"Demons of Good Will"

Mortal wrote:

Candlemass wrote:

messiaen77 wrote:

Mortal wrote:

sentient 6 wrote:If someones intent on what they post was meant for benign or good reasons, then they shouldn't be held responsible for others evil intent.

I never said they should be held responsible for it.

People usually post pictures of their children because they love them and are proud of them. I get that.

But that love and pride shouldn't be an excuse for a lack of caution.

I agree with this completely.  I have so many pictures of my kids I'd like to post, but I don't because I know there are a lot of perverts and sickos that hang out on social media and I don't want to make my kids fodder for their sick fantasies.

This I can understand, but I'm not in the least bit concerned w/anyone casting spells or curses...

So you can understand loving your children enough and protecting them so that they do not become "fodder for their sick fantasies"...

But you can't understand loving your enemy enough not to put something in front of them that will aid in furthering their stumble?

You can have compassion for your children, but you are not the least bit concerned for your enemies?

That seems mighty self-serving.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you really aren't asking me if I care about my children more than some nameless, faceless people on the internet.  I'm also going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did not intend to put words in my mouth and completely mischaracterize my attitude toward my "enemies" by saying I am not the least bit concerned for them.  With that out of the way, let me be as clear as possible:

1.  I am a laid back, easy-going guy who probably puts up with more garbage from other people than I should.  I am resistant to violence and would much rather use words than weapons to solve conflicts.  That being said, if you (generic you, not you specifically) do something to hurt my children, may God have mercy on your soul, because there will be none coming from me.  There is nothing or no one that I would more vigorously defend or avenge than my wife and children.  I'm not saying it is right or Godly or Christian.  I'm just saying that is the way it is.  If that is "mighty self-serving" then so be it.

2.  Loving your enemy is the hardest of Jesus' teachings in my opinion because it runs completely contrary to they way we are wired/programmed as human beings.  I do not love my enemies perfectly by any means, but I am much farther along than I was. 

3.  As a follower of Christ, I believe I have a responsibility to work for the betterment of the other people I share this rock we call Earth with.  I have a responsibility to be compassionate and seek their good regardless of how they treat me.  (Disclaimer:  See #2)  To that end, I strive to never knowingly expose others to things that might cause them problems, that might cause them to stumble.  If I know someone has an issue with alcohol or drugs or gossiping or glutony or porn or whatever, then I strive to be sensitive to those things and not put them in a position where they might have difficulty resisting.

4.  Given #3, I will not run through every possible response that every possible person who is exposed to my actions could possibly make before I choose to act.  I do not believe God expects us to do that and I honestly do not think it is even possible.  I think that if we truly did this, then we would all be paralyzed; we could not act because there is a possibility that all actions could produce a negative and sinful response in some other person. 

5.  I still believe that it is flawed thinking--or a deliberate attempt to provoke a response--to claim that Robertson's response to the question about the ultrasound photos was anything other than being concerned that Satanists would place a curse on an unborn baby via the photo.  As I do not have any special insight into the thought processes of Pat Robertson, I concede that I cannot state with 100% certainty that this is the case, thus the use of "I still believe" as a qualifier.

6.  I now regret posting the video and entering into this discussion.  I know better.

messiaen77 wrote:I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume you really aren't asking me if I care about my children more than some nameless, faceless people on the internet.  I'm also going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you did not intend to put words in my mouth and completely mischaracterize my attitude toward my "enemies" by saying I am not the least bit concerned for them.  With that out of the way, let me be as clear as possible:

Thank you. I appreciate that because I never did say those things.

messiaen77 wrote:1.  I am a laid back, easy-going guy who probably puts up with more garbage from other people than I should.  I am resistant to violence and would much rather use words than weapons to solve conflicts.  That being said, if you (generic you, not you specifically) do something to hurt my children, may God have mercy on your soul, because there will be none coming from me.  There is nothing or no one that I would more vigorously defend or avenge than my wife and children.  I'm not saying it is right or Godly or Christian.  I'm just saying that is the way it is.  If that is "mighty self-serving" then so be it.

Protecting one's own is a righteous thing. I wouldn't slight anyone for protecting their own.

messiaen77 wrote:2.  Loving your enemy is the hardest of Jesus' teachings in my opinion because it runs completely contrary to they way we are wired/programmed as human beings.  I do not love my enemies perfectly by any means, but I am much farther along than I was.

I agree it's hard. Very hard at times.

messiaen77 wrote:3.  As a follower of Christ, I believe I have a responsibility to work for the betterment of the other people I share this rock we call Earth with.  I have a responsibility to be compassionate and seek their good regardless of how they treat me.  (Disclaimer:  See #2)  To that end, I strive to never knowingly expose others to things that might cause them problems, that might cause them to stumble.  If I know someone has an issue with alcohol or drugs or gossiping or glutony or porn or whatever, then I strive to be sensitive to those things and not put them in a position where they might have difficulty resisting.

That's good. As it should be.

messiaen77 wrote:4.  Given #3, I will not run through every possible response that every possible person who is exposed to my actions could possibly make before I choose to act.  I do not believe God expects us to do that and I honestly do not think it is even possible.  I think that if we truly did this, then we would all be paralyzed; we could not act because there is a possibility that all actions could produce a negative and sinful response in some other person.

Like I said, protecting one's own is a righteous thing.

messiaen77 wrote:5.  I still believe that it is flawed thinking--or a deliberate attempt to provoke a response--to claim that Robertson's response to the question about the ultrasound photos was anything other than being concerned that Satanists would place a curse on an unborn baby via the photo.

Now this is where I scratch my head.

Were you trying to provoke a response when you posted that video?

The thread was started with the idea that evil spirits could attach themselves to inanimate objects. Then you come in posting this video saying "But wait, there's more"

More what?

messiaen77 wrote:As I do not have any special insight into the thought processes of Pat Robertson, I concede that I cannot state with 100% certainty that this is the case, thus the use of "I still believe" as a qualifier.

That's good.

messiaen77 wrote:6.  I now regret posting the video and entering into this discussion.  I know better.

That's good.

I am still curious about what was meant by "But wait, there's more?", but I will give you the benefit of the doubt in return and not concern myself with it anymore.

Thanks 

I saw this article this morning and thought I'd share it here. I think it is relevant to the discussion here.

Mother of 'cyberbullied' toddler speaks out

Sure...I don't believe satanic curses have any power. But some bad minded people sure can do some damage.

Any thoughts?

Mortal wrote:I saw this article this morning and thought I'd share it here. I think it is relevant to the discussion here.

Mother of 'cyberbullied' toddler speaks out

Sure...I don't believe satanic curses have any power. But some bad minded people sure can do some damage.

Any thoughts?

First. How horribly sad.

I think it lends credence to M77s point that I share about not wanting to share pic of our kids on the net.

d@v!d wrote:First. How horribly sad.

I think it lends credence to M77s point that I share about not wanting to share pic of our kids on the net.

I agree.

These type of bullies can hurt some real feelings, stir some real emotion, and cause some real damage.

Mortal wrote:
I am still curious about what was meant by "But wait, there's more?", but I will give you the benefit of the doubt in return and not concern myself with it anymore.

Thanks 

This video was simply another video I stumbled across featuring Robertson making another statement that seems to be way out in left field, demonstrating that the demons connecting to clothing thing was not an isolated incident.