lums@ai.mit.edu (Andy Lumsdaine) (02/12/90)
In his book _People of the Lie_, M. Scott Peck discusses his experiences at several (real) exorcisms. Apparently, at least two were actual satanic possessions. I would highly recommend this book as a starting place; Dr. Peck seems very credible (to me, at least). Regards, A.L.
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (02/22/90)
In article <Feb.18.13.29.17.1990.13446@athos.rutgers.edu> bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) writes: >ON GODHOOD (SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION): > >Peck: "What are we growing toward? Where is the end point, the goal of > evolution? What is it that God wants from us?... For no matter how > much we like to pussyfoot around it, all of us who postulate a loving > God and really think about it eventually come to a single terrifying > idea: God wants us to become Himself (or Herself or Itself). We > are growing toward Godhood. God is the goal of evolution." > - page 269 The Road Less Travelled >... > "And the Serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For > God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall > be open, and ye shall be as gods." > - Genesis 3: 4-5 You might want to be careful using this particular scripture to refute Peck's idea. Just because Satan says it does not make it false and he will gladly mix a little truth in his temptation to make us swallow the lie that goes with it. This is a perfect example. Satan really claims 2 things here: 1. You shall not surely die. 2. Your eyes will be opened and you will be as gods, knowing good and evil. The first claim is patently false, they did surely die. However the second claim, the one similar to Peck's thesis, is not only true but is validated by God himself later in the same chapter, "...the man is become as one of us to know good and evil..." (Gen 3:22) I think we can learn 2 things from this account of Satan's lie and God's response to it: 1. Any source, no matter how despicable, can occasionally get something right. (Surely there are few less trustworthy sources than Satan.) Therefore we need not reject something just because we don't like the source. 2. A few isolated bits of truth do not confirm a source as truthful. Before we accept a source as reliable we need to investigate it fully. I think that what we should do is investigate all ideas regardless of the source. These ideas should be accepted or rejected on their own merits, not by blatant appeal to authority. The only exception would be a direct revelation from God and even then I think He wants us to try to understand it, not just blindly accept it. "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good." (1 Thes 5:21) I would extend this to all Peck's ideas as well. His popularity with "New-age" people, his comments on someone later condemned by the Catholic Church etc. are not the issue. Even his past record is an issue only as a guide to how competent he is. Examine his (and others) works on the evidence. Do they withstand scrutiny? [It seems pretty clear that Gen 3:22 does not approve of man's knowing good and evil. It says "he's already become independent of us in judging good and evil, now before he does something even worse let's put a stop to all this". In context I'd say what God is objecting to is man developing his own understanding of good and evil independent of God's. --clh]
dps@uunet.uu.net ( Dan Smith ) (02/22/90)
I find M. Scott Peck has very little experience on this subject and his view is rather humanistic rather than biblical. A recognized authority on this subject is Lester Sumrall, who has dealt for many years with many situations and cultures with respect to demonic influence. His book, *Demons*, is IMO, a much better starting place. -- Laura Smith (Dan's other half) dps@acd4 uunet!acd4!dps
hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) (02/25/90)
In article <Feb.22.04.11.30.1990.6195@athos.rutgers.edu> hall@vice.ico.tek.com (Hal Lillywhite) writes: > >In article <Feb.18.13.29.17.1990.13446@athos.rutgers.edu> bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) writes: >>ON GODHOOD (SPIRITUAL EVOLUTION): ... >> "And the Serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For >> God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall >> be open, and ye shall be as gods." >> - Genesis 3: 4-5 I write: ... > Satan really claims 2 things here: > 1. You shall not surely die. > 2. Your eyes will be opened and you will be as gods, > knowing good and evil. >The first claim is patently false, they did surely die. However the >second claim, the one similar to Peck's thesis, is not only true but >is validated by God himself later in the same chapter, "...the man >is become as one of us to know good and evil..." (Gen 3:22) ... The moderator comments: >[It seems pretty clear that Gen 3:22 does not approve of man's knowing >good and evil. It says "he's already become independent of us in >judging good and evil, now before he does something even worse let's >put a stop to all this". In context I'd say what God is objecting to >is man developing his own understanding of good and evil independent >of God's. --clh] Well, this is getting a bit away from my original point and I hate to disagree with our moderator (I think he does an excellent job). However I'm not sure I totally agree with this. To me the verse seems to be saying that the man now knows good and evil *like* we do, not necessarily independent from us. The fruit after all was placed there by God so the knowledge of good and evil did in fact come from God (indirectly). I agree that the next item on the agenda is to keep the situation from getting worse as the rest of the verse indicates: Lest he partake of the tree of life and live forever... Why was it so bad that Adam could live forever? After all, without eating the forbidden fruit he would have done so anyway. I think that knowing good and evil he (and by extension all of us) could now sin. There is a great difference between eternal life in a sinless state and eternal life as a sinner. In fact I heard once that there is a Jewish ledgend that Cain's real punishment was that he would not be allowed to die as long as the world exists - he would have to live with what he had done. True or not this illustrates the situation Adam would have been in had he eaten of the tree of life and lived forever in his sin. Eventually life would become a burden instead of a blessing. The solution of course was for Adam (and us) to die physically but for Jesus to come and pay the price not only for Adam's transgression but also for ours if we repent. This provides us the opportunity to be freed from our sins so that eternal life becomes not only tolerable but desirable.