John wrote: > The discussion concerning demons has little to do > with establishing the duality of the human being. > It's like comparing a bird with a human. Demons > are demons and humans are humans. Because > one goes looking for a body has nothing to do with > those who already have a body.
Demonology establishes a number of things: 1. There is such a thing as spirits existing without bodies. 2. Spirits desire and need bodies. 3. Human bodies can receive other spirits besides the normal human spirit that it is born with. 4. A demon spirit can control a human body every bit as much as a human spirit can control it. 5. Spirits can enter and leave bodies, and the behavior of the body changes when this happens. Now the relationship of demons to humans goes beyond Scripture, so I won't go there right now. However, I will say that we should not assume that they are as different from humans as birds are to humans. Even if we were to assume that, it is still relevant. In fact, if we had facts about the spirit of a bird and its relationship to its body, that would be useful too. Medical science uses animal research all the time in this way, not ignoring the differences between animals and humans, but recognizing that the similarities enable some understanding. John wrote: > Romans 7 is something that DM has long misunderstood. > "Flesh" and "spirit" are considerations of the same mind (R 8:5). Flesh and spirit both impact considerations of the mind, but they are not "considerations of the mind." In other words, the phrase "considerations of the mind" does not define flesh and spirit. Tell me straight, John, do you believe like most scientists that the term "spirit" has no actual substance or existence? Do you think rather that the term spirit is an archaic metaphor for considerations of the mind? John wrote: > To imagine someone believes that we have a dualistic ontology > that is trapped in sin , on the one hand and fully pure on the other > is surprising to me. It is as if you believe in the "old me" and the > "real me." Actually, the Biblical terms are "old man and new man" or "natural man and spiritual man" or "flesh and spirit." John wrote: > Man did not become a "living soul" apart from > his fleshly circumstance. Right. Soul is an emergent property of the interaction of spirit and flesh. It is more tightly bound to spirit than flesh in the spiritual man; hence his soul can be saved. In the carnal man, the soul is defiled and fit to be burned. John wrote: > Man IS mind spirit and body. That is man. > To separate out one of these characteristics > is to have something less than man ------ > ------ something other than man. Something less than "man" perhaps, but not something other than man. If you chop off a man's arm or remove his kidney, do you have something other than man with the body that is left? I suppose if you were to remove his heart or brain, then maybe you would have something other than man. In that case, if the spirit was removed from the body, my thinking based upon many passages of the Bible is that the spirit continues on being the man whereas the body is that shell that is left. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
