My Gay Demon

Posted on by

I am demon possessed. I know this for a certainty because Christians all over the Internet tell me. I am gay therefore I am possessed by a demon. Maybe more than one, I don’t know.

I’ve been trying to get in touch with my inner demon but he’s been keeping schtum. I assume he’s a him given he’s a demon of gayness, but again who knows. I’ve enquired in the deepest, darkest recesses of my mind and have searched my heart (though if I’m honest I wasn’t really sure how to do this) and can’t find him anywhere.

I was going to ask him why, if he’s a demon and therefore a real nasty piece of work from the pit of hell, why he’s led me to a happy and loving relationship with Dennis, one that has taken each of us from loneliness and depression to peace and contentment. I just didn’t know demons were so… well, so positive and creative. I always thought they were destructive and devious, like C. S. Lewis’s Screwtape. I think mine must be shy and more like Casper the Holy Ghost.

Alternatively, maybe there’s no such thing as demons, invisible evil super-beings who can’t be detected in any way. In my ‘worldview’ anything that’s invisible, undetectable and is a figment of rather dim-witted people’s imaginations is a being that doesn’t exist.

But then maybe that’s just me.

  And science.

    And every other academic discipline.

       And rationality.

         And reality.

It’s possible, after all, that a book written thousands of years ago by ignorant religious zealots trumps all of that.

51 thoughts on “My Gay Demon”

  1. Well, if you’re going to be possessed by a demon it might as well be a fabulous demon.

    Also, how does demon possession work with free will? If a demon takes over the controls and makes me all gay how am I responsible for that?

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply ↓

    • Good question Koseighty!
      How exactly does demon possession work?
      Do these invisible beings talk to your brain?

      And the question above all questions:
      WHY does god allow Satan to exist?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

    • I do not think demons make anyone gay. But the answer to your question is that demons do not arbitrarily take possession of anyone. Some door has been opened for them by a person’s letting something else take over their will. That might be drugs or alcohol. Or it might be the choice to oppose God for your own benefit and so make a deal with the devil, so to speak.

      Most demon possession is not of the foaming at the mouth variety. That is cinema. It is more often a deep anger toward God that overflows in irrational rage. And that may seem quite normal when actual normal is not compared to it.

      Bottom line is that demons are anti-God and destructive of people who are created in the image of God.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply ↓

      • I am not sure, Nan, that you are a good source for anything demonic. You have chosen to side with the spiritual forces of darkness, so it is no surprise that you minimize them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I have not CHOSEN to associate with anything. I simply don’t believe there is a supernatural entity that “controls” the universe. From my perspective and study over the years, I have concluded it is a bible story/myth/legend/fable that ancient folks devised to offset their ignorance and fear of things they did not understand. The fact that humans have carried that story forward to the modern day with various additions (Jesus) and interpretations to match their particular beliefs has created what is now known as “religious faith.”

        Further, your belief in “spiritual forces of darkness” has absolutely no influence on me or my view of the world. Moreover, casting that description onto me is a form of judgment, which your holy book has told you not to do.

        Liked by 2 people

      • You even misread the instruction on judging. Read beyond the single sentence and you’ll find that judging is not wrong when our judgment is not clouded by the beam in our own eye.

        The ancients actually understood things better than you do. You and most here have arbitrarily limited your view of the world to something quite a bit less than reality. But, as I have said before, you get microwaves in return. (Facetiously spoken, for those who cannot think in metaphors.)

        Like

      • Believe me, Don, you have not dealt with the beam in your eye! Your judgement is as cloudy and hypocritical as it’s possible to be.

        You also disregard I Corinthians 5:12-13: ‘who am I to judge those outside the church?’ though no doubt you’ll have a way of getting round that one too.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Again you are picking and choosing. Paul goes on to say they are to judge those in the church. (If you think I don’t do that see https://biblicalmusing.blogspot.com/2023/07/ron-desantis-and-his-pastor-tom-ascol.html )

        But I know that is not your point. It is that I am judging you. right? But actually I am not, and you know that. It is the scripture and the Holy Spirit that judges those outside the church. Haven’t you read Romans 1? The conclusion is in Romans 3: “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” That is me, you and everyone.

        I don’t escape that judgment. I am very well aware of that. My only hope is in God’s mercy revealed in Jesus and his sacrifice for me.

        Like

      • You’re not judging us when you say to Nan she’s aligned herself with dark forces? Not judging us when you tell us we’re under the influence of demons? At least be honest about it.

        As for ‘picking and choosing’, that’s precisely what you (and other Christians) do all the time. Of course I was aware of the context of Paul’s rhetorical question but it wasn’t relevant to my point. Nor was Romans 1 so why should I mention it? This is not a bible study that seeks to reconcile different and often conflicting arguments from the Magic Book.

        Your comment deteriorates into something close to proselytising. You know I won’t approve them if that’s what you resort to.

        Like

      • Like I said, judging is not only not prohibited, it is required according to Jesus. It is judging without discernment of your own faults that is prohibited.

        Like

      • So ‘judge not that ye be not judged’ is actually saying the opposite of what it says? Good job we have you to keep us right on such matters, Don. However, if you and your fellow Christians choose to judge us non-believers you must expect to find yourselves judged in return. This is what the verse is really saying.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Dearest Don … to watch this truly makes me gag (in fact, I couldn’t make it past the one minute mark). I once was there and now look back at how totally bewitched and hypnotized I was by preachers who continually and constantly told me about how terribly fortunate I was to have left my SINFUL life and turned to JEEEZUS and that I should LIFT MY ARMS in worship of his HOLY POWER.

        Oh yes. Been there. Done that. And sooooo thankful to have taken off the rose-colored glasses.

        But go ahead, Don. Enjoy your god. Close your eyes, sway to the music, and be taken off into the dreamland of “holy worship.” Because that’s all you have.

        Liked by 1 person

      • It works, Nan. Millions of people find a truly new and transformed life in Christ. I did. Sorry that you didn’t.

        Like

      • Don’t judge, Don. I thought I made it clear that at one time my life was “transformed by Christ.” The big difference between you and me is that I realized it’s all emotion and there’s really nothing substantial at its core. Of course you (and MANY others) have been told it’s REAL … and so you alter your life accordingly.

        Just as a sidenote, the American Psychological Association defines emotion thus: Emotions are conscious mental reactions (such as anger or fear) subjectively experienced as strong feelings usually directed toward a specific object and typically accompanied by physiological and behavioral changes in the body.

        Notice that last part. Could it possibly be that the swinging and swaying and lifted hands and tears, etc. are simply accompaniments to a “conscious mental reaction” that has been generated by a psychological prompt?

        Liked by 2 people

      • Nan Of course you (and MANY others) have been told it’s REAL … and so you alter your life accordingly.

        It is what I have experienced, Nan. Over 65 years.

        Nan Could it possibly be that the swinging and swaying and lifted hands and tears, etc. are simply accompaniments to a “conscious mental reaction”

        It could be, but we are beings of spirit, mind, body, and emotions. It is rare that these things can be separated.

        I don’t sway. I am not overtly emotional, but that is my problem. But swaying and tears are not, however, a problem. They are human.

        Like

      • Religions have always used emotional manipulation to illicit the feels in the congregation.

        Everything in the video is created by very human people to emotionally manipulate. And very human people have been trained to believe that their very human emotions are The Holy Spirit™.

        Still waiting for some theist somewhere to give us an objective way of telling The Real Spirit™ from the ones that testify of the wrong Christianities. But no one can offer one because the spirit is just very subjective feels, not associated with God™® in any way.

        Liked by 2 people

      • I played guitar in our church band for several years…it’s all totally emotion-driven, easy to repeat lyrics, planned to the last chord to manipulate the feelings of the sheeple…and guess what comes immediately after that?
        The offering!

        How about that?

        Liked by 2 people

      • I don’t know about you and your experience. In my church we do not take an offering during the service. There is a kiosk at the back, but most of us give online. And many of us give to other ministries beside our church. I give to World Vision and Salvation Army and an orphan home in Pakistan and various missions. There is no pulling on emotions. I think carefully about where I should invest my money.

        Like

      • Don:
        “There is no pulling on emotions.”

        Do you have an altar call?
        Do they play “just as I am”?

        Don:
        “In my church we do not take an offering during the service.”

        I don’t believe you, but are you saying no churches take offerings?

        “Greg Scheer notes in Reformed Worship that the Old Testament gives many instructions about offerings. New Testament worship references link the offering and communion liturgies and mention the offering more than preaching. “God cares about how we give. Therefore the offering should be part of our worship service and is worth doing well,” Scheer writes.”

        Why are you telling us about your little church?

        Like

      • Goyo Do you have an altar call?
        Do they play “just as I am”?

        No, not really. There is sometimes an offer to talk with people who are interested in the gospel. No music and no altar call. We kind of follow the pattern of Jesus who was inclined to caution people from making a quick decision rather than rushing them into something they haven’t really considered. Yet we see people all the time making the decision to follow Jesus.

        Yes, our participation in the mission the Lord has given us is important. We do let people know of the needs, but we pass no plates to collect an offering. It seems that that does not reduce the response of the congregation to both the regular needs and special needs we have. We have a sense of responsibility that does not require playing on our emotions. Again, we follow the pattern of Paul in explaining the needs and opportunity without twisting arms.

        Why am I telling you about my little church? Because I want you to know that your stereotypes are not universally true. If you like you can check it out at https://journeychurchtacoma.org/ (Even our website is not very glitzy.)

        Like

      • Don:
        “The ancients actually understood things better than you do. You and most here have arbitrarily limited your view of the world to something quite a bit less than reality. But, as I have said before, you get microwaves in return. (Facetiously spoken, for those who cannot think in metaphors.)”

        No, they didn’t…they didn’t know where the sun went at night…they didn’t know about any of the things we take for granted:
        Medicine
        Vaccines
        Physics
        Technology
        Etc…

        “For those who cannot think in metaphors”…
        Here’s another condescension from Don…
        I teach Simile and Metaphor in elementary school…how dare you insult me and the others here!

        Here’s a question for you Don:

        When the ancients read Genesis one and two, did they believe this was a real account of creation, or did they read it metaphorically?

        Like

      • Goyo No, they didn’t…they didn’t know where the sun went at night

        And they didn’t care. They didn’t need to know.

        Goyo I teach Simile and Metaphor in elementary school…how dare you insult me and the others here!

        Great, but some seem to not know when I am speaking in literary figures.

        Goyo When the ancients read Genesis one and two, did they believe this was a real account of creation, or did they read it metaphorically?

        I don’t think we can know exactly, But what we can guess with some accuracy is that they were interested in theology and not science. They did not think of it as a literal account of creation but as a polemic against the polytheism of the nations around them. . Genesis one in their cultural context was a statement that God and God alone created everything.

        And it was wisdom literature. Wisdom is something they valued

        Genesis two is actually also theology. It says that God made man in particular and that man is a unique creation with certain responsibilities. Being made in the image of God he had the responsibility to represent God in the world. He could name the animals and tend the garden. He also had the capacity to know God in ways no other creature had. He could walk with God in the cool of the garden, for example.

        And he had moral freedom and responsibility to God no other creature had.

        None of that was a “revelation” for the ancients. You can read about it in other ancient literature. Genesis two and three simply focused on the failure of man to do any of the things he was created to do.

        The rest of the early primeval stories describe how that worked out for man. As it turned out, not well. And the ancients were aware of that as well.

        Like

      • It continues to amaze me how believers continue to “explain” the scriptures as if they were there and/or knew the writers personally. SMH

        Liked by 2 people

      • The tendency is to consider the scripture in our own context. In this case it would be to read Genesis as a literal and scientific explanation. That is a mistake. One of the principles of good exegesis is to ask what the first readers or hears understood.

        Knowing what the first readers thought is not a perfect science. But since we have a lot of information about the period of time at which Genesis was written, it is not just a guess.

        Like

      • Don: The tendency is to consider the scripture in our own context. In this case it would be to read Genesis as a literal and scientific explanation. That is a mistake.

        So you’re admitting that Genesis is not literal? And therefore myth?

        Don: Knowing what the first readers thought is not a perfect science. But since we have a lot of information about the period of time at which Genesis was written, it is not just a guess.

        And what time was that, Don?

        For reference, Wikipedia sums up the current scholarly concensus:

        “… modern scholars, especially from the 19th century onward, place the books’ [Genesis] authorship in the 6th and 5th centuries BC, hundreds of years after Moses is supposed to have lived. Based on scientific interpretation of archaeological, genetic, and linguistic evidence, most mainstream Bible scholars consider Genesis to be primarily mythological rather than historical.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Genesis

        Liked by 1 person

      • Kos So you’re admitting that Genesis is not literal? And therefore myth?

        Are there really only those two categories? No. I am saying that Genesi 1-7 or so are theology and theological interpretations of natural and historical events.

        Kos And what time was that, Don?

        The primeval stories of Genesis are a collection of stories coming from the distant past, some of them before the development of writing. They were collected and edited according to Jewish history by Moses. They were probably reedited later, perhaps in the 5th and 6th centuries B.C., into the form we have today. So, I think the “modern scholars” have the last part right. But not the mythical part. Not at least in the way most people understand mythical.

        Here’s an example. The Indians of the Pacific Northwest have stories of a flood or maybe several that rushed across the Columbia plateau where they lived. These stories date back before writing and do not show up even in the petroglyphs.

        Were they myths? No. Geologists discovered that the Columbia plateau had indeed been covered by massive and destructive floods. The last one was about 14,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age, but geologist think that there may have been as many as 40 floods dating back into the last ice age.

        So, even though this history was not written down and is passed down orally in what seemed like “myths” or legends to non-Indians who first heard them in the 20th century and knew nothing about any floods, they were based on fact. That is what I think the primeval stories of Genesis are. BTW you do know that Genesis is not the only place some of these stories have been preserved, right?

        Nevertheless, though based on history, they are primarily theological – not mythical.

        Like

      • And who are you relying upon to fill in the gaps to “know what the first readers thought”? Let me guess. Apologists and preachers. Why is it so difficult to simply read the bible and accept what’s there? If you don’t understand it or if it doesn’t make sense, surely you can always seek your “Holy Spirit” to interpret …

        Liked by 1 person

      • Actually, Nan, I rely on history, the artifacts, and the literature of the period to tell me what people were thinking. It doesn’t take a preacher to tell me.

        For example, I and anyone else who is interested can determine what the Egyptians of, say, the 16th century B.C were thinking, we can read their literature and the inscriptions on the walls of temple and palaces. We can see where they put their money. What we find is that they were pretty much into a pantheon of Gods and not really occupied with what we would call science. If they were interested in the origin of things, they looked for theological answers.

        This is not unlike what anyone who is a student of literature does – until the crazy days of the deconstructionists when a poem or novel meant whatever you felt it meant. Thank goodness that quirk of post-modernism is passing.

        Deconstructionism is a type of post-structuralist literary criticism. It is a paradox about a paradox: it assumes that all discourse, even all historical narrative, is essentially disguised self-revelatory messages. Being subjective, the text has no fixed meaning, so when we read, we are prone to misread. (Khan Academy)

        Like

      • Don: One of the principles of good exegesis is to ask what the first readers or hears understood.

        This is hilarious coming from you, Don.

        At the time Genesis was written, the Satan was one of the sons of God (Elohim) tasked with testing humans on behalf of Elohim. (Fun fact: At this time Yahweh was also one of the sons of God, and thus the brother of Satan as the Mormons still teach today.)

        The original readers and hearers of Genesis didn’t have a character like the Christian Satan. That Satan was invented during the intertestamental period and has continued to evolve since.

        You are such a joke, Don. Does anyone, anywhere take you seriously?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Don:
        “The tendency is to consider the scripture in our own context. In this case it would be to read Genesis as a literal and scientific explanation. That is a mistake. One of the principles of good exegesis is to ask what the first readers or hears understood.”

        Are you saying no one said:
        “Gee mom, dad, friends…where did we come from?”
        “Where did we humans come from?”

        What would their answer be?
        What would they have told them?

        Like

      • Absolutely not. That was the topic of most of the ancient literature in the Middle East – when it was about counting pennies. It was the topic of much of the oral and written literature around the world.

        And the answer was always: from God or the gods. The question Genesis one answers is which God. The answer to that is Yahweh Elohim.

        Like

      • Don: The question Genesis one answers is which God. The answer to that is Yahweh Elohim.

        There are dozens or hundreds of creation myths. All of the ones I’ve encountered name the god/s involved.

        How do you propose to prove this one god from a small group of tribes is the real deal?

        Also, no. The god in Genesis 1 is Elohim. Yahweh Elohim doesn’t appear until the second creation account starting in Genesis 2:4.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Actually, it is the name Yahweh that doesn’t appear until chapter two.

        Yahweh was the personal name of God (Elohim). It is appropriate that in the place where man is created Yahweh is the name used. BTW it is Yahweh Elohim in almost every instance in Genesis 2-3 – except when Adam is alienated from God.

        Well, if you’ll allow me to be a little flippant, which God survived the cut?

        Nan How do you propose to prove this one god from a small group of tribes is the real deal?

        Jesus.

        Like

      • Nan: How do you propose to prove this one god from a small group of tribes is the real deal?

        Don: Jesus.

        I love how Don’s response to a request to prove the Old Testament god is to propose the New Testament god that he also can’t prove.

        You’re hilarious, Don. Don’t ever change.

        Liked by 1 person

      • It’s funny. You guys are always complaining that Matthew, Mark, and Paul created Jesus out of the Old Testament predictions – which include ” Isaiah 9:6 For a child is born to us. A son is given to us; and the government will be on his shoulders. His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”. Yet now you are saying that Jesus is the God of the New Testament? And Jesus is some new God.

        The fact is, Jesus is the Son of the everlasting God, who is not the God of the Old Testament only but the God of all. And who says, “if you have seen me you have seen the Father.” So, saying that Jesus proves God by showing us what God is like is perfectly in tune with the Bible.

        Like

      • Is this what we’re saying? I’m sure if you think so it must be. Thank you for enlightening us.

        Nice bit of backdoor proselytising, Don.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Not only that, but notice how backward prophecies are used to promote certain current beliefs … while others are ignored or discounted because they aren’t expedient to “the cause?”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Don:
        “ In this case it would be to read Genesis as a literal and scientific explanation. That is a mistake.”

        When I asked my parents where we came from, they said “god created us…that’s what the Bible says”.

        Most xtians in churches today would say the same thing…are you saying they wouldn’t?

        Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.