Do Hindus & Muslims Talk to Demons?

Of course they don’t!  But sadly enough, in my Christian days, that took me a while to understand.


As I traveled across Asia and met devote, kind, thoughtful, loving people who believed things very different from my Christian view, I began to doubt my version of Christianity. Many Hindus & Muslims claim to feel the presence of the Divine, or the presence of God but my Evangelical Christianity would not let me believe that. Sure, they may feel it for a moment, but if they constant worship someone other than Jesus, that presence can’t be the real God.

Simply put, here are the beliefs I was told and which I came to partially believed that led to that conclusion:

  • there is only one god, his name is Yahweh/Jesus/Holy Spirit.
  • there is only one way to heaven, that is by right belief in Jesus
  • religions are all-or-nothing: right or wrong
  • Christianity is the right religion and all other religions are wrong
  • Part of the privilege of being Christian is communing with the true god.
  • Non-Christians may claim to commune with god, but they are self-delusional or talking to an evil spirit or a demon.

After my trip across Asia, I realized that the wonderful Hindus & Muslims I knew could not be doing anything much different in their heads than I was doing in my head. See here how my own prayer shocked me into understanding this. So after I decided that my dear Muslim and Hindu friends must also be communing with God, my Christianity began to change.

Muslims_PrayingBut most doctrinal Evangelicals believe Hindus & Muslims must be talking to demons. Yeah, that is shocking, but I think I have part of the answer for why they jump to this strange conclusion.

One of my refreshingly honest Evangelical commentors, clapham, when asked by myself and MichaelB why he was sure Hindus must be talking to demons, he said:

“I suppose in either case i don’t think that otherwise sane [persons] are prone to persistent delusions of that sort [talking to an imagined presence]. So if it persisted i’d be inclined to think its not a delusion, but something real [a demon or evil spirit].”

You see, I think this is clapham’s inner Evangelical logic [with my comments in brackets and red]:

If a Hindu feels, like me, that he/she is communing with the Divine then there are only three possible explanations:

  1. they are talking to Jesus under a different name [but the beliefs listed above exclude that].
  2. they are delusional [but as he says, if they seems sane for a long time, they can’t be delusional]
  3. they are talking to a demon [yep, that must be it, below I explain that jump]

This thinking is obviously faulted and it is common. But obviously these exclusive Christians have forgotten option four:

4. They are talking to themselves, though they explain it as talking to a god. As they surrender their worries and their burdens to a felt listening presence, they sense an emotion of peace and love which they call “God”.

Why do they miss that option, well, I’ve written about the two main causes of such faulty reasoning before.  Here they are with links to longer explanations:

  • Partitions: people have partitioned minds and can easily have inaccurate beliefs while otherwise carrying on very sane, social lives.
  • Many Selves: people who say they are communing with the divine are often having a very real subjective, deep experience but that is because they are talking to themselves.  I explain this in terms of many selves — which explains why we often don’t know ourselves and can be surprised by insights that seem to come from outside ourselves.

But there is a third reason that an Evangelical immediately consider option four?  Simply put, because option four could clearly implicate the Christian.  Option four easily explains what an Evangelical Christian is possibly doing when they too claim to talk to a divine presence.

Theology_KnotFor an Evangelical and other exclusivist Christians, it is easier to believe that Hindus talk to demons than to wonder if they themselves may be sane and yet talking to themselves too.  Their rationale, of course would be that the Bible demands that they believe such an unpopular belief, and they are pursuing truth and not popularity.  But I think the reason is simpler than the theological knots they weave.

Acknowledgement:  My thanks to clapman for his honesty on this blog and trust I have represented his statements faithfully, though I am sure he’d want to disagree with my interpretations.  I look forward to his challenges or those of other exclusivist Christians on this thread.


Filed under Philosophy & Religion

49 responses to “Do Hindus & Muslims Talk to Demons?

  1. I continue to run into this type of conversation on a, nearly, daily basis, with many Evangelicals. I often hear phrases such as, ‘Jesus is the way’ and ‘It is only through Jesus that we can be saved’, but I often challenge them on their beliefs by sharing, “If Jesus is who he says he is, then one can know Jesus without ever knowing Jesus.”. This often leads to me receiving confused looks and harsh responses, but I quickly point out to them that the scriptures they follow, indeed, point to this very ‘truth’.

    I enjoy what Philosopher Peter Kreeft points out, when challenged by with this very same topic. He shares,
    “It is my very conservative and traditional belief that Jesus is not just a human being, but the Logos, the eternal second person of the Trinity; that justifies my rather liberal expectation, that a lot of non-Christians will be in heaven, because John says in his gospel, chapter one verse nine, “the Logos enlightens everyone who comes into the world.”. So even though Jesus is the universal Saviour, you don’t have to know him in his 33 year long, six foot high, Jewish, carpenter body; there are other ways to know him.”

  2. Hi sabio and everyone else I guess! I suppose the nub of the question is “can all roads leads to the same place”? If they can, fine, but if they can’t then someone has to be wrong. And since Christianity claims to be exclusive seemingly we must say not all road lead to the same place.
    If I understand your analysis Christians, Muslims and Hindus, rather than speaking to god or demons, are speaking to themselves because we suffer from a delusion of some sort. That is certainly one possibility but as I said I don’t think we are that delusional – I suspect the Muslims and Hindus probably agree, but I could be wrong.
    So from a theist perspective, I don’t think the idea that some people are following demons is as strange as it might seem. As far as I know all those religions have a concept of evil spirit beings.
    From a Theist perspective we must either accept that god lies, and that explicitly contradicting statements come from the same being, or accept that some of us are following a wrong spirit (call it what you want). It seems unlikely to me that the most supreme being we can conceive of is in fact a liar and internally conflicted. This is one of the reasons that I think Christianity is true – the most supreme being to me bust be fully integrated and not divided, and therefore not able to lie, which is what the bible claims god is like.
    I think that philosophically we create a problem of logic when we have to make many things we otherwise think are real delusions – too much of our world ends up having to be delusions, or make believe.
    Best, cct

  3. I think Christianity is exclusive, in the fact that one must follow Jesus, but if what I shared in my previous comment is true, then there are many more Christians, whether one is aware of it or not, than most who call themselves Christians would like to acknowledge. Perhaps, we shouldn’t consider that all roads are independent, but rather all roads are the same road, or, maybe, there just is no road.

  4. @cct, We don’t “have to make many things we otherwise think are real delusions”. We simply have to be open to the possibility that we may be deluded about some things some of the time and have a method for determining if we are. The hard part is that people suffering from a delusion are generally unaware that their beliefs are delusional. That’s the first hurdle and I think is at least part of the point Sabio is making. So I ask again, more directly: since you said it is a possibility, how do you know your experience of God is not a delusion?

  5. @Michael B

    To the patient in the insane asylum, it is everyone outside that are insane. Nietzsche says it best, “Insanity in individuals is something rare, but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule.”

  6. @clapham common tree
    Your explanation of why you think Christianity is true involves circular reasoning. Your argument seems to follow these steps:
    Christianity claims to be exclusive.
    God (Yahweh) is the supreme being and the supreme being does not lie.
    Christianity is the word of God.
    Therefore Christianity must be true.

    Reasoning like this is known as begging the question. You are assuming in advance what you wish to prove. Specifically, that the supreme being is in fact the Christian God who authored the Bible, rather than some other being such as Allah or Brahman. If we changed “Christianity” to “Islam” and “Yahweh” to “Allah” in the above sentences, then a Muslim could use the same reasoning to claim that their religion is in fact the correct one, because the Supreme Being would not lie about Muhammad being his prophet and so on.

    So the question remains: how do you know that your version of the supreme being is in fact the correct one and that you have not made a mistake? It sure would be nice if the supreme being would just reveal himself to everyone individually with undeniable evidence, as it would clear up a lot of confusion, not to mention sectarian squabbling about whose god is the “true” one.

  7. @MB. Technically i don’t. Certianly not anymore than i know that my very existence is not in some sense a delusion.
    For me, if this was a once off event, i may well suspect its a delusion. But onece a delusion becomes persistent you at some point have to make a call as to whether you are sane or prematntly deluded.
    this is the point i was making in the phrase you quoted.

  8. @MB – i posted a quote from Lewis recently under the title “a Matter of perspective” that I think touches on the point quite nicely.

    “In fact if a dog could, per impossible, be plunged for a day into human life, it would be hardly more surprised by hitherto unimagined differences than by hitherto unsuspected similarities. A reverent dog would be shocked. A modernist dog, mistrusting the whole experience, would ask to be taken to the vet”

  9. Hi sabio. I thought i should just make one other comment on what i’ve said in previous comments. I did say that non-beleivers could perceive God – that we are all unbleeivers at some point – and i cited the apostle Paul. The thrust of the comments that you have picked up on here is not per se aimed at the people but at the gods.
    Hope that helps clear things up a bit.

  10. @ scott mc greal. hi scott. I’m not saying that is THE reason. I’m saying its one of the reasons. The reason i prefer Christianity to those other relgions is because i don’t find coherence in their vewis of God, humanity and most importnatnly salvation. The supreme being could be a liar, or not-integrated (lacking integrity), but since that would fall below human standards of “good”, it seems unlikely that that would be something God would be.
    So rather than assume that the God of the Bible is true, i approach the Bible by saying IF God exists, does this particualr text give a good rendering of what he would be like? I think the Bible presetnts the msot coherent picture of what a supreme being would be like.
    Hope that helps.
    Best, cct

  11. @ called. yes, the nietsche point is a good one. But it is the point i am making. If the perception of god is a personal one then it is unilkely to be a delusion.

  12. @ clapham common,

    Thanx for jumping in, mate. My readers tend to be very civil, though it must be tough to jump in a room with no fellow believers defending also in with you. Either way, debating on threads is time consuming, slow and inefficient but hopefully we still learn something of the other’s opinion so that we could state it clearly. Some points:

    (1) Circular Reasoning
    So you do realize then that Scott McGreal’s criticism of your circular reason shows that you should throw out that reason as one of your reasons for being a Christian. OR, admit that you are comfortable with having an UNreasonable Christianity?

    Do dismiss Scott’s criticism by saying it is only ONE of your reasons, does not acknowledge the problem. The problems in your logic have to be addressed one by one and if you find a problem, you should address it and not dismiss it.

    (2) Mistaken Thinking
    MichaelB got you to say that you have no confidence that your aren’t “delusional” about thinking you are talking to a god, also — like 2/3 of the rest of the planet that you think talks to demons. But then you tried to minimize that point by saying, “But maybe I am delusional about my existence.”. This is reductio absurdum logic — a form of mistaken thinking. You should just admit the caveat in your thinking and move on instead of dismissing it with other mistaken thinking.

    Also, I think you far underestimate the human capacity to have some area of mistaken thinking (let’s not call it “delusion” because it begs the question by making you associate it with psychosis). People walk around with completely mistaken notions of all the time and lead normal lives — there are modern leaders who believe in Astrology, the average person has deeply mistaken notions of economics, people are often deluded (mistaken) about the nature of the “love” they are giving their children. That people who associate the warm, fuzzy, comfortable feeling they get when they close their eyes to pray with some untestable abstraction called “God” would not cripple them from leading a normal life. Mistaken thinking abounds in humans who are otherwise prospering in their lives.

    (3) The Bible
    I forgot to add something like, “The Bible is true. I base my thinking on my interpretation of this book.
    One way to approach what I see as the errors in your thinking here is to approach that book, but since the main problems crop up before we even get to the book, I find it more interesting to explore those.

    (4) “All roads lead to the same place”
    You feel this is the “nub” of the question — but it is not. You do realize there are many Inclusivist, Pluralist and even Universalist Christians who disagree with you? (see this post)

    So in the end, it is your interpretation of the Bible and your over-estimate of human rationality (and lack of understanding of compartmentalization) that get you to a point of judging more than half of the world as talking to demons. You see, people can walk around with lots of bad beliefs (like you) and still be wonderful people, hold good jobs and raising lovely families. That is how people work.

    PS– I did not understand your comment mat at 5:56 am today.

    BTW, the links I offered above about Mind Partitions and Talking to yourself, may help.

    Please do understand that I think there are Christians who would agree with much of what I write here. We are addressing one particular kind of Christianity here — and its mistakes.

    Again, thanks for participating.

  13. @cct, First off, delusion doesn’t have to be a permanent thing. If one is willing to revise a belief in the face of contrary evidence, the delusion can be overcome (except maybe in cases of mental illness). What I’m really asking is how do you “make a call” as to whether or not experiencing or hearing from God is a delusion. Specifically. What are the criteria? Is it always God when you think it is? How do you know?

  14. @cct, I’m not sure I understand the metaphor in the CS Lewis quote. Perhaps you could summarize it?

  15. Hi Sabio, Scott, MichaelB. No problem, very happy to have these issues aired. There’s a lot to cover so I will try be succinct.
    1. What “Christians” believe. This is surprisingly hard to nail down or so it seems. Since it seems I am the only Christian here 😉 I will claim the high ground and say that the orthodox and ancient teaching of Christianity (going back to its Judaic roots) has not been universalist. I think this is pretty unavoidable when you read the bible (OT -10 commandments) and NT (e.g. John14v6). So I think we need to accept that the orthodox position is exclusive, even if there are those on the fringes that disagree. You have to discard so much of the Bible to get a universalist view that there is hardly anything left. So here is at least one path that doesn’t lead to the same place, or at least the same conception of God. Now God could lack integrity, lie, etc –that is a possibility. I deal with this later.

    2. Circularity and “The Bible is true” issue – I don’t think its circular. For me, I read the Bible, and what it says about me, and society around me rings true. I don’t regard it as true because the Bible says so – I regard the Bible as true because I know (As well as I can know anything) what I am like. I can only say it rings true if I compare two things. I must assume one of those is real, the other one is claiming to be real but subject to testing. If I say what I see is real, then use that as a basis for relying on the bible, then I don’t think that is circular. So eg, I feel the guilt of my own sin, I see the “falseness” of humanity generally, and I see the Bibles view on relationships, and I go, yes, this Biblical account makes sense, this rings true. I think it is true. And so I start to accept it.

    3. Now when it comes to conceptions of God, I admit I don’t start off with a blank page, although I don’t think it really matters – I doubt anyone REALLY starts off with a blank sheet. I start with the Christian God because I believe its true. BUT I then compare other versions of what God is like and I find them deficient relative to that. That doesn’t mean thst there is no possibility that they exist. But they are unlikely contenders for the supreme being (as far as we can logically conceive of one) because of these “faults”. I don’t only find them deficient because the Bible says they are so – I find them deficient because I wouldn’t hold a human in esteem if it had those characteristics. So e.g. the Hindu gods that are promiscuous – I wouldn’t regards humans who did that as esteemable, why would I hold a god to be so. Now I know that some allegations are made at the Christian God – I won’t go into those here (raise them if you please) but merely say that I find the Christian conception the *most* plausible.

    4. Re delusions and perception of god and making a call. Its hard to answer this in a vacuum but I will try. If the experience is a once off occurrence with no particular agenda, then I would not place much reliance on it one way or the other. If we are talking about a persistent experience of something, then I would research what that presence was directing me to (explicitly or otherwise). The Bible’s instruction to Christians is to “test every spirit” to see whether it is good or bad. So if I had an experience that required that, that is what I would do.
    5. Mistaken thinking – yes, people do adhere to some strange beliefs. Even some strong delusions. But I think most of these beliefs (like astrology) don’t really give comprehensive explanations for life – e.g. what really lies behind astrology and how does it answer questions like how should live my life, why am I here etc. Some people are not interested in that and that is their choice. But for those who are I suggest testing the theories as best you can against your experience day to day. This is the Bibles invitation to people – taste and see. Give it a genuine go – if you find its real go with it. If not, so be it. What do you have to lose?
    Did that answer everything? Sorry if I left something out.

  16. Hi Michael –the dog can’t believe what it sees when it experiences the higher, human, life, and so asks to get taken to the vet. A bit like us having to seek treatment for delusions.

  17. @cct:
    It’s like the old Alka-Seltzer ad, “Try it , you’ll like it.”. Do I discern a bit of Pascal’s wager in your previous comment, “What do you have to lose?”?

  18. @cct, So what would be the equivalent experience for humans to make the metaphor fit? What is there for a human to become that is higher?

  19. The hugher life is that of the supernatural. Just as a dog would probably imagine some parts of the human life, although vaguely perceptible, to ppse some difficulties, so we might find aspects of the supernatural difficult to comprehend. eg. miracles God etc. But we should be conscious of our inherent limitation.

  20. @cct, Yes, but the big difference is that we know dogs and humans exist and as humans we can speculate about what a dog might think in the world of humans. We have no such frame of reference for the supernatural. I suppose if a supernatural realm existed that might be our experience, but until or unless we have a definitive way of knowing one does, who can say?

  21. @cct, “I start with the Christian God because I believe it’s true.” Why start with the Christian God? Why start with any god? Believing something is true is an ok starting hypothesis, but like all hypotheses it should be approached with as little bias as possible and remain open to revision. If you’re starting with it as a conclusion, then that’s the circular reasoning referred to above. To test whether it’s a hypothesis or conclusion, ask yourself what it would take for you to no longer believe in the Christian God. Have you asked yourself that question?

  22. @MichaelB. HI Michael. I meant when thinking of conniptions of God, I start with the Christian God. By this point in my reasoning i am already convinced that there is a God – I am know discussing which one of the God’s is a plausible contender. Me experience has already lead me to conclude that the Christian God is the correct one – but i am happy tot set that against the others, which is what i was doing in that paragraph.
    RE dogs, yes the analogy isn’t perfect but i think it does give good insight. We’ve been discussing what to make of experiences that suggest there is a supernatural realm (Sabio has himself posted about his experience with a ghost). Fully understanding and explaining the supernatural realm would be like a dog trying to fully understand a human world. We can’t – but we do seem to get tastes of it – which sabio has suggested re delusions. I’m (and i think CS Lewis as well) suggesting that maybe they aren;t delusions. Maybe they are the real thing – and regarding them as delusions fits with the skeptical dog in the quote that wants to be taken to the vet because its not well and i seeing delusions. Maybe he is in fact getting a taste of the reality of a realm that is beyond him.

    If i don’t chat to you before then, Merry Christmas!

  23. @ calledtoquestion. Pascals Wager, sure, why not? As long as we don’t think its a proof for God (As Dawkins suggested it was) but regard it as a response to the possibility of God, then i think its a sound position.

  24. @cct- How could Dawkins think Pascal’s wager a proof(or maybe he thought others did) when it is clearly a wager. A wager is a gamble, a bet, a guess; in no way is it a proof.
    After all the discussion going back and forth, I feel I have to at least wish you a Merry Christmas, so here it is Merry Christmas! 🙂

  25. @cct, So you haven’t asked yourself the question? Even hypothetically for the sake of conversation? I find it’s important to remain open to being wrong, even about the things we are convinced of. Once we become certain, it takes away a bit of wonder about the world, don’t you think?

    As an aside, I laud you for even coming here to engage in conversation. Hope you have a merry Christmas as well.

  26. Marc

    If you start with the assumption that all human beings are meant to have a relationship with their Creator, then the prayers offered by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Jews are all sincere. As human beings we are all guided by a conscience rather than instinct, and we also have a spiritual faculty that differentiates us from other life forms. When we fully developed our spiritual faculty it enables us to realize our human potential. This is a part of what it means to be created in the image of the Creator with the capacity to be like the Creator.

    The problem is that in our current human condition brought about by rebellion from the Creator, we are not complete. The spiritual faculty that is currently mostly undeveloped insures that our lives transcend the death of our bodies and enable us to live in the spiritual realm were we will be fully illumined. In the Christian faith this is a process known as the first resurrection. Because all people will experience this spiritual resurrection and the illumination that goes with it, the distortions of different religious groups and sects will no longer exist.

    In the spiritual realm there are rational created beings that also have a relationship with the Creator, and some of these beings are also in rebellion. At a point in the future there will be a parting of the ways when the devil and demons, along with any human being who chooses to join them, will no longer exist in the created realms of the Creator. Those rational creatures that remain will enjoy a life of love and communion with each other and their Creator.

  27. @ Marc,
    Our opinions differ so widely, I won’t even try to offer my counter opinions.

  28. @Marc, I’ll ask you a similar question to what I asked clapham: why would one start with the assumption that “all human beings are meant to have a relationship with their Creator”?

  29. Marc

    Because it is an assumption that gives enhanced meaning to each human life. For the majority of humanity that believes in a Creator, there is a desire to know what place and purpose their lives have in the Creation.

  30. @Marc, I’m not even sure how you arrived at that conclusion or what it has to do with my question. I was asking empirically why you would start there and your answer was that one can assume they are meant to because it gives them an enhanced sense of meaning to do so. Based on that, I’m gonna go with Sabio on this one and beg out. There are just way too many knots to untie in your comments. Best to you.

  31. @ Michael and others. Hi sorry for the absence and thanks for the Christmas wishes. hope yours were good and here hoping 2014 is great for all of you.

    Re you question about whether i’ve considered whether i’m wrong, yes, i have and still sometimes do. But its a bit like the question posed by that film “The Matrix” – are we all plugged into it? Maybe, but at some points e tai e view that we are not. For me i have enough evidence of, and experience of a relationship with, God to be quite certain that he exists. But i am open to the discussion around that – i hope my participation here has shown that. But at the end of the day what it increasingly comes down to is something must be illusory – either my experience of God, or many of the things that i believe about life – meaning, right and wrong, hope. Because if i take God out the picture, then for me, my life is meaningless because we are all destined for nothingness and there is no right or wrong or “Should be” state of the universe cos whatever happens (War, rape, famine) is exactly as it should be -there is no ground for saying it shouldn’t be – as far as i can see). I can’t rationally account for these things without something transcendant. But since i don’t think those are delusion i don;t think God is a delusion either.
    Hope that still isn’t dodging your question.

  32. @ clapham,
    Welcome to the last day of 2013.

    Your last comment is packed full of different issues. I will try to delineate a few:

    (a) Clapham’s Evidence of his ‘relationship’ to God
    Really? What exactly is that?
    First, you have to tell us your definition of “God”, then tell us what your experience(s) is(are) so if we can see if they are evidence of what you are defining.

    (b) Evidence vs. Discomfort
    We all understand how many people are uncomfortable imagining no afterlife, imagining that there is no absolutely firm basis for ethics, imaging that meaning is what we make and does not come from the outside. I can understand how people feel that. I don’t but at least I understand. Taking that negative feeling and turning it into a “relationship with God” or claim or evidence of God, certainly can’t be a good move, can it?

    (c) “It works for me”
    I get that you can’t imagine a life without believing in a God. But that surely doesn’t count as ‘evidence” does it.

    (d) Closing your Eyes
    Erasing all those negative feelings by imagining stories of Jesus and God and feeling those doubts and uncertainty melt can’t be counted as evidence, can it? Remember, every religious person I know does the same. But, and back to the point of this post, you claim they are comforted by demons or evil spirits, and I still can’t imagine you don’t see behind that deception and wish you’d swallow the right pill to see through it. It is hilarious to me to hear Muslims likewise feel Christians are deceived by an evil spirit. Religious people feel this about each other. We stand out and laugh and the silliness, while believers take it very, very seriously.

    So, do you count as evidence these “reasons” I list above, or are they actually mystical experiences (and careful, don’t count expelling fear as ‘mystical’ or encounters with the divine). It is important to separate the TYPES of evidences in your head and then examine them separately, if you just keep them as a comfortable blur, you won’t see behind the thing you are constructing.

    Yes, your fears are not a delusion and neither is your mind’s method of dispelling them with “belief in God”, but those are no evidences of a “God” — but then it depends on how you define him. Again, you are muddling forms of evidience, or being circular. Well, that is my contention at least.

  33. @cct, I do appreciate you taking the time to engage, but I was looking for maybe an example or two of specific things that would make you less certain of the Christian God. What evidence (or counter evidence) would make you doubt that your experiences were of God, for example?

    I’m specifically addressing levels of certainty here. I find that certainty closes us off to wonder about the world, as I mentioned above. I’m not saying you’re wrong and I’m right. I’m saying that often times the more certain we are, the less we consider evidence that we may show us we are wrong.

    On a personal note, the last thing I ever wanted to do as a Xian was to “take God out of the picture”, so I understand how you feel. A few years ago I just decided to embrace and explore the very ideas that made me anxious and uncomfortable, especially my most cherished beliefs, because I wanted to confirm the truth of what I believed no matter the cost. (I still take that approach as much as possible.) I figured if what I believed was true then I shouldn’t be afraid to explore that it might not be. I didn’t set out to become an atheist. I just sort of fell into it by default once I realized there wasn’t enough evidence for me to keep believing in God. Conversely, I’m open to the possibility that I’m wrong now, but the evidence would have to be more than just subjective. Hope that clears things up.

  34. @michaelb. Yes, there are thing that sometimes make me doubt, sometimes a lot. I think most Christians go through this. Cs lewis certainly did, and Philip Yancy wrote a great book called something like “searching for an invisible god” which had doubt as a major theme.

    Some of the things that have made me doubt have been some of the allegations made on atheist blogs/books – some have made me have a good hard look at things. Suffering (esp in my close family) have made me wonder about things.

    I’d struggle to believe someone who said they never doubted. For me though, when I’ve had a look at them I’ve found the most of the arguments against Christianity have had decent counter arguments.

    I visited your blog again to see what it was that led you to move to atheism. I think you’ve told me before – did you say you moved from evangelical to liberal to atheist? I found one of your observations in your “lousy Christian” post about finding a gentler god – was that in liberal Christianity?

  35. @cct, We can discuss my move to atheism more in depth via email or my personal blog. I don’t want to clog up this thread with too much off-topic things. I still haven’t gotten an answer to my question, so let’s go back to that before moving on. Thanks.

  36. Quoting your words:
    “If they constant worship someone other than Jesus, that presence can’t be the real God.”

    I don’t quite understand your above sentence (or a part of it); Jesus did not claim to be a god or son of god in its literal sense. So even the Christians don’t converse with the One-True-God (Allah Yahweh Ahura-Mazda Parmeshawara); yet they don’t think that they talk to devil or demons.
    Please elaborate.


  37. @paarsurrey,
    That is what some Christians foolishly think. Remember, as for me, I don’t think there is any god to talk to. Believers are all talking to themselves. However, many Christians feel Muslims like you are talking to devils. I think they are horribly (and almost criminally) wrong to think so. Hope that explains.

  38. Reblogged this on Christianity Simplified and commented:
    Some rational thought about belief and how beliefs are connected.

  39. @ Sabio Lantz
    Do you think that the One-True-God ever talked to a human being? Please

  40. @paarsurrey,
    You ought to read more of my blog to get a feel for my positions. Your question shows that you haven’t read much. See my “About” tab if you are interested.

  41. Kabir

    [deleted – violation of comment policy: pure propaganda without interacting with post – yawn!]

  42. @ Kabir:
    Learn to abide by the comment policy or go away.

  43. Kabir

    Wow what a shame envious snake! You dont want to know the truth!

  44. Kabir

    I will leave your ego centered blog. spirituality here? Yeah sure. Bye.

  45. @ Kabir,
    Read the comment policy. You did not interact with this post at all. You just dumped a bunch of “yay, yay, Allah” stuff in the comments section. Read and interact, and you can say whatever you want.
    BTW, I loved the “envious snake” attack. Made me laugh.

  46. Vera Wong

    Prophet Mohammad used Jinns to fight against his enemies in Arabia and the Arab Muslim armies used Jinns to fight their battles when they went converting the Christian Middle-East and North Africa as well as South-Asia as advised by Islamic scholars in Cairo and Saudi.

  47. @Vera wong:
    I think you are “very wrong”:
    Christians claim angels for help, Buddhists claim Boddhisatvas.
    Christians, Buddhists and Muslims, on all these myths, are equally mistaken.

  48. inkwriting108

    They have their demons and netherworld in far more detail than christians. Shukra is the teacher of demons. Bali (Mahabali (the great bali huh) is the current king of demons and sovereign king of netherworld (Patala). Demon Kali (not goddess Kaaali) is the rulers of present age Kali Yuga. Then there was different epic demons during different age cycles (Mahayuga, Manavantara, Kalpa). Daityas and Danavas were thrown out of heaven.

    Decode Hindu Mythology blog by Vineet Aggarwal for detailed version of first man/woman Swayambhu/Shatarupa story with time dilation.

  49. inkwriting108: Careful on comments. Your link was to a blank website and your next two comments (deleted) broke comment policy — please interact with the post and do not flood with comments.

Please share your opinions!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s