Answer to DTRT
Part 3
And once again, some words of explanation and a warning: This is the third of four parts answering DTRT's questions that were attaching to the bottom of "Satan's Achilles' Heel" aka "The little piss-ant panty-waist 'god' "(meaning Satan) (http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/216795/1/Satan-The-little-piss-ant-panty-waist-god ). If you haven't read that first part, you may need to go back and review it in order to have some continuity.
The first of the answer's four parts is located here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/217242/1/Answer-to-DTRT-Part-1, and the second one here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/jw/friends/217479/1/Answer-to-DTRT-Part-2
As to the warning: As mentioned before, some people find this subject disturbing, because we are tromping all over forbidden territory. Some will find it advisable to take these a piece at a time.
Once again I would like to invite the Totchwower spies to give the "Governing Body" a message for me. You have published for the world to see, that those who disagree with you are "mentally diseased" and deserving of slaughter similar to the way Jehu killed the priests of Baal. According to you, we hate Jehovah and are serving Satan, when in reality and in all good conscience we couldn't stand your corruption anymore and didn't want our name associated with an organization that does such things. We speak out, not because we hate Jehovah, but because if we don't we will be accessories to your crimes.
However, thanks to your making such statements, Jehu himself would treat you as he did the priests of Baal, and for the same reasons: because of your lying, slandering, the bearing of false witness and the bloodguilt you bear for the stumbling of so many innocent people simply to appease your overweening pride.
You wish us dead, do you? Perhaps you have forgotten (or perhaps you have never read) about a man named Haman who had a similar desire about innocent people of his day, and his eventual end. If you have never heard of him, the story is recorded in a small book in the Bible (only 10 chapters) named "Esther". It's located just before the book of "Job", should you have a hard time locating it.
Speaking for myself, I quite happily make the request for Jehovah to pass judgment between us.
In the meantime, though, let me restate a riddle for you that I've hinted at for a while now. You accuse me of serving Satan. If I am, then how is it that I can write this series of reports that blow his cover and insult everything about him including his intelligence, glory, dignity, pride, and anything else worth mentioning? Am I doing it with his assistance?
If not, then where does this knowledge come from? There are many instances in the Bible (you really should read it sometime) when Jehovah bypassed the glorious "super-fine apostles" in favor of those who have been rejected and outcast. Could this have happened again?
It's something to ponder on, isn't it?
But keep in mind something: True Christians are told to be ". . . always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you, but doing so together with a mild temper and deep respect." (1 Peter 3:15) It is easy to tell when one is dealing with an apostate (in the Biblical sense). Their answers always follow a pattern. Such false prophets stick their noses in the air in a haughty silence with an implied (sometimes spoken) outrage that they should be even questioned. Should one press them further, they will then erupt in name calling and wild accusations that have no basis in fact - but never will they try to answer the thrust of the question posed. Why? Because they have no answer.
But enough of this for now. Here is Part 3.
Hi, DTRT!
"Are any of the Demon Possessed people that are referenced in the Bible, well adjusted people without problems?"
Let's say right off the bat that there is no doubt that some forms of mental derangement can be physical in nature, and it would be disingenuous to try to blame everything on some variation of demon possession. Such things as Down's syndrome and Alzheimer's are definitely physical in nature, while diseases like rabies, meningitis, and syphilis can wreak havoc on the brain, with there being no doubt as to the cause. However, this being the case is not proof that demon possession cannot take place, neither now nor in the past.
Therefore, this is a wide ranging question with all kinds of variables. Let's try to get a handle on it by examining it in a way that wouldn't occur to most people, "thinking out of the box", as it were. True, most would say that this is not the "normal" route to get there, but there is value in approaching a problem from different viewpoints.
In geometry, one is taught how to confront a problem by breaking it down to its most elemental factors, solving them, and then building a solution from these building blocks. So let's break the question down. What is "normal"? What should we accept as "well adjusted" behavior, and who determines that?
Let's illustrate by using forms of behavior that none of us (we hope) considers as "normal", but under certain circumstances many people have considered "normal". The purpose here is to demonstrate that "normal" is a function of the environment, circumstances, training, and personalities involved, and not so much a standard against which we can measure others (or even ourselves) in order to determine their value.
WELL ADJUSTED?
For instance, most people would consider jumping out of a tall building to their death as an aberration and not "normal". However, many so-called "normal" people did just that from the World Trade Center on 9/11. The circumstances were the deciding factor: Stay in the building and die an agonizing death by roasting, or jump and get it over quickly. The "sane" course would be to take the course of least suffering.
Then we could take the example of the little cabin boy Ransome at the beginning of Robert Lewis Stevenson's book Kidnapped. He was living in a hideous environment of abuse and deprivation, but wouldn't escape when he had a chance due to his fears of things being even worse elsewhere. He had become acclimated to the abuse, and that lead to his death. Was he "insane" because he wouldn't escape? Should we classify him as masochistic?
Something similar is in existence now. We have an organization in America named N.A.M.B.L.A. (North American Man/Boy Love Association) that quite openly advocates sexual relations between men and boys and proclaims it as "normal". "Sex by eight, or it's too late!" is one of their slogans. If these men were raised in this environment and were used in such ways themselves, many would indeed feel it was "normal" and no big deal, because it was an integral part of the environment in which they grew up.
Another illustration would be cannibalism, which is a practice that is almost universally condemned. Yet, there are a few instances that give one pause regardless of our personal convictions.
One would be the soccer team that crashed in the high Andes some years ago. Some died in the wreck and others lived. No one could find them, they soon ran out of food, and they resorted to eating the dead. Thanks to that, many survived. When interviewed later, they not only admitted it, but spoke of it as an almost spiritual experience.
Another would be a custom some of the South Pacific tribes had. As we understand it, most instances of cannibalism were the result of war, and the victors would cannibalize the vanquished in the belief that the courage and bravery manifested by their enemies would be transferred to themselves. However, there was another reason recorded that is interesting.
Sometimes on a long ocean journey one of their companions would be killed by some misadventure, and they would eat him. That sounds horrible, and is, but the motive behind it is not. It was their belief and desire that his spirit should be returned to their homeland to be with his ancestors, and not abandoned to wander forever in a strange land. Having no way to preserve the body, they ate him, thereby mingling his life and spirit with their own. Now, according to their beliefs, they could return his spirit to where it wished to be. Viewed in this light, eating him could be viewed as a sacred duty.
Not long ago three girls in Florida were killed by a train while crossing a trestle. They had time to jump to another pair of rails to one side. Another option was to jump over the side into the water 20 ft. below. They did neither, but were so petrified by fear that they froze - and died. Were they suicidal? No. They had no training in emergency situations and didn't know what to do. Is this "normal"?
Let's use one more illustration and then we'll move on.
Most people count polygamy as an aberration and "not normal". Is it always? What about the case on Pitcairn Island when the rebellious crew of the Bounty landed there to colonize the island? The men squabbled among themselves to the extent that only one was left alive. There were eleven women. Now what? There were no ideal solutions, however, is it not reasonable that the man should do all he could to care and provide for all eleven? Any alternative would condemn some of the women to isolation and loneliness for the rest of their lives, as well as create favored and unfavored classes, which could in turn cause the women to start killing each other.
This situation has occurred many times in world history, not the least of which would be the Israelites when they were constantly warring with the surrounding tribes. Many of the men were killed and the result was a decided imbalance in the sexes. Polygamy was allowed as a flawed but practical solution.
Even today we have cases where a man attracts women not due to his sexiness, but because he demonstrates a respect for them and a desire to care for them. It's interesting to talk to some of the women in polygamous marriages, for it is surprising how many are happy with the arrangement.
So what is "normal" and "sane" in these matters? Perhaps even more importantly, who can be trusted to make such decisions? In doing so, we run squarely into another of mankind's weaknesses: Ethnocentrism.
"However, it is not unusual for a person to consider that whatever they believe is the most appropriate system of belief or that however they behave is the most appropriate and 'natural' behaviour. To be fair, a system of belief in which someone doesn't consider his or her own as the right one is inherently inconsistent, for it is admitting its own falseness. With this in mind, it is important to examine the bases for our beliefs regarding other cultures and nations: Emmanuel Levinas's philosophical 'Other'." (Wikipedia under "Ethnocentrism")
The majority of the members of the groups mentioned above think of themselves as "normal" and would be highly insulted if we were to suggest that they were mentally defective.
Worse, those who would set themselves up as arbiters of what is "normal" and "well adjusted" will be biased towards their own unique experiences in life due to this same ethnocentrism.
For this reason then, for us to rush headlong into determining what is "normal" and "sane" is folly of the highest order, for it has been one man's or one group of men's desire to force their own idea of "normality" upon others that has caused nearly every war in the history of mankind.
Unfortunately, we today cannot claim much superiority to the people mentioned above. Here are some reasons why:
There is a sizeable chunk of the population who feel that Darwin's idea of "survival of the fittest" is normal, and that it is their duty to the human race to feed off the weak in order to strengthen the gene pool. Are they insane? They feel they are normal.
Zane Grey in his book The Rainbow Trail raised a question that is difficult to answer. He opposed the Mormon's polygamy, but in fairness he pondered the relative value of the two cultures.
Mormons would take many wives, but would be required to provide housing and food for those wives and their off-spring. This gave a relatively stable foundation from which the children could grow up, and the wives had a modicum of security.
On the other hand, many of the so-called "Christian" men would have only one wife, but be unfaithful to her with a mistress or two. Woe unto the mistress that got pregnant. This left no one with a sense of security, whether it was the wife, mistress, or the children. Which is best?
Of course, we can now take it one step further. The main result of the 'sexual revolution' is that women have become little more than sexual playthings to be used and discarded. If she becomes pregnant, that's her problem. The result to the off-spring has been devastating.
And one more thing: We view cannibalism and pedophilia as barbaric. Yet how is that any more barbaric than the wholesale butchering of the unborn and the handing over of their little carcasses to medical ghouls who use them for spare parts? This is especially true in those cases where the "mothers" simply want the freedom to continue partying and/or to "fulfill" themselves.
WHAT MAKES SOMEONE MALADJUSTED?
In today's world of proliferating "ailments", anything and everything is labeled with some fancy name that identifies it as a form of being "sick". It seems that the idea of taking responsibility for one's welfare is passé and a horrible imposition upon anyone who needs to use that quality. Therefore we have "Sex Addition", "Attention Deficit Disorder" and any of a few hundred other "sicknesses" that are used to justify our lack of self-control.
Why? Because we humans tend to hate facing reality. The counter-culture of the 60's and 70's raised this aversion to the level of a quasi-religion and whenever reality came too close, they would pop some pill and drift off into Never-Never Land. It was much easier to do that instead of facing the root cause of the problems. To be fair here though, it needs to be recognized that many of those problems appeared to be hopeless.
Most of what we have today is exactly the same thing, except that it has been dressed up with fancy names and main-streamed.
And it worked - after a fashion. The trouble is that the reality was just masked and grew larger as time passed. Due to these factors then, we now have a generation of people who have a desperate need to party and stay spaced out using any means necessary. The thought of facing the reality they have avoided at all costs is more than they can bear. They are living on borrowed time and deep down they know it. This is one of the reasons for the epidemic of depression (to speak of just one effect), depression so deep that the pills are ineffective at times and suicide can be the result.
But this brings up a question, one that goes to the very root of today's philosophy and psychiatric practices. Is depression caused by an imbalance in the brain's chemistry, or is the imbalance in brain chemistry caused by the depression? If the imbalance is caused by the depression, then all of these "psychosomatic drugs" are little more than the placing of a Band-Aid on a carbuncle, for the root cause is being ignored. A future day of reckoning is guaranteed.
Indeed, in many ways it's already here. Many of today's soldiers are the off-spring of this "Good-Time Charlie" generation and a recipient of the realities these people foisted off on anyone they could, including their children. Many of those children had to "raise" their parents because the parents couldn't or wouldn't act as adults.
It's pitiful to see some 7 or 8 year-old have to assume the role of the adult in the home. It makes them horribly unprepared to face their own realities and is one of the many factors involved in the current suicide rate in the Armed Forces. They never had an adult role model except in the negative sense, and that example's primary teaching was to avoid reality at all cost. If it can't be avoided, then what?
BUT TO RETURN TO THE MAIN QUESTION...
You ask: "Are any of the Demon Possessed people that are referenced in the Bible, well adjusted people without problems?"
No one knows for sure. In fact, we don't even know if this is a phenomenon that was discontinued after the pattern of 1 Corinthians 13:8 -"Love never fails. But whether there are gifts of prophesying, they will be done away with; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whither there is knowledge, it will be done away with." Perhaps the demons can no longer possess people.
Who is to say one way or another? However, this uncertainty doesn't prevent us from examining the possibilities, choosing the most likely one, then running with that until it's either proven wrong or something better comes along.
Let's illustrate: As you said so well, "The Demoniac, being spiritual beings, when inhabiting another being may feed on one of the most powerful aspects of animals, EMOTION.
Pigs have emotions just as humans, do they not? Isn't it obvious that the Demonshad never went into a Pig before and perhaps when they got into the Pig'sminds they triggered Fear (an emotion) rather than an Emotion that wouldallowthe Pig staying stable and coexisting with them."
Both the Bible and this world's traditions leave the impression that fear is the main emotion the demons inspire. Could this emotion be a catalyst they must create in order for them to "feed"? If this is correct, then let's play with the idea for a minute using clinical depression, which is little more than an aggregate of fear, or fear solidified.
To do that, let's return to the question asked above, "Is depression caused by an imbalance in the brain's chemistry, or is the imbalance in brain chemistry caused by the depression?" and examine it a little closer.
If the imbalance in brain chemistry is caused by fear/depression instead of the other way around, then all kinds of possibilities open up. Here are a few:
- In regards to this chemical imbalance being necessary to release the "sustenance" the demons need to feed, compare this question with your own comment here: "Lucifer and his Cohorts most likely have Telepathic Powers but,can be blocked out if Man does not allow them entrance to his mind." Your thought is backed by James 4:7,"Subject yourselves, therefore, to God; but oppose the Devil, and he will flee from you." Opposing the devil would require a lack (or at least a lessening) of fear.
- It's interesting to note in this regard that in both fear and depression there is a strong sense of not being in control and therefore not having the ability to resist the depredations of others. In the case with the swine, the demons didn't need the swine themselves, they needed what they could harvest from the swine. One could easily come to the conclusion that because fear was involved (and always seems to be involved with anything having to do with demons), that it is a catalyst in the harvesting of their "sustenance".
- In fact, consider this: If indeed the demons had a desperate need for this sustenance, would it not be counter-productive for them to inspire an emotion in the swine that would cause them to self-destruct? Apparently fear was essential to their needs and they had no choice but to use it.
- If this is the case, then could our usage of psychosomatic drugs to restore the brain's chemical balance screw up such harvesting? If true, this would be highly intriguing and even a bit amusing!
There's more, but this should do for the moment. (Grin)
To sum this up, then, please remember that we are not answering your question with either a yes or no, for the simple reason that we don't have enough evidence to know for sure one way or another.
Rather, we need to keep in mind that there is a line of logical thought concerning the matter that would be intellectually dishonest to ignore. Furthermore, that line of thought is one that brings the Biblical account into the realm of possibility, instead of relegating it to the trash bin of superstition and legend in the knee-jerk manner that is utilized by the "experts" today.
Perhaps the most important of all, this is the only line of thought that sustains hope.
There's one last thing that should be included in regard to your questions. As mentioned before, when pondering an answer, another major piece of the puzzle fell into place. Others have objected to the analysis of the events in Eden, because it tended to make Jehovah appear like a patsy or naïve fool whom Satan outsmarted and took to the cleaners. There was an answer for that, but it was incomplete and unsatisfying.
This is a much better one, and the last part will cover it.
'Til then,
Tom