Originally Posted by
contraeverything
However, the following "causes" I did discover in the gospels: not being with Christ (Matt 12:30), sin & blasphemy (Matt. 12:31-32), and being unregenerate (Matt. 12:43-45). It seems to me that these "causes" could each be cl***ified under one umbrella cause - that of rebellion. For rebellion is certainly not taking Christ's side of an issue, both sin and blasphemy are acts of rebellion, and remaining unregenerate, I suppose, is the ultimate act of rebellion.
I am proposing that the issue with demon possession, based upon my initial investigation of the scriptures here, is not contact with the occult, but rather rebellion against God. Rebellion - as in the feminist grandmother mentioned above - places one at once in the place of REJECTING God's authority and ACCEPTING evil (or, as one might say, a contrary, ungodly authority) instead. Certainly, "contact with the occult" is a form of rebellion, but it would only be a subset of rebellion, the actual cause, and not the cause itself.
I simply find a paucity of indications that "contact with the occult" is widespread enough among the incredible number of people who were possessed in the Bible to be able to intellectually isolate it as THE cause of possession. Also, I have questions about the possession of children (not wholly infrequent in the gospel p***ages Martin lists) and the likelihood that children could choose to participate in occultic matters. Maybe it is just me.
However, I would love to get some feedback on this. I am not saying Martin is "wrong" per se, and his ***ertion is certainly true as far as it goes, but I simply wonder if it goes far enough.
Or perhaps I am missing a crucial aspect of his argument?
Any help here?