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

smacl

NCS wrote: »

There are plenty of references to and warnings of 'Christians in name only' in the New Testament, the most damning of them being "And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’". Appropriating a label and demonstrating love and compassion are not in themselves enough to be biblically Christian.

I hardly think someone born and raised in the Catholic tradition can reasonably be accused of appropriating the label "Christian" on the basis that they aren't particularly zealous in their beliefs. Perhaps they might not be "biblically Christian" as you put it but I'd consider them Christian nonetheless.

smacl

Iliana Cold Mayonnaise wrote: »

To simplify it..
Being born in McDonald's doesn't make me a Big Mac..even if I do have all the dressings and a wrap saying I'm one.
I need to look like one and taste like one too to be one.

You might want to work on those metaphors a bit, the cannibalistic imagery there is strange to say the least. Think I'll be staying away from those yellow arches for awhile...

NCS

smacl wrote: »

I hardly think someone born and raised in the Catholic tradition can reasonably be accused of appropriating the label "Christian" on the basis that they aren't particularly zealous in their beliefs. Perhaps they might not be "biblically Christian" as you put it but I'd consider them Christian nonetheless.

Then your definition of Christian is at variance with what Jesus taught. Saying that being born and raised in the Catholic tradition makes one a Christian is no different to the Jews telling Jesus that they were descendants of Abraham and Himself rejecting the argument, replying that it was their faith (and response) which mattered, not their natural descendence.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Sorry, thought I'd already been clear on that. In my opinion if someone honestly identifies as a Christian, they're a Christian. Given the vast majority of Christians in this country are Roman Catholics, this will typically also mean they been Christened, gone through confirmation and are considered to be members of their church by their church. I would imagine many of them don't pay that much heed to their religion on a day to day basis, or consider themselves particularly religious, yet they still consider themselves part of that tradition as does their church.

Ok thanks, I understand you now. I'd still say that identifying as a Christian is one thing; being able to tell if you are one or not is another. I think you're onto something with your summary of Catholicism; I'll leave it to a Roman Catholic to comment on whether it's an adequate summary, but you'd have to agree that at least there is some substance to it?

As an evangelical protestant, I would give a slightly different answer. I've said in previous posts that the core question is whether or not you have faith in Jesus as lord and saviour. I think that does most justice to the witness of the bible, and is consistent with the history of Christianity from its beginning.

smacl wrote: »

You're possibly making a serious error of judgement there. Those going through the Irish Catholic schools system will be taught at a very young age that first and foremost among Christian values are love and compassion for one's fellow man. I would suggest that when making a value judgement in later life, on something such as repealing the eighth or allowing gay marriage, they apply this compassion as it runs deeper than any scriptural chapter or verse. At the same time, given the many scandals and abuses that have happened within the church over the years, there is an increasing distrust of the hierarchy and with it, religious orthodoxy.

As others have said already, there is more to Christianity than love and compassion for our fellow man. It also begs the question "What do love and compassion look like?" Again, as an evangelical protestant I would say that scripture defines and informs what love and compassion actually mean, and that we are truly loving and compassionate in so far as we are conformed to what scripture teaches.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Again, as an evangelical protestant I would say that scripture defines and informs what love and compassion actually mean, and that we are truly loving and compassionate in so far as we are conformed to what scripture teaches.

That's entirely reasonable but I would suggest that other expressions of Christianity are equally reasonable and it is invariably better to concern yourself more with your own actions than judge to others. Incidentally, if you were to look up Christian in a dictionary, one meaning is as an adjective to be kind and generous of spirit. To suggest someone who identifies as Christian is not Christian as they fall short of what you believe it means to be Christian is thus by definition un-Christian.

uck51js9zml2yt

smacl wrote: »

That's entirely reasonable but I would suggest that other expressions of Christianity are equally reasonable and it is invariably better to concern yourself more with your own actions than judge to others. Incidentally, if you were to look up Christian in a dictionary, one meaning is as an adjective to be kind and generous of spirit. To suggest someone who identifies as Christian is not Christian as they fall short of what you believe it means to be Christian is thus by definition un-Christian.

As has been said, identifying as something doesn't make you it.

Jesus said, you would know a follower of His by their fruit. No judgement is needed in this. Fruit is fairly evident.

I picked some apples this evening. It was evident they were apples. If they had somehow identified as pears it would have been noticeable and clear they were indeed apples.

The Bible clearly shows us what a Christian should look like. If he behaves like an unbeliever then he is. If he is devoid of the life of God being manifest in him, then he hasn't got it.
If it quacks like a duck ..it's a duck.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

That's entirely reasonable but I would suggest that other expressions of Christianity are equally reasonable and it is invariably better to concern yourself more with your own actions than judge to others. Incidentally, if you were to look up Christian in a dictionary, one meaning is as an adjective to be kind and generous of spirit. To suggest someone who identifies as Christian is not Christian as they fall short of what you believe it means to be Christian is thus by definition un-Christian.

Ah come on smacl, you don't really believe that do you? I think saying that Christians need to have faith in Jesus is a fairly minimal standard!

And who said anything about judging? Paul declared himself to be the chief of sinners, and most Christians I know would echo that sentiment; I am more acutely aware of my own shortcomings than anyone else's. But that doesn't mean that God hasn't clearly told us, in the Bible, what a Christian is and how you can know if you are one. There is more to the Christian ethic than live and let live, and pretending that people who show no sign of a living faith are Christians anyway is in no way loving or compassionate.

That attitude relies on the assumption that the question is of no real importance. But to Christians, it is of utmost importance, and has eternal consequences.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Ah come on smacl, you don't really believe that do you? I think saying that Christians need to have faith in Jesus is a fairly minimal standard!

In all honesty, I think many if not most Christians in this country are very casual about their religion and it doesn't actually play a major role in their lives outside of specific events or times of stress. They mightn't be in any way devout, nor attend church on any regular basis, nor consider their beliefs on any regular basis. Once they honestly consider themselves Christian and their church considers them Christian, they're Christian regardless of how small a role religion plays in their lives.

Your argument is akin to that of the fanatic Man Utd supporter, who talks nothing but football and can (and does) list every play, squad member and victory the team has had in recent decades, disparaging the casual supporter who shouts for the team passionately enough when they're on the telly at the pub but can barely name half the team and hasn't been to Old Trafford in years.

The Nal

smacl wrote: »

In all honesty, I think many if not most Christians in this country are very casual about their religion and it doesn't actually play a major role in their lives outside of specific events or times of stress. They mightn't be in any way devout, nor attend church on any regular basis, nor consider their beliefs on any regular basis. Once they honestly consider themselves Christian and their church considers them Christian, they're Christian regardless of how small a role religion plays in their lives.

Outside of my mother in law, I don't know anyone who goes to mass anymore. literally not one person.

Only time people go is for weddings, funerals, Christenings etc. But three of the last four weddings I've been to have been humanist weddings.

Its dying a death, the auld religion. With threads called "Why did Jesus allow demons to enter a herd of pigs?" in 2019 you can see why. Utter insanity.

Three primary schools transfer from Catholic to multi-denominational patronage

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

In all honesty, I think many if not most Christians in this country are very casual about their religion and it doesn't actually play a major role in their lives outside of specific events or times of stress. They mightn't be in any way devout, nor attend church on any regular basis, nor consider their beliefs on any regular basis. Once they honestly consider themselves Christian and their church considers them Christian, they're Christian regardless of how small a role religion plays in their lives.

Your argument is akin to that of the fanatic Man Utd supporter, who talks nothing but football and can (and does) list every play, squad member and victory the team has had in recent decades, disparaging the casual supporter who shouts for the team passionately enough when they're on the telly at the pub but can barely name half the team and hasn't been to Old Trafford in years.

I understand what you're saying, but I have to disagree. To pick up on your metaphor, I would say that the people you are describing are saying that they are Man U fans, but actually support Liverpool.

The kind of people you are describing are less and less engaged with Christianity, and as you say find it largely irrelevant in everyday life. That is a pattern seen throughout Europe and does, over generations, result in them having no link to Christianity at all. Ireland is perhaps somewhat further back than other European countries, but does seem to on the same trajectory. I find that deeply concerning, and as a Christian I want everyone, whether they think they are a Christian or not, to truly engage with what the Bible says, and to seriously consider who Jesus is and the claims he makes.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I understand what you're saying, but I have to disagree. To pick up on your metaphor, I would say that the people you are describing are saying that they are Man U fans, but actually support Liverpool.

Nope, they're Man U fans just not football fanatics

The kind of people you are describing are less and less engaged with Christianity, and as you say find it largely irrelevant in everyday life. That is a pattern seen throughout Europe and does, over generations, result in them having no link to Christianity at all. Ireland is perhaps somewhat further back than other European countries, but does seem to on the same trajectory. I find that deeply concerning, and as a Christian I want everyone, whether they think they are a Christian or not, to truly engage with what the Bible says, and to seriously consider who Jesus is and the claims he makes.

Less engaged certainly, but less religiously inclined is debatable. For example, if you look at religious attendance in this country thirty years ago, numbers were far higher. This wasn't because people were more religious so much as it was a social expectation that for most was effectively mandatory. Those that actually enjoyed mass, notably the older generation, did so as much from a social perspective as a spiritual one. Most people would rather not attend, and once that became a viable option ceased to do so. I suspect this is the case in most Christian majority countries include the USA, as caricatured in Homer Simpson's ongoing disdain for going to church. In my opinion, those belonging to more conservative Christian groups are more overtly religious as much because of their conservatism as their faith.

ChrisJ84

smacl wrote: »

Nope, they're Man U fans just not football fanatics



Less engaged certainly, but less religiously inclined is debatable. For example, if you look at religious attendance in this country thirty years ago, numbers were far higher. This wasn't because people were more religious so much as it was a social expectation that for most was effectively mandatory. Those that actually enjoyed mass, notably the older generation, did so as much from a social perspective as a spiritual one. Most people would rather not attend, and once that became a viable option ceased to do so. I suspect this is the case in most Christian majority countries include the USA, as caricatured in Homer Simpson's ongoing disdain for going to church. In my opinion, those belonging to more conservative Christian groups are more overtly religious as much because of their conservatism as their faith.

Ok, we're going in circles here. Jesus clearly said how we could know if we are his followers, and these things are recorded in the bible. I take that to be the final an authoritative word on the matter. They are also what has been believed by Christians through the ages.

You obviously have different ideas on these things and like I said on the other thread, I think that your presentation of Christianity depends on words having no fixed or objective meaning, and on the individual being the final arbiter of what is true. I'm clearly not going to change your mind but that's ok, I've enjoyed the back and forth anyway.

The Nal

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Ok, we're going in circles here. Jesus clearly said how we could know if we are his followers, and these things are recorded in the bible.

You see I think thats what the issue is for people. The Bible was written decades and centuries after Jesus had allegedly lived and died. None of the writers knew him and its debatable that they even lived in the same country.

Why on earth would we live out lives on such flimsy evidence?

The vast majority of Christians are Christians because they grew up with it. Its simple conditioning. If you grew up in Pakistan you be a Muslim.

smacl

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

I'm clearly not going to change your mind but that's ok, I've enjoyed the back and forth anyway.

Nor I yours clearly, and I also enjoy the banter so thanks for that.

Grizzly 45

Where did a herd of pigs come from first off in Judea in the time of Christ? They are considerd unclean["Haram" by Muslims and "Tame" by the Jews animals by both Jews and Muslims.So its hardly likely anyone was actually herding or raising them.Nor are wild pigs native to that part of the world.

ChrisJ84

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Where did a herd of pigs come from first off in Judea in the time of Christ? They are considerd unclean["Haram" by Muslims and "Tame" by the Jews animals by both Jews and Muslims.So its hardly likely anyone was actually herding or raising them.Nor are wild pigs native to that part of the world.

This episode took place in a Gentile area with a large non-Jewish population, so we can safely assume they were being raised for food.

Peregrinus

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

Where did a herd of pigs come from first off in Judea in the time of Christ? They are considerd unclean["Haram" by Muslims and "Tame" by the Jews animals by both Jews and Muslims.So its hardly likely anyone was actually herding or raising them.Nor are wild pigs native to that part of the world.

What Chris said. We know that the event isn't set in Judea, but the gospels differ slightly at to where it is set.

Mark says it happens "in the region of the Gerasenes". Gerasa is a city about ten km south-west of the Sea of Galilee (therefore not in Judea, which is south-east, on the other side of the River Jordan). It's part of an area known as the Decapolis, which wasn't under Roman rule at the time, though it was subject to considerable Roman and Greek cultural influence, and had a mixed population of Jews, Samarians, Arameans, Nabateans and Greeks. Luke agrees with Mark.

Mathew says it happened "in the region of the Gadarenes". Gadara is another city of the Decapolis, further away from the Sea of Galilee than Gerasa is, but larger than Gerasa.

All three gospels have the event happening on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, since the pigs drown themselves in that Sea.

So, it's located on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, in an area that, although some distance from the Gerasa and Gadara, is part of the territory controlled by one or both of those cities. Either way, although there are Jews in the area, it's not a Jewish-dominated or Jewish-ruled area. And, of course, there were no Muslims at the time. Although the area wasn't ruled by Rome, the Roman civic religion was widely practiced and many Roman temples existed. So the farming of pigs in the area is not anomalous.

realdanbreen

So keeping things simple.
Is the God that muslims believe in the same god that Christians believe in or is there more than one god?
It would be great to receive simple short replies but I do realise some guys find it hard to contain the infinite wisdom that they have.

Effects

realdanbreen wrote: »

So keeping things simple.
Is the God that muslims believe in the same god that Christians believe in or is there more than one god?
It would be great to receive simple short replies but I do realise some guys find it hard to contain the infinite wisdom that they have.

It's the same God, just worshiped differently.
It's just the humans who worship God in each religion that dispute the other persons God not being the one true God.

smacl

realdanbreen wrote: »

So keeping things simple.
Is the God that muslims believe in the same god that Christians believe in or is there more than one god?
It would be great to receive simple short replies but I do realise some guys find it hard to contain the infinite wisdom that they have.

To throw a spanner in the works I reckon the god the Christians and Muslims worship is pretty much the same god but the gods that Hindus worship are altogether different. On that basis, if you hold that these are all valid religions, there are many equally valid gods.

ChrisJ84

realdanbreen wrote: »

So keeping things simple.
Is the God that muslims believe in the same god that Christians believe in or is there more than one god?
It would be great to receive simple short replies but I do realise some guys find it hard to contain the infinite wisdom that they have.

Christians and Muslims do not believe in the same God. Christians believe that God is trinity, one God in 3 persons, and that Jesus Christ is God in human flesh. Muslims do not believe in these things.

The Nal

What about say, the Hawaiian God Lono? Why don't Irish people believe in him?

realdanbreen

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Christians and Muslims do not believe in the same God. Christians believe that God is trinity, one God in 3 persons, and that Jesus Christ is God in human flesh. Muslims do not believe in these things.

So there are two gods at least then?

ChrisJ84

realdanbreen wrote: »

So there are two gods at least then?

Well the Christian and Islamic ideas of who God is are mutually exclusive, so on that basis either only one of them exists or neither of them do.

As a Christian, obviously I'd plum for the former.

The Nal

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Well the Christian and Islamic ideas of who God is are mutually exclusive, so on that basis either only one of them exists or neither of them do.

As a Christian, obviously I'd plum for the former.

Why?

Why don't you believe the Muslim version?

realdanbreen

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Well the Christian and Islamic ideas of who God is are mutually exclusive, so on that basis either only one of them exists or neither of them do.

As a Christian, obviously I'd plum for the former.

So basicly what you're saying is that either 2.1 billion Christians are wrong or 1.3 billion muslims are wrong or both 3.4 billion are wrong!

ChrisJ84

realdanbreen wrote: »

So basicly what you're saying is that either 2.1 billion Christians are wrong or 1.3 billion muslims are wrong or both 3.4 billion are wrong!

Yep, that's about the sum of it.

ChrisJ84

The Nal wrote: »

Why?

As above, the Christian and Muslim ideas of who God is, what he is like, how he relates to us, and how we can relate to him are completely different. Both are monotheistic religions, but after that the differences start to rack up pretty quickly.

The most important is the question of who Jesus is; Christianity maintains that he is God, and is the only and exclusive way to know God. Muslims do not believe that. So they can't both be true.

The Nal wrote: »

Why don't you believe the Muslim version?

Because I'm a Christian, not a Muslim What about you?

The Nal

ChrisJ84 wrote: »

Because I'm a Christian, not a Muslim What about you?

Until I was 12 or so, the Christian version, because thats how I was raised and didn't know any different/better.

uck51js9zml2yt

The Nal wrote: »

Why?

Why don't you believe the Muslim version?

We only have 1 man's version of the Muslim god whereas we have multiple people over thousands of years writing about the Christian/Jewish God.

Who do you believe? 1 witness or many ?