Good YA book about end times...and a question about seeing demons (CC)

[Garga]

Just out of curiosity, how did they know they were demons, as opposed to something with a more "scientific" explanation such as aliens or some kind of temporary hallucination?

For a few of them, sure it could have been aliens or a hallucination. They claimed to see some sort of creature.

 

For one in particular though, this was a man I know who was offering to pray for people at a service. A man came to him with his deaf and mute son and asked for prayer for the son. When the man praying looked at the son, he could 'see' a demon attached to the boy. In this case it was not seeing with physical eyes. He told the demon to leave in Jesus' name. It did. At the moment that it did, the boy startled and started hitting at his ears. The man continued to pray that the boy could speak, and he began to make noises for the first time ever. There were many witnesses to the event who all saw it go down. Years later the man met the boy again, and the boy could still hear and had learned to speak properly.

 

Aliens, mass hallucination, or a demon? Dunno. I go with demon.

 

For another one that I just remembered now--a different friend of mine knew a woman, who at the time was a rather angry and difficult person to be around. She is currently a dear friend of mine. Somehow or other he was telling her about Jesus. She angrily told him to stop. He sensed there was a demonic presence and told it to leave. As soon as it did, he asked her if she would like to hear about Jesus now and she burst into tears and said, "please, yes" and has been one of the sweetest and most genuine Christians I know ever since.

 

Again, what was up with that? She just wanted to be asked again and there was no demon influencing her? Could be. Or not. I can only tell you what happened and you can decide.

 

I have other people's stories but they're not as clear cut as those. And I'm only telling the stories of people that I know personally and trust and not stories of other people that I can't be sure of.

[Garga]

Oh, and as far as it being a gift someone wouldn't want, I believe it's supposed to be a tool, like in the examples in my above post--to know what the problem is to know what to pray for. I don't think God meant to be a way to scare people. For people grounded and mature enough in their faith, it's just a tool.

[Mergath]

I see we've reached the yearly Smack Down Christianity thread....

 

I don't think it's smacking down Christianity to discuss demons.  I know quite a few Christians who don't believe in literal demons at all, so there's some disagreement even within the religion itself.  It's certainly not a central tenet of the faith for most people, in any case.

[mommaduck]

I don't think it's smacking down Christianity to discuss demons.  I know quite a few Christians who don't believe in literal demons at all, so there's some disagreement even within the religion itself.  It's certainly not a central tenet of the faith for most people, in any case.

 

It's more the manner in which some of it is being done. Especially when is appears that the person was asking a specific question, not a debate on whether Christ existed or not or how he may have existed, etc.

[mommymilkies]

Christianity is not the only religion that believes in demons or harmful spirits. I've met enough people who were told just to pray through their mental illness and ended up severely hurting their loved ones to realize how harmful that belief is. If you're hearing voices or seeing demon faces, the odds of that being demons or angels or God is so remote that it's really not even worth considering.

[LucyStoner]

Refuting the existence of demons or stating a non belief in them is not smacking down Christianity.

[Mergath]

It's more the manner in which some of it is being done. Especially when is appears that the person was asking a specific question, not a debate on whether Christ existed or not or how he may have existed, etc.

 

Ah.  Well, I'm not touching that discussion with a ten foot pole, but as someone who has had my epilepsy attributed to demons on more than one occasion, I'm a bit touchy about the whole demons causing illness thing.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Ah. Well, I'm not touching that discussion with a ten foot pole, but as someone who has had my epilepsy attributed to demons on more than one occasion, I'm a bit touchy about the whole demons causing illness thing.

I find it very concerning that people still tell stories they have been told about someone being healed by the casting out of demons.

[mommaduck]

Ah.  Well, I'm not touching that discussion with a ten foot pole, but as someone who has had my epilepsy attributed to demons on more than one occasion, I'm a bit touchy about the whole demons causing illness thing.  

 

Understandably :)

[joannqn]

I have never "seen" a demon, but I once had an experience where I met someone and had an incredibly strong feeling that they were...beyond horrible, the most evil I could ever imagine.

 

I've had this experience once.  I was pumping gas at a local station when I noticed a pick up truck in the station with a male driver and female passenger.  Nothing about them was unusual except for the fact that I was terrified of them.  I don't think I've never felt more frightened in my life.

[Lady Florida.]

It's more the manner in which some of it is being done. Especially when is appears that the person was asking a specific question, not a debate on whether Christ existed or not or how he may have existed, etc.

 

I did not bring up the question of Jesus' existence out of the blue. A poster (not the OP) gave 3 names as an example of people who were not mentally ill yet still saw demons. I responded that post, making a statement about each of those examples (Jesus, St. Teresa of Avila, and Ezekiel of the bible). Another poster questioned my statement and again, I responded. That is not a smackdown. 

[Garga]

I find it very concerning that people still tell stories they have been told about someone being healed by the casting out of demons.

Yeah, that was me. Ugh. I don't like these threads. I sounded like a coo-coo. I wish there was a way to see body language and tone of voice. Believe it or not, I tend to irritate most people becuase of my questioning and logical way of being. I tend to derail conversations with a never ending, "Okaaaay, but let's consider a different point of view." Yes, I'm *that* person at parties. I sure didn't sound questioning and logical when I relayed the demon stories! (Self depreciating roll of eyes. Emoticons don't work on the ipad.)

 

If you are having medical issues, go to a doctor. If you are seeing things, go to a doctor. I have these stories from people I trust, but you don't have to trust them, so feel free to ignore. But since the OP asked if anyone knew about seeing demons and someone else wanted to know whether there could be another explanation, I went ahead and told the stories for you to draw your own conclusions. (Conclusion, Garga is a naive coo-coo.)

 

But, please, go to a doctor if you are having medical issues.

[WishboneDawn]

I see we've reached the yearly Smack Down Christianity thread....

The OP did not put CC or, "Christian responses only" in her post.

 

Most of the responses have been reasonable and polite.

 

As Christians we should welcome challenge. We should not be wimps.

 

Many Christians don't believe in the idea that people see demons (I don't) and many non-Christians do believe in something like that and your language indirectly excludes both views.

[unsinkable]

The OP did not put CC or, "Christian responses only" in her post.

 

 

 

But she did put CC in the title. Not sure why you brought that up?

 

CC began to be used because those who didn't want read Christian content posts requested it, sometimes it was bandwidth issuew back in the day.

 

IIRC, people did use to ask for believers of certain denominations could please respond to certain questions. I don't see it as much anymore.

 

But maybe it's my perception but it seems like religious content posts get more non-followers of the religion posting than followers lately.

[Tiramisu]

You didn't misinterpret. There is actually no historical evidence for Jesus. All "evidence" comes only from Christian writers and only many years after his supposed death.

 

The most well-known non-Christian historical sources that recognized the existence of the person Jesus are the writings of Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Jesus is also referred to in the Talmud. These references to Jesus are generally accepted among historians.

[Lady Florida.]

The most well-known non-Christian historical sources that recognized the existence of the person Jesus are the writings of Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Jesus is also referred to in the Talmud. These references to Jesus are generally accepted among historians.

 

Historians are divided on whether or not Jesus existed, but fewer and fewer are accepting historical Jesus. Some historians believe a person existed on whom Jesus was based.  This is an example of why those sources you named aren't proof. 

 

I won't continue this conversion. It was a short aside in a response to another post, but is too far off topic. Neither of us will change the other's belief.

 

Edited for clarity.

[Lady Florida.]

 

 

But maybe it's my perception but it seems like religious content posts get more non-followers of the religion posting than followers lately.

 

A poster asked if non-Christians believe in demons. Several non-Christians, including myself, responded.

[TracyP]

My grandma and my mom claim to have the gift of discernment. My grandma believes that she can look at / talk to a person and get a clear feel of their character. Having grown up watching this, I have to say: it doesn't work. I watched her misjudge person after person, occasionally getting lucky. My mom always "has feelings" about what is going to happen. Again: it doesn't work. OTOH, my grandpa has an uncanny way of knowing things. HE doesn't claim it is anything spiritual. He just says that he knows how to sit back and listen.

 

I know three women and a man who claim to see demons. One is my mom. She says you don't see them you just feel their presence when they are there. Same with woman #2. Considering my mom's track record with discernment, I'm skeptical. The third woman and the man say they can actually see demons. They were missionaries who were involved with ridding several people in Mexico of their demons. The demons would distort the mouths of the people they were possessing. The demons would sometimes come right out of the walls when this couple walked into a restaurant. I don't know what was going on here, but again I am skeptical. This is a fantastic story. How can I believe something like that? And why don't they see demons here (in MN / America)? The demons just hang out in Mexico? I dunno. It all seems a little far fetched.

[milovany]

A poster asked if non-Christians believe in demons. Several non-Christians, including myself, responded.

 

I don't see where she asked if non-Christians believe in demons in her OP.  And it does say CC in the title, so I assumed she was looking for replies from the Christian perspective.  I was surprised at the way the thread turned as well (although it's not an issue for me). 

[Lady Florida.]

I don't see where she asked if non-Christians believe in demons in her OP.  And it does say CC in the title, so I assumed she was looking for replies from the Christian perspective.  I was surprised at the way the thread turned as well (although it's not an issue for me). 

 

The OP didn't, nor did I say she did. I said "a poster asked". Also, CC just means there's Christian content. It doesn't mean only Christians can or even should participate.

[Lady Florida.]

Has anyone ever "seen" demons" in a person?

 

 

 

Here's what the OP actually did say. She did not ask, "Have any Christians seen demons?" but "Has anyone seen demons?"

[WishboneDawn]

But she did put CC in the title. Not sure why you brought that up?

 

CC began to be used because those who didn't want read Christian content posts requested it, sometimes it was bandwidth issuew back in the day.

 

IIRC, people did use to ask for believers of certain denominations could please respond to certain questions. I don't see it as much anymore.

 

But maybe it's my perception but it seems like religious content posts get more non-followers of the religion posting than followers lately.

Sorry! I should have checked the title in desktop mode. I'm on my phone and the CC part didn't show up.Never fails, I get snarky and then embarrass myself.:-)

[mommymilkies]

But she did put CC in the title. Not sure why you brought that up?

 

CC began to be used because those who didn't want read Christian content posts requested it, sometimes it was bandwidth issuew back in the day.

 

IIRC, people did use to ask for believers of certain denominations could please respond to certain questions. I don't see it as much anymore.

 

But maybe it's my perception but it seems like religious content posts get more non-followers of the religion posting than followers lately.

Sorry! I should have checked the title in desktop mode. I'm on my phone and the CC part didn't show up.Never fails, I get snarky and then embarrass myself.:-)

This. In mobile, it didn't show up because of the long title. And Cc does mean Christian content. I have been Christian in my life and I am not opposed to Christian content, so I replied. If you want to only get the opinion of Christians of your persuasion, you should be more specific, as I know a couple dissenters on here ARE Christian.

[Tangerine]

My husband and I always make jokes about how I decide upon meeting someone if I like them, and then it is set in stone. It is based on the fact that I get intense feelings or intuition about a person's character, and my feelings have been shown to be very accurate on several occasions. Even I know that there is probably a lot of confirmation bias, and some thinking highly of myself going on. I do get a feeling about people immediately, but I'm not going to attribute it to God. That seems a little far-fetched and self important.

[milovany]

Here's what the OP actually did say. She did not ask, "Have any Christians seen demons?" but "Has anyone seen demons?"

It played out differently in my head. I first saw CC so thought she wanted a Christian POV. The "anyone," then, seemed to mean "the Christians who opened this post" or at the very least, "those who respect and/or understand the Christian point of view." CC isn't universally understood to mean one specific thing, so again, that's how it played out in my head.

[mommaduck]

My issue was that there is more than one way to view demonic activity and "seeing"...particularly within a faith, vocabulary is often used a certain way that may not have the exact definition or perspective of the typical and secular form. So to automatically equate what one doesn't believe in with mental illness is a bit over the top.

 

Also, to simply dismiss certain figures that are important to one's faith is a bit far also. It would be like my coming on here and insulting Maimonides, Buddah, etc.

[albeto.]

My issue was that there is more than one way to view demonic activity and "seeing"...particularly within a faith, vocabulary is often used a certain way that may not have the exact definition or perspective of the typical and secular form. So to automatically equate what one doesn't believe in with mental illness is a bit over the top.

 

I've been thinking about this comment since I first read it. I've tried a couple times to respond, but my words keep getting tangled. Usually I try to be as succinct as I can manage, because I have a tendency to ramble on. I think in this case, it's better to ramble, because I don't want you (or others) to misunderstand my intent here. I feel really strongly about this, and feel pressure to keep my thoughts to myself rather than inadvertently offending someone (again) or hurting someone's feelings unintentionally (again). But this time I just don't want to stay silent. I really hope you can read this with the sincerity with which I'm writing - an appeal to your compassion and humanity. If I didn't think there was hope, I wouldn't try. I hope you'll hear me out, and regardless of whether or not you agree with me, I hope you will understand my genuine intent is to explain this in a kind and courteous way.

 

Anyway, I think you make a good point about "seeing" meaning something else in the context of this question. It's not so much visual perception, but a mental perception, or "seeing with the mind's eye" or what have you. I think you're right in that. However, I expect most of us reading and contributing from a non-religious pov recognize that. Still, it's probably a good reminder. My question, way back at the beginning of this thread, was asked in all sincerity. If the same experience could be explained as either a spiritual "knowing," or a neurological event, how would one know it's one and not the other? I think this is a tremendously important question, actually. A couple posters already hinted at their personal experiences with neurological glitches being addressed as spiritual realities, and the negative consequences of that. I just read a news story out of South Africa that exposed a raid in a  church-run mental health and drug rehabilitation center in which patients were chained and held captive, treated with prayer rather than medication. In reality, they suffered not only their own living hell inside the mind of a mentally unstable and unpredictable consciousness, but they were chained and imprisoned on top of it! This kind of treatment is barbaric, in my opinion, but somehow made it past church members because of precisely this same idea - sensory perception can indicate a spiritual reality, and therefore requires spiritual treatment. 

 

But this is just the most recent news story I've read. I get sick to my stomach when reading about one "failed" exorcism after another, where a child or teen is killed in the name of ridding them of spiritual oppression of one kind or another. This kind of behavior is on the rise in some places in the world, like Australia. Children shouldn't be tortured because people genuinely believe spiritual attacks explain unexpected behaviors! Why, just the other day a youth pastor in Iowa was arrested for raping boys, telling police he did it so the boys could be "pure" in God's eyes. Perhaps he genuinely thought, certainly he convinced the kids, that having sex with them would help their homosexual tendencies. Surely he is a deluded man, his thinking lacks any rational connection, but the troubling reality is these boys, like countless others, have been trained to be open to the possibility that God does work in mysterious ways, that spiritual problems require unorthodox solutions.

 

And this is why, when questions like the OP's come up, people should question the validity of these beliefs. People should question the credibility of the responses offered. I think it absolutely should not be acceptable to propose an idea to people kept vulnerable because at some point, a trusted mentor, faith, or one's gut feelings are more credible in knowing what's going on. The thing is, gut feelings aren't always correct, in fact, they're often incorrect. The examples in this thread are terrible examples of "evidence" in that there is absolutely no confirmation of accuracy! And yet they're shared without question because people genuinely beleive emotions and personal opinions accurately explain what's happening, and because people know and trust the ones sharing these events. 

 

So mommaduck, I don't want to give the impression I'm picking on you or on your faith. However, when I think of people who are being oppressed and abused for the sake of following a "gut feeling" that someone's spiritual explanation must be right, I think to myself, How can I keep quiet knowing how many people read these posts, how many people might look at their own child/sibling/parent/neighbor and think again about the spiritual explanation offered, and consider offering a medical explanation instead? How can I sit on my fingers and resist typing the tiniest question ("how can you know?"), knowing someone will post that they're rolling their eyes, or this is typical religion-bashing, or some other means of encouraging people to keep from interjecting that which is not supportive? How can I not suggest to people who have a tremendous amount of compassion, that their methodology is actually causing more pain and suffering to those they love? Kids are dying, even in our first world country, because people either neglect, or are ignorant of the solution to problems, and instead impose a treatment that not only neglects their needs, but contributes to their suffering! I hope you understand, but between giving an undeserved but expected respect to a belief, and helping someone find the resources that can help a loved one, I would choose helping a person every time! I suspect you would too, and I suspect you and I would not agree with the method of helping, but I hope you understand that I offer this explanation to give some insight, so you don't think your faith is being targeted. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I suspect I would not be alone in this explanation. 

 

Also, to simply dismiss certain figures that are important to one's faith is a bit far also. It would be like my coming on here and insulting Maimonides, Buddah, etc.

 

On another note, I don't quite understand this. Factual information that doesn't conform to a religious belief isn't insulting that belief. I recognize it can be uncomfortable for the believer, but it isn't an insult to share facts. 

[Lady Florida.]

CC isn't universally understood to mean one specific thing, so again, that's how it played out in my head.

 

On this board, CC in the title goes back many years to the old old boards. It was intended to let people know there's Christian content in case they didn't want to bother opening a thread only to find CC inside. It was never intended to keep non-Christians out.

[Lady Florida.]

 

On another note, I don't quite understand this. Factual information that doesn't conform to a religious belief isn't insulting that belief. I recognize it can be uncomfortable for the believer, but it isn't an insult to share facts. 

 

I know I said I was done on this subject, but I had to agree with this. To state that a religious figure might not have existed historically is not insulting. It's merely stating a fact shared by some experts. I do not deny that historians are divided on the subject of historical Jesus, which is why I said in my original post about this that Jesus probably never existed. If making a statement about what some historians think is the same as insulting a belief or insulting the believer, then it's impossible to have a conversation.

[Mom-ninja.]

I find it very concerning that people still tell stories they have been told about someone being healed by the casting out of demons.

 

Humans are pattern seeking and story telling animals. So, stories will always be around. Lots of scientific books about this as I'm sure you know.

[TravelingChris]

I am teaching a criminology class at my homeschool coop for high schoolers.  I am a Christian.  I have never seen demons or met anyone who told me they had seen literal demons (supernatural beings).  That said, in junior high school, I met a boy in the hallway who I could immediately tell was incredibly evil.  I haven't had quite that feeling again though I did have it to a large degree in one other situation, where I misread my incredible misgivings (I thought I was obsessing over a plagiarism issue and making mountains out of molehills so I ignored my giant feelings of something wrong).  In both cases, I was correct.  The junior high boy was only at that school for one day, since he had come from juv. detention and was back the next day.  The other person is serving multiple life sentences (and not for plagiarism). Now why did I mention the teaching of criminology?  Well each week I have my students bring in a media account of a crime or criminal.  THe last few weeks, one of the stories locally gaining a lot of attention is a mother whose baby was found dead in a bathtub.  That was all that was said for over a week but the mother had been arrested and charged with murder at the scene.  Immediately, I knew it wasn't a case of baby accidentally drowning while mom answers the phone type deal.  Those cases, if ever charged, take time to have a charge.  My youngest, who is in that class, was discussing the case with me and asking if the prosecutors check on mental health status.  She went on to discuss previous cases where mom thinks the devil is out to get her baby and kills the baby so the baby doesn't go to hell (in her delusions)/ 

 

So while I do not think that all hallucinations are mental illness (I started reading a book soon before I moved and had to turn it back in to the library written in England about schizophrenia and hallucinations and the researches found that while schizophrenia is definitely present in some with hallucinations, apparently, they believe that about 10% of the people in England have had audio or visual hallucinations-  just that people without mental illness generally decide they had a hallucination and go on their way without changing behavior.)  I think if a person is talking about visions or 'people telling them" to do certain things, I think at that point, mental health evaluation is appropriate.

[mommymilkies]

I also never said I disagreed with guy feelings/intuition. But if you believe you are literally hearing demon voices in your head and/or literally seeing demons, that is a sign of mental illness, particularly schizophrenia. It could also be sign of a medication reaction. I actually had this happen when I was on abx once. They switched my abx and it went away.

[lorisuewho]

Mental illness can indeed cause people to see and hear things that aren't real, but that doesn't mean just because someone can see into another spiritual realm they are mentally ill.  In my own opinion, spiritually sensitive people are outliers and always labeled "crazy" because they don't line up with what is the normal range of experience.  Their experiences can't be proven; therefore, they are dismissed as mentally ill and in need of treatment. 

[WishboneDawn]

 

I've been thinking about this comment since I first read it. I've tried a couple times to respond, but my words keep getting tangled. Usually I try to be as succinct as I can manage, because I have a tendency to ramble on. I think in this case, it's better to ramble, because I don't want you (or others) to misunderstand my intent here. I feel really strongly about this, and feel pressure to keep my thoughts to myself rather than inadvertently offending someone (again) or hurting someone's feelings unintentionally (again). But this time I just don't want to stay silent. I really hope you can read this with the sincerity with which I'm writing - an appeal to your compassion and humanity. If I didn't think there was hope, I wouldn't try. I hope you'll hear me out, and regardless of whether or not you agree with me, I hope you will understand my genuine intent is to explain this in a kind and courteous way.

 

Anyway, I think you make a good point about "seeing" meaning something else in the context of this question. It's not so much visual perception, but a mental perception, or "seeing with the mind's eye" or what have you. I think you're right in that. However, I expect most of us reading and contributing from a non-religious pov recognize that. Still, it's probably a good reminder. My question, way back at the beginning of this thread, was asked in all sincerity. If the same experience could be explained as either a spiritual "knowing," or a neurological event, how would one know it's one and not the other? I think this is a tremendously important question, actually. A couple posters already hinted at their personal experiences with neurological glitches being addressed as spiritual realities, and the negative consequences of that. I just read a news story out of South Africa that exposed a raid in a church-run mental health and drug rehabilitation center in which patients were chained and held captive, treated with prayer rather than medication. In reality, they suffered not only their own living hell inside the mind of a mentally unstable and unpredictable consciousness, but they were chained and imprisoned on top of it! This kind of treatment is barbaric, in my opinion, but somehow made it past church members because of precisely this same idea - sensory perception can indicate a spiritual reality, and therefore requires spiritual treatment.

 

But this is just the most recent news story I've read. I get sick to my stomach when reading about one "failed" exorcism after another, where a child or teen is killed in the name of ridding them of spiritual oppression of one kind or another. This kind of behavior is on the rise in some places in the world, like Australia. Children shouldn't be tortured because people genuinely believe spiritual attacks explain unexpected behaviors! Why, just the other day a youth pastor in Iowa was arrested for raping boys, telling police he did it so the boys could be "pure" in God's eyes. Perhaps he genuinely thought, certainly he convinced the kids, that having sex with them would help their homosexual tendencies. Surely he is a deluded man, his thinking lacks any rational connection, but the troubling reality is these boys, like countless others, have been trained to be open to the possibility that God does work in mysterious ways, that spiritual problems require unorthodox solutions.

 

And this is why, when questions like the OP's come up, people should question the validity of these beliefs. People should question the credibility of the responses offered. I think it absolutely should not be acceptable to propose an idea to people kept vulnerable because at some point, a trusted mentor, faith, or one's gut feelings are more credible in knowing what's going on. The thing is, gut feelings aren't always correct, in fact, they're often incorrect. The examples in this thread are terrible examples of "evidence" in that there is absolutely no confirmation of accuracy! And yet they're shared without question because people genuinely beleive emotions and personal opinions accurately explain what's happening, and because people know and trust the ones sharing these events.

 

So mommaduck, I don't want to give the impression I'm picking on you or on your faith. However, when I think of people who are being oppressed and abused for the sake of following a "gut feeling" that someone's spiritual explanation must be right, I think to myself, How can I keep quiet knowing how many people read these posts, how many people might look at their own child/sibling/parent/neighbor and think again about the spiritual explanation offered, and consider offering a medical explanation instead? How can I sit on my fingers and resist typing the tiniest question ("how can you know?"), knowing someone will post that they're rolling their eyes, or this is typical religion-bashing, or some other means of encouraging people to keep from interjecting that which is not supportive? How can I not suggest to people who have a tremendous amount of compassion, that their methodology is actually causing more pain and suffering to those they love? Kids are dying, even in our first world country, because people either neglect, or are ignorant of the solution to problems, and instead impose a treatment that not only neglects their needs, but contributes to their suffering! I hope you understand, but between giving an undeserved but expected respect to a belief, and helping someone find the resources that can help a loved one, I would choose helping a person every time! I suspect you would too, and I suspect you and I would not agree with the method of helping, but I hope you understand that I offer this explanation to give some insight, so you don't think your faith is being targeted. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I suspect I would not be alone in this explanation.

 

 

On another note, I don't quite understand this. Factual information that doesn't conform to a religious belief isn't insulting that belief. I recognize it can be uncomfortable for the believer, but it isn't an insult to share facts.

Excellent post. You ramble quite well.:-)

[milovany]

On this board, CC in the title goes back many years to the old old boards. It was intended to let people know there's Christian content in case they didn't want to bother opening a thread only to find CC inside. It was never intended to keep non-Christians out.

 

Yes, I was here when that developed.  But in addition to that meaning, there was an understood secondary meaning that the person writing was Christian and (likely) looking for a Christian perspective in the replies, either from other Christians or, at the least, from others who understand and respect the Christian point of view.   

 

If I wrote a post and put CC in the title, I wouldn't appreciate posts from those who dismiss Christianity as hooey.  Sure, they're welcome to reply, it is a public board after all.  But I'd call it bad form. 

[mommymilkies]

Yes, I was here when that developed.  But in addition to that meaning, there was an understood secondary meaning that the person writing was Christian and (likely) looking for a Christian perspective in the replies, either from other Christians or, at the least, from others who understand and respect the Christian point of view.   

 

If I wrote a post and put CC in the title, I wouldn't appreciate posts from those who dismiss Christianity as hooey.  Sure, they're welcome to reply, it is a public board after all.  But I'd call it bad form. 

That should probably be clarified for everyone, then.  I have no problem with a CHristian perspective and I have many wonderful Christian friends.  I have a rather diverse religious background and am pretty open.  But apparently my opinion isn't welcome here. 

[Seasider]

That should probably be clarified for everyone, then. I have no problem with a CHristian perspective and I have many wonderful Christian friends. I have a rather diverse religious background and am pretty open. But apparently my opinion isn't welcome here.

Iirc, it actually was, way back when, sort of clarified.

 

The way I understand it, asking for replies to something indicated CC was intended to get specific feedback, such as asking a question of anyone who'd dealt with something specific like high cholesterol, owners of a certain brand of vehicle, folks whose kids take archery or are competitive swimmers. It was a way to seek opinions within certain parameters of commonality.

 

I think we do see a clue here as to why we have so many social groups.

[mommymilkies]

Iirc, it actually was, way back when, sort of clarified.

 

The way I understand it, asking for replies to something indicated CC was intended to get specific feedback, such as asking a question of anyone who'd dealt with something specific like high cholesterol, owners of a certain brand of vehicle, folks whose kids take archery or are competitive swimmers. It was a way to seek opinions within certain parameters of commonality.

 

I think we do see a clue here as to why we have so many social groups.

Obviously not enough if so many people do not know.  I've been here over 2 years and this is news to me.  Could we have a sticky?  Or add it to a sticky of abbreviations?  i.e. CC=You are not welcome to post unless you belong to our flavor of Christianity.  Because you might want to clarify which branch or specific Christian beliefs because there are Christians on here who also agree that seeing & hearing demons talk to you is abnormal.

[Tangerine]

If this is the case, it seems like communication on the board could grind to a halt if we all took up putting acronyms on posts seeking input only from those with the same beliefs.  Atheist Content, Orthodox Content, Baha'i Content, Charlotte Mason Content, Vegan Content, Paleo Content, Monophysitist Content.

[milovany]

That should probably be clarified for everyone, then.  I have no problem with a CHristian perspective and I have many wonderful Christian friends.  I have a rather diverse religious background and am pretty open.  But apparently my opinion isn't welcome here. 

 

It was not at all my intent to try and describe who can and can't post.  Not at all.  Just conversing with someone about why it seemed odd (to *me* -- I said that clearly, to *me*) that the thread took such a non-Christian turn on one of the conversations that developed when the OP had said "CC." 

 

Besides, you don't think faith is hooey.  I enjoy your posts.