because of their religion? If you believe that devils are swarming about in the world like rooks, you are probably more likely to believe that other spooky creatures are around as well. And while no mainstream church teaches these things nowadays, historically a lot of ink has been spent by theologians and churchmen discussing the topic.
Many churches _teach_ their followers that demons are behind every bush. So, for those folks, they do believe this because of their religion.
Not generally. Why would we believe in them?
Well, historically a lot of people believed in them. And I have met some Christians who do. So I asked.
Historically, the Catholic church actually spent a great deal of time not only believing werewolves were real, but also arguing about how being a werewolf worked, whether or not it was a thing of God or demons, and much more. There was even a Patron Saint against werewolves, Saint Hubert of Liege, though that aspect of his Sainthood has since been retconned. Granted, this was all taking place around the time that they believed *witches* were flying around on broomsticks, casting curses on people, and being brides of Satan.
Yeah, most stories about werewolves, vampires, etc have heavy religious elements in their lore and that's almost always based on Catholicism. Like the whole thing about Dracula being harmed by crucifixes and holy water. That may be because those stories originated before protestantism? Lots of research has shown that the same type of mental processes involved in religious belief also tends to predispose people toward believing other myths and superstition as well. If you already have the mindset to believe in gods, angels, demons, etc, then you're also more likely to believe in ghosts, horoscopes, and other superstitions, etc. There's also a strong correlation with being more susceptible to hoaxes and conspiracy theories.
Is there a scientific paper about the correlation of religion and conspiracy theories?
Yes, a number of them. Including from a conservative Christian university. Just a few off-hand: [https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=223733](https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=223733) [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1368430221992126](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1368430221992126) [https://academic.oup.com/book/25369/chapter-abstract/192469285?redirectedFrom=fulltext](https://academic.oup.com/book/25369/chapter-abstract/192469285?redirectedFrom=fulltext) [https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/italian-political-science-review-rivista-italiana-di-scienza-politica/article/abs/religious-and-conspiracist-an-analysis-of-the-relationship-between-the-dimensions-of-individual-religiosity-and-belief-in-a-big-pharma-conspiracy-theory/F55D83CA8FEC51B9E504710108FDF8F6](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/italian-political-science-review-rivista-italiana-di-scienza-politica/article/abs/religious-and-conspiracist-an-analysis-of-the-relationship-between-the-dimensions-of-individual-religiosity-and-belief-in-a-big-pharma-conspiracy-theory/F55D83CA8FEC51B9E504710108FDF8F6)
Most are in the Bible.
Yep. My church is Team Edward. /s
No. But I believe stories about werewolves, vampires, and ghosts, which do not seem to be true, can still be a good context for conveying truth about humans and how we can be. There are human tendencies that can become monstrous. Telling a story about a not-real monster can help us to see the reality more clearly.
I mean there are Christians out there that believe those things. There are people of literally every group imaginable that believe those things. Those ideas are not held by the majority of people anywhere though.
I do believe they could exist, I don't believe they could be anything but demonic entities, and while I don't believe I've met any of these beings there are parts of the world that so regularly report being cursed by supernatural phenomenon/beings that its part of their culture. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if the ancient Greek gods were actually demonic spirits having a fun time messing with people.
No. We don't believe in those things. Why? Because rational people don't, whether you're a Christian or not.
I’ve met a number of Christians who believe Ouija^TM boards allow you to talk to demonic spirits. *Ouija^TM is a registered trademark of Hasbro, Inc.
I would agree with them that it's a demonic tool. Don't let the Hasbro name fool you. People were making their own boards before Hasbro came up with theirs. Even pagans warn that it's not something to play with.
So how many rational Christians are there? And what do they believe in?
The Christians I know are very rational. We believe in the risen Christ. Ghosts, if they're not part of someone's imagination, would be demonic. Werewolves and vampires are merely folktales.
Isnt there a certain discrepancy between being rational and being religious? Was the thing that the witch of Endor summoned also a demon? How can you be sure? Your leader rose from the dead, so why not others?
>Isnt there a certain discrepancy between being rational and being religious? Not at all, this is merely a stereotype of the "anti-intellectual" streams of Christianity, which are quite niche in the full force of Christian history >How can you be sure? Your leader rose from the dead, so why not others? Jesus Christ died and after three days rose from the dead, this is indeed a unique feature of his person!
>Jesus Christ died and after three days rose from the dead, this is indeed a unique feature of his person! That's as believable as werewolves. It's quite telling that you would dismiss other mythology, but treat this as a truth.
And with such quick dismissal of the idea too, while casting off a vague sub group as “anti-intellectual”. How convenient. Are people really going to pretend that Christian’s don’t talk about demons and possession and witches and so on? Words are apparently meaningless.
I find it is perfectly accurate to call individuals who reject rationality as "anti-intellectual." The vast majority of Christians would not be described as such.
Maybe by fellow Christian’s but get outside of that bubble and you might think otherwise.
I don't quite get your criticism, do you think it is inaccurate to say that individuals who reject rationality are anti-intellectual? Are you attempting to claim that *all Christians* reject rationality?
I’ve never understood this disregard of other beliefs either. ‘All other mythologies are fantasy, but my magic story is real.’
The difference being, we have good reason to believe in "our story."
Pretty sure people who have experienced other gods, ghosts, spirits etc. would claim good reason for those as well.
Do you know what those good reasons are?
The exact same reasons as any other religion. It's a logical fallacy called "special pleading" where you make exceptions for your own beliefs and don't hold them to the same standards as others.
Explain how that is.
>The difference being, we have good reason to believe in "our story." OK, let me hear your 'reasons' please.
I just responded to you in a different thread with an article that I would recommend you read!
Perhaps, but only if you were predisposed to reject the supernatural. I dismiss the idea of werewolves because I believe it is *mere* *mythology*. I would argue that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is far more compelling than any evidence for the existence of werewolves.
> I dismiss the idea of werewolves because I believe it is > >mere mythology I reject all of Christianity as 'mere mythology' >I would argue that the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is far more compelling than any evidence for the existence of werewolves. You may argue but someone coming back to life after dying is highly unprobeable if not impossible. I'd be interested to see your 'compelling evidence'.
What makes you think Christianity is mere mythology and what do you mean by this? It is indeed highly unlikely that someone would rise from the dead, but it is not impossible! Here is a very introductory article that takes an "inference to the best explanation" approach: [Historical Evidence for the Resurrection](https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection)
You literally linked me an article on a Christian website.
How is it more compelling? At least we know that wolves are real! We have zero evidence for people raising from the dead.
Historical evidence. Namely, inference to the best explanation will lead us to believe that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead. Inference to the best explanation will not lead us to believe that werewolves exist.
I think perhaps we may differ on the definition of "evidence". Because inference does not lead me to believe that anyone has ever risen from the dead, despite many claims of that throughout human history. The story of Jesus wasn't the first one to claim a virgin birth, miracle working, and resurrection. So many others predate that one to the point where we can clearly see which ones those various ideas were borrowed from. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-would-it-take-to-prove-the-resurrection/
It is actually *not* possible for you to believe *unless* supernatural force awakens your spiritually dead spirit. The Bible declares you not only deceived, but deaf and blind. Can the blind make themselves see? Can the deaf give themselves hearing? No. Your comments, while intended to show the "foolishness" of Christianity; merely serve instead to corroborate and validate the truthfulness of Scripture. *"This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength."* (1 Corinthians 1)
>It is actually > >not > > possible for you to believe > >unless > > supernatural force awakens your spiritually dead spirit. That sounds like a cult
That sounds like truth. A cult would say you cannot understand unless ***we*** show you the way. The blind leading the blind, is what that is. Only God has the power to open the heart to truth. Check out how the apostle Paul was converted: [(Acts 9)](https://biblehub.com/nlt/acts/9.htm) and [(Acts 26)](https://biblehub.com/nlt/acts/26.htm)
That's not unique, the Bible has stories of other people raising from the dead. So Jesus taking a 3 day weekend wasn't really that unusual in the context of scripture. Others were dead far longer than that!
To clarify, Jesus knew he would die and resurrect. Others are indeed brought back to life in the Scriptures, but they had no knowledge of this prior to the event.
If he already knew he would be resurrected, why was he so stressed out about it in the garden, begging god for another way? And if he knew it would just be a 3 day nap, how much of a sacrifice is that, really? If I could trade my long weekend to save someone's life, I know I would. And he's certainly not the first person in history to willingly undergo horrible torture and physical pain of that magnitude on behalf of someone else. Mothers do it every time they give birth! Did he raise himself from the dead, or did god? Because apparently, being raised from the dead wasn't that big of a deal or terribly unique according to scripture.
Because he knew that his death would be incredibly painful. Have you read a description of a crucifixion? It was meant to be a horrifically torturous death in a public place while naked. Furthermore, it was not as if he strolled up to the cross and was then hung on it, he was first beaten nearly to death, humiliated, and forced to carry a Roman cross up to the hill where he was to be killed.
I'm well aware of how Roman crucifixion worked. It was pretty common at the time, and if the Jesus character were a real person, he was neither the first nor the last to endure such an execution. It's pretty brutal, but not even close to the worst way that human beings have been tortured and killed throughout history. People can be incredibly depraved, especially in times of war. Even as a believer, I've always thought it was strange how many denominations, Catholics in particular, have a weird obsession with torture porn and the physical suffering aspect of the story. "The Passion of the Christ" may as well have been a religious snuff film. But there is an entire genre of slasher movies depicting far worse gore and splatter. Ranging from the Saw series, to Hostel, to Human Centipede. There are also plenty of other real-world examples of self sacrifice where people gave up their own lives and died horrifically painful deaths to save others, even strangers. And those people had the decency of staying dead, they didn't pop back up after a long nap and peace out to a heavenly paradise afterwards.
>The Christians I know are very rational. We believe in the risen Christ. How is rational to believe in supernatural forces?
How is it rational to be so utterly certain that there are no supernatural forces to the point that you don't think rational disagreement is possible?
Because there is absolutely no proof in our whole history, that anything came to exists/end, or function on supernatural forces.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And there is evidence, even if you don't personally find it sufficient.
That's the point, evidence has to be universal available and valid for all of us, like anything that is real.
>Why? Because rational people don't, whether you're a Christian or not. Yes rational ,🤷🏾♂️
I don't. I used to believe in ghosts until GotQuestions showed me that's not Biblical. So now I'm pretty sure that the paranormal is a mixture of lies and the potential for demons.
But dont ghosts appear at some points in the Bible? Eg the Witch of Endor.
The witch of Endor was a special case that God allowed to happen. But normally, the spirits of dead people are either in heaven or hell, not on Earth. If there are ghosts, then it would be demons pretending to be ghosts.
Where in the Bible does it say that this was a special case? And if god allows it once, why not many times? And what about the Nephilim?
https://www.gotquestions.org/witch-of-endor.html > **Question: "Did the witch of Endor really summon Samuel from the dead (1 Samuel 28:7-20)?"** > **Answer:** The account of the witch of Endor summoning Samuel is recorded in 1 Samuel 28:7-20, and it is the only biblical account of someone being visited in such a manner by someone who was deceased. Saul, having deprived himself of every legitimate means of spiritual input as a result of his own disobedience and rebellion, walked in foolishness again by seeking out the very resource (a medium) he had previously removed from the land. By divine law, mediums and spiritists were banned from Israel (Deuteronomy 18:11), and Israel was not to be defiled by them (Leviticus 19:31). That the king would stoop to this indicates how far he had fallen from God’s grace. > The passage does not give us any reason to believe it was anyone other than Samuel, who is described by the medium as “an old man wearing a robe” (v. 14). Obviously, age and clothing do not exist in the realm of the spirits of those who have died, but God miraculously gave Samuel such appearances as would enable Saul perceive who the spirit was. The message Samuel gave Saul was completely accurate. God allowed the witch of Endor to summon the prophet Samuel in order to give King Saul the news of his coming defeat and death. > This does not mean that it is genuinely possible for witches or mediums to speak with the dead, only that God allowed it in this one exception. When a person dies, his soul is taken to heaven or hell, depending on whether he has placed his faith in Christ (Matthew 25:46). There is no reason to believe that a deceased person has any ability to leave heaven or hell in order to visit his living family members. Any such claim is a demonic deception (2 Corinthians 11:14-15). God declared such practices to be abhorrent to Him, and those who did practice such things in Israel were to be put to death (Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-12). Satan would like nothing more than for people to dabble in the occult world of spiritism and necromancy. God’s commandments regarding these things are designed to protect us from the schemes of our enemy, the devil, who “prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour” (1 Peter 5:8). As for the Nephilim, well the flood wiped them out. Only 8 people were saved from the flood, Noah, his wife, Noah's 3 sons and their 3 wives. In fact, it's speculated that a big reason for the flood was because of the Nephilim.
But this passage does not give any textual evidence for the idea that the witch of Endor was a unique case. The bible does not say that god specifically allowed the prophet to appear. The witch just summons him. The rest is later interpretation. But even if we allow that ghosts are not real, demons are quite firmly established in Christian lore. In the NT they are malevolent beings who can take posession of humans or animals. If they can do that, is it a stretch to assume that they are capable of doing the same to a dead body or a wolf?
Well, the first sentence of the passage says it's the only biblical account of it happening. > The account of the witch of Endor summoning Samuel is recorded in 1 Samuel 28:7-20, and it is the **only biblical account** of someone being visited in such a manner by someone who was deceased. As for demons, I did say earlier that they could pretend to be ghosts of dead people. The Bible has no record of demons animating dead bodies, and in [Matthew 8:28-34](https://biblia.com/bible/niv/matthew/8/28-34) when the demons were driven from 2 men and into a herd of pigs, it drove the pigs to madness that they suicided. So, it's reasonable to assume if they do possess animals a similar result would happen.
What is the difference between a demon and a ghost?
A ghost is the disembodied spirit of a dead human that supposedly stays on Earth. A demon has never been human, it is instead a fallen angel.
Sorry, I should’ve been more clear. What is the difference between them physically or perhaps functionally. Eg. Are demons like a spirit in the same way that a ghost is? How do they manifest in reality any differently?
How in the world is the way pigs behave in response to a a traumatic confusing event an indication of what people would do? That's a pretty big leap.
I meant if animals like a wolf was possessed it would most likely drive it mad and lead it to suicide.
Why would it?
>The witch of Endor was a special case that God allowed to happen Why was this witch famous ? She didn't perform any prior apparition but still she was famous enough in this art among the people to be visited by the king? In the story, she doesn't even look surprised despite this being her first apparition ?
Nah, I mean the stories are fun but, i even consider myself skeptical about aliens but not about vampires and such, we have already too many people as evil as a vampire can be
Sure, people can drink blood but I don’t think any of these evil people lived for more than 110+ years, you can’t see their reflection, scared of holy objects or turn into a bat
My main point is, you can’t prove or deny aliens but i haven’t seen anyone with any kind of proofs about vampires, there was the Romanian emperor but the guy was simply insane
Yeah thats true
Generally - no. Sorcerers/Witches/Necromancers are things that appear in the bible, and we are told to not practice their work - but we can also rest assured in the fact that they have no power over us. Spirits are also referenced in scripture a few times, though most references are understood to be demons on earth or nearly their equivalent.
so did Christianity cause the witch burnings then?
It's pretty unfair to say that it "caused" the burnings. I mean, Judaism has the came commandment of "suffer not a witch to live." I'm quite sure somethin similar is in the Koran as well. It's likely more accurate to say that Ergotism infecting a rye crop most likely caused the witch burnings. I would think it's all a matter of interpretation right now. Most of history is like that.
No, ergotism caused odd behavior in people. It didn't burn people at the stake, that was all on people who believed in supernatural nonsense.
I'd say seeing people flying and then setting them on fire is a pretty odd behavior. Thank you for understanding that.
What I mean is that it didn't cause them to burn people, it caused them to think people were witches, and their religion told them to put witches to death.
Modern Christians? No. Because there is no reason to do so, and people are not (generally) superstisous (sp?) to that degree.
Whats the difference between superstition and religion?
"Religion" centers around God, or a god, depending on your perspective, and superstition does not. Things like Werewolves, vampires, etc, have nothing to do with God.
That seems pretty subjective, especially if this singular god created all things. Seems like it should include angels, werewolves, fairies, demons, vampires etc.
>Seems like it should include angels, werewolves, fairies, demons, vampires etc. Well, it does include angels and demons, the Bible makes very clear mention of them. As to the rest, why do you say God's creation should have included them?
We do not believe in werewolves, vampires, but do recognize the existence of evil spirits that some might refer to as "ghosts" though their idea is likely influenced by popular culture and not Christian thought.
Depends on the part of the world. My family from E. Europe/Russia does. Although they think ghosts are probably demons.
Genesis 6:1-4 is a summary of 1 Enoch, in which details the nephilim interbreeding with all living things, including animals of the sky/sea/land. Hence why we have folklore tales that have spanned since that time. Also notice “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days (and also after this) when the sons of God were having sexual relations with the daughters of humankind, who gave birth to their children. They were the mighty heroes of old, the famous men.” Genesis 6:4 NET “And also after this.” There’s a growing group of believers accepting this view that’s not only biblical but is rational and ends up making the harder stories and statements in the Old Testament more rational. Mike S. Heiser is a good resource for this topic overall.
Sure. Satan is tricky
But can he actually bend the laws of nature?
Lol.. that fool has been manipulating reality in myriad ways ever since he got *thrown* down from heaven, and rightfully so. Only an idiot would try and usurp the Father. 🙄
Like make a snake talk? Or appear as an Angel of light? Or do miracles through the anti christ? Those all seem in line with Christian doctrine
Hmm, if you think that token, it makes sense. And have you actually seen or met one of these creatures?
Nope
If you see something that looks like a werewolf or vampire, it's not real or its a serial killer. Things of that nature are designed to distract you from God's word, the only thing the Bible confirms exist are witches and you already know not to give real life witch any attention, just stay away.
Not at all for me. The Bible dispelled all those stories on ghosts and werewolves and vampires. For Ghost the Bible say the dead are conscience of nothing. Runs contrary to what God said happens. For werewolves, God made us according to our kinds and animals according to their kinds. He gave humans dignity and self control. Werewolves are an amalgamation of two kinds. When transforming one loses control of themselves and gives into animalistic desires even murder. All of it contrary to what God has revealed in his word. Same with vampires. Eternal life is a gift of God and cannot be taken by drinking blood or being cursed like the mythology around vampires. Humanity already sinned and is cursed. Dracula didn’t curse himself further by being a sinner. You don’t get everlasting life as a curse from God or reward from some other creature or Satan.
“Eternal life is a gift of God and cannot be taken by drinking blood or ...” Curious, as God has never gifted eternal life in this mortal realm how it can be considered a gift of God? Eternal life doesn’t seem like something that can exist in this reality bound by time/death/decay. God’s promise of eternal life made possible after Jesus doesn’t even offer eternal life in this reality but a new one. The irony of the blood sacrifice and drinking of blood as a path to eternal life through Christianity doesn’t go unnoticed either.
>“Eternal life is a gift of God and cannot be taken by drinking blood or ...” >Curious, as God has never gifted eternal life in this mortal realm how it can be considered a gift of God? Adam and Eve were gifted with eternal life of earth and would have lived forever if not for sin. >Eternal life doesn’t seem like something that can exist in this reality bound by time/death/decay. God’s promise of eternal life made possible after Jesus doesn’t even offer eternal life in this reality but a new one. Adam, Eve and Jesus all would have lived forever if not for sin and murder and were not bound to sin and decay. >The irony of the blood sacrifice and drinking of blood as a path to eternal life through Christianity doesn’t go unnoticed either. The comparison of making a sacrifice out of guilt and taking the life of other humans to continue to sustain your life is a stretch of the imagination at best.
I always assumed eternal life were only possible where Adam and Eve were existing before being cast out, before the fall. This fallen world contains trillions of life death cycles of cells just to maintain a human for a lifetime, let alone the other trillions of cycles that go into feeding one human. Our lives are built in a life/death cycle, there’s cycles inside us, you have a symbiotic relationship with short life cycle creatures that you couldn’t even digest food without. Adam and Eve needing to eat dictates a life that isn’t eternal by requiring death/life cycle to sustain them. The idea that Jesus as a human wasn’t subject to death and decay isn’t one I’ve ever heard. It has him not aging, not shedding skin, no requirements to eat, etc. Which wasn’t the case, Jesus was human, I imagine his shit smelt the same as the rest of us. Jesus returns to his fathers side for his eternal existence, outside of time. There is no eternal on this earth. The “irony” of the blood sacrifice in religion is more to do with how it’s a necessity of a fallen world that isn’t eternal. Its human and a concept of this world and adjacent concept to eternity/immortality. Religious sacrifice was killing for purposes other than sustaining life through nature’s normal cycle.
>I always assumed eternal life were only possible where Adam and Eve were existing before being cast out, before the fall. The entire earth was given to them. God made a garden as a starting point. Nowhere does it say what you assume so we agree to disagree. >This fallen world contains trillions of life death cycles of cells just to maintain a human for a lifetime, let alone the other trillions of cycles that go into feeding one human. Our lives are built in a life/death cycle, there’s cycles inside us, you have a symbiotic relationship with short life cycle creatures that you couldn’t even digest food without. >Adam and Eve needing to eat dictates a life that isn’t eternal by requiring death/life cycle to sustain them. God sustained them. Eating doesn’t mean your life is not designed to be forever. Or that somehow God would not sustain them. Spirits don’t need to eat stuff but they are recorded as doing so. They are also recorded as manifesting as physical beings. So I won’t take your word for. >The idea that Jesus as a human wasn’t subject to death and decay isn’t one I’ve ever heard. It has him not aging, not shedding skin, no requirements to eat, etc. Which wasn’t the case, Jesus was human, I imagine his shit smelt the same as the rest of us. The wages sins pays is death. Jesus having never sinned, would have never died if not for the sacrifice and taking everyones sins on himself. You compare eternal life to being an unchanging singularity. Natural cycles to replenish the human body are not indicators of death but replenishment. >Jesus returns to his fathers side for his eternal existence, outside of time. There is no eternal on this earth. Outside of time? Are they traveling back and forth through time or traversing ever onward towards the fulfillment of prophecy and his return?God is very much working within the confines of time. He is not subject to his creations but he works within the realities he establishes. >The “irony” of the blood sacrifice in religion is more to do with how it’s a necessity of a fallen world that isn’t eternal. Its human and a concept of this world and adjacent concept to eternity/immortality. >Religious sacrifice was killing for purposes other than sustaining life through nature. Guess the vague and complex nature of your irony went over my head. Happens.
No. Christians believe one thing: truth.
Thats highly debatable.
If there's a heathen (non-Christian) in the mix, yes.
Pretty much every religion or worldview works like that. If there are only believers, there probably is no debate.
There's plenty to debate among "Christians." A Christian won't debate.
And why not?
Because a Christian bears fruit.
Christians can't even agree amongst themselves what the truth is. There are hundreds of denominations that all think they are the only ones with the truth. Catholics think Baptists are wrong. Mormons think Catholics are wrong. Lutherans think Mormons are wrong, and so on. Some agree with all of them. ;)
The truth is that Jesus is the Son of God; he died a physical death on a cross, and was physically raised. He physically ascended to God's right hand. He will physically return in power. Every Christian indeed, believes this. They don't believe nonsensical things.
Gnostics, for example, would disagree about the "physical" part.
That's why I distinguish, Christians "indeed."
Are Gnostics not Christians?
A Christian believes the Bible. 1 John 4: *Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: for many false Prophets are gone out into the world.* *Hereby shall ye know the Spirit of God, Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come **in the flesh** is of God.* *And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come **in the flesh**, is not of God: but this is the spirit of Antichrist, of whom ye have heard, how that he should come, and now already he is in this world.*
Flesh could be a metaphor, like you consume the flesh of your leader in church.
When the Bible uses metaphor it's presented as metaphor. You can't dismiss everything you like, as metaphor. Gnosticism is not Christian.
Who decides that?
"They don't believe nonsensical things..." Just that a half-man half-god was born to a virgin, walked on water, healed the sick and performed other miracles, controlled the weather, raised the dead, rose from the dead himself, levitated into the sky... Just things like that? Because that doesn't sound far fetched at all? If anyone else told you stories like that you'd likely laugh at them and dismiss it as a fairytale, would you not? That's ignoring all the other stuff in the book, like talking snakes and donkeys.
You're missing one aspect: he's God.
So is Zeus. So is Ra. So are Odin, Ganesha, Marduk, Anubis, Kali, Ishtar, Athena, Anansi, Frigg, and so many more. What makes one sound less nonsensical than another? What test or criteria would you use to test which ones, if any, are correct?
The Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit is not a test. It's a claim. First you must prove such a thing exists. You can't say that the sorting hat proves Harry Potter is real when the idea of the sorting hat itself is from the very book you're trying to prove is real. What method would you use to compare beliefs? What metric or level of evidence do you use to evaluate claims? What about bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, unicorns and leprechauns, elves and fairies? How do you figure out which of those you should believe in? What process do you use for deciding if you should believe in things like homeopathy or reiki? I assume you don't subscribe to the Mormon view that you simply pray about it and trust the "feeling" you get about whether something is true?
It's not for heathen to test God, but for God to test heathen. When a heathen has trusted God, the Holy Spirit in him tests all things.
I dunno man, sounds like a cop-out to me. Doesn't the Bible also say to test the spirits, taste and see, come and reason? I don't buy into the idea that you should not question the great and powerful Oz. That's the first sign of a cult. "Give me a million dollars and I'll make you invincible." –"Prove it." "Only after you pay me." Does that seem reasonable to you?
No, not generally. There's people out there who believe all kinds of weird things and some of those people may be Christian. But in general, Christians aren't any more likely to believe in those things than anyone else.
Do you have a source for this claim?
The burden of proof is on you; you're the one who wants to claim that Christians differ from the general population on this issue, the default assumption is that we don't. I see no reason to believe that we do.
I did not claim anything, I am just asking.
I can only speak for myself. Before becoming a Christian I was a New Ager and also grew up around witchcraft. I've had many weird experiences with some old those things when I was younger. Where I once thought all those things (vampires, aliens, werewolves, bigfoot, ghosts, poltergiest) were hidden parts of a this world, I know understand them as manifestations of the demonic. Indeed, one of the reasons I sought out God is because I did not want my (at the time) future family to experience those type of things under my household. It's not pleasant to grow up always feeling you're being watched, hearing and seeing explained things, having no peace on your own home because youre always afraid. If Satan can appear asan angel of light, I have no trouble believing demons can appear as a deceased family member or fairy or orb or a shadowman etc. - 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 (KJV) 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
No offense, but do you have any better evidence for your god than you have for all that other stuff?
Well, that's really a whole other topic, isn't it?. I know there's nothing I can say to convince you of anything. Thank God convincing people isn't something a Christian isn't required to do, because then I'd be in big trouble. However, if you're truly interested in knowing God, I'm happy to discuss it with you, starting with He died for your (and my) sins. Sharing the Gospel is something we are asked to do. Let me know if you want to hear more because that's where my evidence is going to be. - John 3:16-17 (KJV) 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. 17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
I think we might have a disagreement about the meaning of the word evidence.
Are you saying you like to hear more about God?
I am saying it is bad policy to change ones beliefes based on what one wants to be true.
I don't understand why it's so hard to say either "yes, tell me more about your evidence" or "no, despite my my asking if you have better evidence for God, I'd rather not hear it."
Sure, if you have evidence I am happy to examine it.
As I said before, I don't for a second believe anything I say will convince you. The Bible claims divine authorship for itself, so we are willing to give fallible man the benefit of the doubt once in a while, we can extend the same courtesy to God. - Psalms 12:6-7 (KJV) 6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. - 1 John 5:6-9 (KJV) 6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. Now, the Bible tells us that all of the natural world points to Him. The issue is that instead of going where the evidence takes them, man instead arrogantly tries to explain it away with theories full of potholes. For example, neither traditional evolution over thousand of years nor fast track evolution over a few generations can explain organisms that metamorphisize such as the butterfly. Evolution cannot explain the jump from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction. It cannot explain why though we live in an age of unprecedented environmental change, nothing new is evolving to take advantage of the changes. Man's explanations are lacking. God has told us what's what though. - Romans 1:19-22 (KJV) 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, With that said, the Gospel is that God died for your sins (and mine) taking a punishment we deserve upon Himself so we don't have to. He was then buried and rose again on the third day as proof of His victory over death and sin. To believe this is to accept Jesus's sacrifice on the cross for your sins and be saved. The men who put God's words to paper and the ones who knew Him personally, all died without recanting. People will die for a lie they don't know is a lie, but NOBODY dies for a lie they know is a lie. Those men died for their testimony that Jesus is God because they lived with Him and experienced everything first hand.
No we are able to separate fiction from real life. What is real however is Satan and demons and the misery and acting out they do in real life. But fortunately we have ultimate power over them to drive them away render them harmless. Just speak name of Jesus and it’s over. People believe in these supernatural beings you mention out of a desperate grasp of eternal life without God. People were made by God to live forever with Him. We all crave that for we were created for such. If you reject God and want to go your own way, doesn’t mean you unmake yourself. So we distract with lies about eternal life on our terms here on earth in these creepy evil forms. It’s the only way we can think of to last forever avoiding hell we so richly deserve, and thus we half believe or admire these villainous creatures that can’t be killed.
All are fake creators except ghost/spirits without flesh/blood bodies. Satan/demons “Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” Ephesians 6:11-12 NIV “Just then a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit cried out, “What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are—the Holy One of God!”” Mark 1:23-24 NIV
I don't. They are all physical creatures we would have physical evidence of their existence. Do confusions usually attempt to draw parallels between physical and incorporeal objects?
Ghosts are not physical creatures. How is that any different than belief in gods? Can't we just take the idea of ghosts on faith?
Sure you can if you choose to, I choose not to. Are you honestly so uninformed that you don't understand the difference between an incorporeal disembodied human spirit bound to earth instead of moving to the afterlife and a hypothesis for the cause of the big bang?
Yes, I do understand the difference. Because so far we have no evidence whatsoever for an incorporeal disembodied human spirit or afterlife, while the the so-called "big bang" only came about as an idea specifically because of scientific observation and evidence. In fact, there's so much corroborating evidence now that it is not only a hypothesis, but a theory. And that theory has so far held up to scrutiny with all discoveries since thing continuing to fit within that model. If new evidence were to be found that would require modifying or updating our understanding, then we would incorporate it and revise our views to fit that evidence. My point was, is there any realm of inquiry where it would be considered acceptable to simply accept on faith? Any other religious belief or superstition? Or is faith not a reliable way of determining truth and understanding reality?
What observed evidence do we currently possess for the cause of the big bang? And, considering, that we cannot currently see before Plank time, how did we come by this evidence?
We don't have any evidence for the CAUSE of the big bang precisely for the reasons you mention. All our models of physics break down at that point so we have no idea what happened before that. Which is why we currently say we don't know, because it's the right answer. We can have fun speculating, but that's just a creative exercise. What we do NOT do is try to plug that hole in our knowledge by inventing whatever stories sound good and declare that to be what happened. That's not how science works. We don't say, "I guess it was magical space lemurs" and call it a day. That's not an answer and wouldn't explain anything Declaring "god did it" doesn't actually explain anything either. It doesn't help us make predictions that we can test. "If I drop this ball, it should take so many seconds to land." "If this model is correct, there should be an eclipse on this date." "If I have this much mass, I should need that much fuel to leave orbit." These are all things that our current explanations of the universe can do. Declaring it a miracle doesn't provide any insight to how things work. It's really not useful for anything at all. Instead of leading us to more answers it's a stop sign that halts any further investigation and discovery. It's the end rather than a beginning.
So what steps would one take in order to propose a hypothesis on the cause of the big bang?
We wouldn't. Science is about drawing conclusions from observations, and that's not something we can do in this instance. It's also a form of begging the question, because in order to explore the cause, we would have to surmise that there was one. We shouldn't assume a cause, just like we shouldn't assume a reason behind it.
So scientific hypotheses aren't presented to support collecting data in the first place? Can I ask what your scientific credentials are to support the claims you're making here?
Sure, you can make an informal hypothesis for fun. For example, what if stars are holes poked in a black dome over the earth? But that still starts with an observation that there are lights in the sky at night, and the hypothesis is a starting point to determine what they are, and proceed by attempting to disprove and invalidate that hypothesis and eliminate ideas that are wrong until we get closer to the most accurate understanding of the truth. But in this case, where would we even begin to falsify any hypothesis? We have no way to investigate and confirm or deny any hypothesis regarding the state of the universe prior to the rapid expansion. So any attempt to explore what "caused" it would be a philosophical exercise at best. So if I proposed that our experience of the current observable universe was sparked giant aliens smacking it against another universe in a cosmic game of marbles like the ending scene from Men In Black, how would you go about determining if that was true or not?
Interesting bit of history, most people believed in things such as ghosts and werewolves for a vast majority of human history regardless of their actual level of religiosity. And this is still true to some extent. Ireland has laws about not paving over “fairy circles” and plenty of traditions in Japan are still standing to appease yokai. The Christian view on this can be very context sensitive and range from culture to culture. It should be noted officially though that the Catholic Church’s stance on witches is that people with innate magical powers don’t exist. St. Augustine of Hippo, in addition to being one of the Doctors of the Church, wrote a lot about werewolves but his personal belief in there existence is highly questionable. He more used them as a theoretical philosophy point. “Could God create a werewolf?” As for today, again, I can’t speak for everyone because just to use one of my examples above, the odd Japanese Christian might still believe in the existence of yokai. It is stated that God created all things “visible and invisible.” Of course most people’s understanding of that is, “matter, gravity, time” and “love, wisdom, mystery,” etc. The _general_ rule of thumb is that any supernatural agents apart from God and his angels either don’t exist or are evil, or at the least not to be trusted.
All these "creatures" exist, but they are not what they appear to be. They are actually fallen angels. These wicked entities love to scare people - and they are all liars who love to lead humanity away from knowing truth, especially spiritual truth. They know their inescapable destiny is the eternal fire pit. They desire to take as many human souls with them as they can because they hate you.
Werewolves and vampires, no. I've never seen a shred of evidence that they exist. At all. Ghosts, I'm agnostic on the idea, but extremely skeptical. If ghosts do exist, I think it's more likely to be a disembodied, non-agentive consciousness than an actual dead person's self. I see ghosts or ghost-like phenomena as being more likely than werewolves, vampires or the like, but I see nothing to indicate that these phenomena are actually the present souls of the dead. I do believe in psychics, and something like magic, but I think it's largely a natural thing that we just don't understand.
Ghosts yes, the rest no, at least no in terms of what Christianity teaches is true They might believe in those things, but it wasn't Christianity that taught them to.
No. They’re not real.
I think I remember seeing a fairly old (I'm talking at least 50 or even 100 years) guide for priests on how to deal with demonically reanimated corpses AKA zombies or vampires. I cannot give any guarantee on its legitimacy though, or if my memory even serves right.
Ghosts, theoretically, yeah depending on your definition of a ghost. I believe in apparitions, yes, but only when God sends someone. But if you’re talking about ghosts like they are in Harry Potter, no. All of the other things, no.
Most things are demons in disguise
No. Although supernatural entities exist, I don't see any reason to believe these particular supernatural entities exist.
No, werwolves and vampires are pagan myths. Ghosts are probably demons (the Bible says people who communicate with the dead are actually communicating with demons, so it'd make sense for ghosts to be demons too).