I could go with this argument if it weren't for the fact that it's not that clear cut in the epistles that demons don't exist. Certainly Paul argues that gods are nothing. But for a belief that was so prevalent at the time of Jesus (ie demons), the lack of energy spent on refuting such a false belief is fairly remarkable.
What more does he need to say other than that they don't exist?
What I find even more weird is that in today's scientific day and age, (where demons in Jesus' time so obviously correlate to sickness and mental illness' of today) is that churches still believe in the existence of demons, primarily because of the gospels.
Well, I can't defend their inconsistency.
So the 'compelling evidence' stated by Paul isn't that compelling.
Most of them don't even know about it. Most Christians I speak to are totally unaware of what the Scritpural definition of a demon is.
I have researched long and hard on the internet to find independant groups who hold the same beliefs as Christadelphians on the Devil and demon front, and I found none. There are groups who believe all of our other doctrines, but not this. Why is that?
It's entrenched in part of the human psyche.
I think we still need to return to the issue of why the gospels would be written in a manner which seems to take for granted the existence of demons as supernatural agents of evil, and the purpose for which they were written.
How about we consider the use of the gospels as evangelical aids? How do you suppose they were used?