Demonic Possession, is it real or group hysteria?

[INDY500]

Slavery didn't vanish with Christianity taking over.

Do you see me as a threat only because I don't believe at all? Do you think that through me being a non-believer I think in any way different about respect, just behaviour or charity?

No I don't. Certainly something that I argue is universal must be discoverable in many ways. Of coarse an atheist can live an ethical life.
However, you cannot deny that you somewhat piggyback on the Judeo-Christian traditions of the West and you live in a society where a transcendental morality or natural law is still taken for granted by the majority -- even if they don't associate it with organized religion.

 

[anitram]

Which do you consider the source of your basic rights? Do you consider them unalienable or can they be taken away by "rule of law"?

Depends on what you consider to be a basic right.

 

[diamond]

Kids you know now I'm saving some of my greatest works and posts for the right moment in this thread correct?

Timing is indeed one of my greatest virtues.

dbs

 

[diamond]

In the end, I think we all believe what we want to believe.

I know I've said that before, but I'm just saying on this particular topic, it remains true as well.

I do find it puzzling though that many of my fellow believers discount demon possession. One other thought, my brother is a paranoid schizophrenic and we are a religous family (though, he, himself is an atheist). We never once confused his condition with demon possession.

Great post, with a large point being made, I see your unconditional love for your brother, which is wonderful.

I think it comes more natural for a believer to love an afflicted person.

dbs

 

[vaz02]

Great post, with a large point being made, I see your unconditional love for your brother, which is wonderful.

I think it comes more natural for a believer to love an afflicted person.

dbs

Could you sound any more patronizing ?
So you say non believers cant find it in their heart to care for someone who has some sort of disability, are we really that inhuman ?

 

[diamond]

yes to your first question, but i choose not to of course.

no to your 2nd question, some non believers are the absolute best humanitarians and because they are the next life will be quite a pleasant yet unexpected surprise.

dbs

 

[vaz02]

yes to your first question, but i choose not to of course.

no to your 2nd question, some non believers are the absolute best humanitarians and because they are the next life will be quite a pleasant yet unexpected surprise.

dbs

Believers are going to be quite disapointed

 

[maycocksean]

Believers are going to be quite disapointed

Actually wouldn't we not know the difference? If you're right and there is no God, then when we die, it's over and we never realize that there was no afterlife. . .

 

[diamond]

Actually wouldn't we not know the difference? .

Correct and based on all the medical evidence by NDEs which continue to grow, hospice workers' testiomonies and other data being collected slowly but surely the tide of disbelief is turning into belief.

dbs

 

[vaz02]

Correct and based on all the medical evidence by NDEs which continue to grow, hospice workers' testiomonies and other data being collected slowly but surely the tide of disbelief is turning into belief.

dbs

Belief is different to fact though. As it stands there is no god and there is no afterlife.

I see you refer to these NDE's a lot but maybe people turn to faith after these events because they dont want to risk it. These people are not atheists, these people were/are undecided.

Strange question but, why do all faiths differ ? surely if it was god will they all follow the same code of conduct ?

 

[diamond]

Belief is different to fact though. As it stands there is no god and there is no afterlife.

I see you refer to these NDE's a lot but maybe people turn to faith after these events because they dont want to risk it. These people are not atheists, these people were/are undecided.

Strange question but, why do all faiths differ ? surely if it was god will they all follow the same code of conduct ?

vaz02-

There have been a lot of good and bad athetists that have had Near Death Experiences.

You can't dismiss them with the "your brain was being deprive of oxygen rouine and you had a fantastic hallucination" routine.

If you're really interested probably one of the best books to read regarding this is George Ritchie's book written about 30 years ago what happen to him in the 1930s or 40s. He was about 20 years of age when it happened and was dying of pneumonia. He was ridiculed by many at first and then as more ppl had similar experiences people laugh and scoffed less. He later went on to become a MD.

The reason for so many churches is God allows man to have hthere free will in interpreation of His word. Everyone will have an eternity in paradise to figure things out and continue to grow.
Life really just begins in our next life people say, you have no infirmities, perfect bodies and all knowledge.

The religions that try to scare you in to being good with the threat of a never ending Hell are incorrect interpreatations of scripture.

Hell does exist, along with Satan however unlike most Orthodox Christians my belief is that a person's stay in Hell will not be infinite, but finite thru the Grace of God's Son, who paid for our mistakes based on what we did here in this life based on the knowledge and enviorment we were came from. This differs from most Churches which is why a lot of ppl are turned off. Nobody wants to be scared into being good.

You will find in the next life God will be much fairer than most people think He is. The crap that ppl have to put up with here-will be awarded for there, all inequity will be rewarded with equity a 100 fold more than we're allowed to understand here. The trick here is to live in the present the best way we can by helping our fellow man out with our time, love and resources. That I think is what a lot of athetists believe, which is a sense of fair play for everyone and pretty much The Golden Rule.

Oh, I posted a link to the book by Dr Ritchie before, here it is again:

http://www.amazon.com/Return-Tomorrow-George-G-Ritchie/dp/080078412X

I hope you decide to read it, it's fascinating.


dbs

 

[vaz02]

vaz02-

There have been a lot of good and bad athetists that have had Near Death Experiences.

You can't dismiss them with the "your brain was being deprive of oxygen rouine and you had a fantastic hallucination" routine.




dbs

He could of been having a dream. Lets face it no one is gonna particularly care if you dream about a rabbit trying to eat you but having some sort of dream about an afterlife after suffering a near death experience somehow captures peoples imagination. Im sure people have had visions of an afterlife in their dreams without a NDE but because of the event that occurred it must be holy and marked as 'evidence 1' in the case of life after death.

Im actually gonna go buy that book you suggested, i need some reading material.

If god is everywhere and is listening to our every word ( like Santa, because if god is real Santa must be too) surely we should eliminate churches, mosques, synagogue's and other places of worship, because after all isnt this god's gift to us, the universe ? People and religious authorities making money or gain from the system discourages me a lot.


Im sure in a few hundred years time mankind will look upon the past few thousand years the way we did, when back in days of ancient Greece a earthquake meant the gods were unhappy.

 

[A_Wanderer]

The main problem with any conversion arguments is that they are a combination of feeling and anecdote; two of the most unreliable forms of evidence. There is a good reason that I don't rattle off names of people that loose their faith and become atheists, it's because it doesn't effect reality. How many people believe or don't believe has nothing to do with the nature of God, an entity isn't willed into existence by peoples belief and neither would it cease to exist if people turned away from faith.

Nobody has put unequivocal evidence for God out there, as persuading as Kirk Camerons homoerotic banana fondling explanation of special creation may be for a believer it doesn't come close to the artificial agrarian selection of the plant by man. The absence of evidence is why a God based explanation always falls short, it is why there is no reason to think that God exists. And if as it seems the universe is as though God doesn't exist justifying morality against an impossible entity seems very flawed.

There may not be absolute objective morality, but that does not undo consensuality and mutually agreed and respected conditions for society. The detail that mathematic simulations of how actors benefit depending on choices produces rudimentary "moral" tactics places what we consider good in the realm of mutual benefit.

There is a lot of audacity in those claiming absolute moral justification, not only do they claim that it exists, but that it is fortunately the same moral standards that their religion extols. If somebody is executed for apostacy in Islam because they convert to Christianity isn't that just as morally valid as the inquisition killing an infidel (or heretic, as even believing in the same god may not be enough).

Claims to absolute morality are inherently subjective. The argument that secular law is weak because it doesn't use God as a lawgiver and is therefore subject to change and interpretation is the height of hypocrisy.

And Vaz natural disasters are still a product of the Gods unhappiness, faggotry and abortion deliver hurricanes and tsunamis.

 

[diamond]

He could of been having a dream.
Im actually gonna go buy that book you suggested, i need some reading material.

If god is everywhere


Im sure in a few hundred years time mankind will look upon the past few thousand years the way we did, when back in days of ancient Greece a earthquake meant the gods were unhappy.

I'm glad to hear you're going to read the book, it may change your mind or perspective.


God is not everywhere, but his influence is.

My belief is natural diasters are allowed to happen to see if we as God's children will help one another-long story short.

God is not sitting around shaking the world because he's mad however-Satan wants ppl to think that I believe to make worshipping God a turn off.

dbs

 

[financeguy]

The main problem with any conversion arguments is that they are a combination of feeling and anecdote; two of the most unreliable forms of evidence.

Indeed, and if believers are entitled to point to conversion stories as evidence of the existence of a deity, then surely atheists are entitled to point to de-conversion stories as evidence against(and I've seen quite a few on atheist discussion forums, as matter of fact.)

 

[vaz02]

My belief is natural diasters are allowed to happen to see if we as God's children will help one another-long story short.



dbs

Every heard of Plate Tectonics regarding earthquakes

Thats another put of for me, science and faith just dont go.

 

[diamond]

yes, i've heard of it referred to in an abstract way yes.

one favor I ask, quit with the

diaoluge politely and if you're going to read the book, read it.

if not please don't ridicule believers with smilies.

thanks,

dbs

 

[A_Wanderer]

I'm glad to hear you're going to read the book, it may change your mind or perspective.


God is not everywhere, but his influence is.

My belief is natural diasters are allowed to happen to see if we as God's children will help one another-long story short.

God is not sitting around shaking the world because he's mad however-Satan wants ppl to think that I believe to make worshipping God a turn off.

dbs

That is a disgusting loyalty test, a deity that actively or passively kills innocent people just to see how others react would not be worthy of respect let alone worship.

Why would it even need to kill so many people? Isn't it omniscient.

 

[financeguy]

That is a disgusting loyalty test, a deity that actively or passively kills innocent people just to see how others react would not be worthy of respect let alone worship.

Why would it even need to kill so many people? Isn't it omniscient.

I think that the christian god is essentially a largely malevolent but not entirely omnipotent deity.

 

[Vincent Vega]

one favor I ask, quit with the

diaoluge politely and if you're going to read the book, read it.

if not please don't ridicule believers with smilies.

thanks,

dbs

Talk about hypocrisy...

 

[diamond]

That is a disgusting loyalty test, a deity that actively or passively kills innocent people just to see how others react would not be worthy of respect let alone worship.

Why would it even need to kill so many people? Isn't it omniscient.

If you have free will than it isn't loyality it's about choice.

I view God as a omnipotent being, letting us make choices and there for us if we elect to seek his guidance thru humility and prayer. I view God not as nebulus essence without body parts or passions occupying the endless boundries of outer space-the idea that Orthdox Christians teach thru the Niceane Creed.

People that have came back claim that God is much more like us than what Orthodox Christians promugate.

dbs

 

[diamond]

Talk about hypocrisy...

Have I at any of your posts in this thread?

dbs

 

[Vincent Vega]

No I don't. Certainly something that I argue is universal must be discoverable in many ways. Of coarse an atheist can live an ethical life.
However, you cannot deny that you somewhat piggyback on the Judeo-Christian traditions of the West and you live in a society where a transcendental morality or natural law is still taken for granted by the majority -- even if they don't associate it with organized religion.

And those moral conducts weren't invented by Christians either. Even in pre-Christian societies rules have been developed that were later taken up by Christians. And if you took a look at tribes still living a traditional life in e.g. the South Pacific region, who have never heard of Christianity, they all live a life many Christians (and non-Christians) could take a leaf out of their book.
Such a tribe is greatly explained by Karl Polanyi in his 1948 work The Great Transformation.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Have I at any of your posts in this thread?

dbs

No, you don't need to post a smilie in an attempt to ridicule other posters. And you are consistently trying to ridicule other posters. Your silly "kids" would be just one example.

And then you turn around and ask others to please not ridicule religious people.
How about approaching every poster with the same amount of respect you demand from us?

 

[A_Wanderer]

If you have free will than it isn't loyality it's about choice.

I view God as a omnipotent being, letting us make choices and there for us if we elect to seek his guidance thru humility and prayer. I view God not as nebulus essence without body parts or passions occupying the endless boundries of outer space-the idea that Orthdox Christians teach thru the Niceane Creed.

People that have came back claim that God is much more like us than what Orthodox Christians promugate.

dbs

It is about you claiming God is killing people to see how you act, if you choose the path that he says you should by helping or rejecting it. I think that a God that does that is very dodgy indeed, and I question the morals of somebody that embraces the idea.

Do you think that it is acceptable for God to either allow or make terrible disasters happen because it lets some people do good deeds?

 

[diamond]

"kids"

?

And you are consistently trying to ridicule other posters

How about approaching every poster with the same amount of respect you demand from us?

I haven't "demanded" anything from anybody only requested.


It seems you're trying to pick a fight by the argumentive tone in your last 2 posts and I hope you would keep the convesation congenial, as most people have through out the 15 pages of this thread.


I thought I was amongst friends and could cajole and jostle with one another addressing them as "kids" on occassion.

dbs

 

[diamond]

It is about you claiming God is killing people to see how you act, if you choose the path that he says you should by helping or rejecting it. I think that a God that does that is very dodgy indeed, and I question the morals of somebody that embraces the idea.

Do you think that it is acceptable for God to either allow or make terrible disasters happen because it lets some people do good deeds?

I never questioned your morals AWanderer.

I never said God is killing people, you have implied that.

I said he allows nature to run her course as to not interfere with our free will-this idea is outside the box of Orthodox Christianity.

I'm here on earth not to judge God's plan for us but only to do His will.

And from my studies following God's will is pleasing Him by being kind to all of his children regardless of their circumstance and to refrain from passing unnecessary judgement.

Reports from NDE substaniate this basic idea.



dbs

 

[indra]

In the end, I think we all believe what we want to believe.

I know I've said that before, but I'm just saying on this particular topic, it remains true as well.

I do find it puzzling though that many of my fellow believers discount demon possession. After all, what really is the difference between God and the devil--both are thoroughly unscientific, totally unprovable ideas. If you can't get comfortable with the unscientific nature of faith, then perhaps faith is not for you? I don't mean that to sound disrespectful in any way, I'm just wondering if there is a theological reason for disbelieving in demons--because for a person of faith, I don't see how the
"unscientific" nature of demons would be enough.

I think your first sentence goes a long way to answering your puzzlement over why some people believe in God but not demons or demonic possession. See I believe that people created gods and demons and such to explain what they couldn't explain in other ways. Early on they were trying to explain the sun rising or thunder etc., so their gods took care of all that. As humans progressed and figured out how the sun rose (and similar stuff) they no longer needed specific gods for all that, so they invented a mastermind/creator god (the good guy) and an equivalent devil/destroyer (the bad guy), to explain the still unexplained.

I believe as humans overall learn more about our world and become increasingly adept at abstract thought we are needing gods and devils less and less. But it isn't something that happens overnight, just as I imagine the ancient Egyptians didn't suddenly one day say "oh look, we were silly to believe in these gods. Let's not believe in them anymore" and just stop. They were replaced over time, much as I expect over time the gods people now worship will be replaced with increasingly sophisticated ones as the population finds the old ones no longer do the job. During this change -- this evolution -- some parts of the belief system will fall away sooner than others.

And that's where I think your "we all believe what we want to believe" comment fits. I think the concept of god is appealing to people because most people do like the idea they are special (god created you) and that someone powerful and caring is there for them. The devil isn't quite so cuddly, so a lot of people have already given him the boot. They are both unscientific -- it's just that people want to believe in god, whereas they don't want to believe in demons.

 

[diamond]

I think maycocksean first sentence speaks to free will and we don't realize as humans the full effect that it can have.

With the mis use of free will a Hitler can rise up, along with a Stalin and God will not intercede. Free will carries with it wonderful blessings or dire consequences.


Like nuclear energy-it can kill millions or light up a beautiful city.

Free will can have ppl believing and changing the definition of God to please their latest whims or completely dismissing of God's existence or ppl accepting that there is a God who is good and benevolent much to Satan's chagrin.

I could go on for days about free will and it's positive and negative influencess, blessings and consequences, but I will exercise my free will not to lecture the beauty and necessity of it for our growth as a human family.

dbs

 

[maycocksean]

I think your first sentence goes a long way to answering your puzzlement over why some people believe in God but not demons or demonic possession. See I believe that people created gods and demons and such to explain what they couldn't explain in other ways. Early on they were trying to explain the sun rising or thunder etc., so their gods took care of all that. As humans progressed and figured out how the sun rose (and similar stuff) they no longer needed specific gods for all that, so they invented a mastermind/creator god (the good guy) and an equivalent devil/destroyer (the bad guy), to explain the still unexplained.

I believe as humans overall learn more about our world and become increasingly adept at abstract thought we are needing gods and devils less and less. But it isn't something that happens overnight, just as I imagine the ancient Egyptians didn't suddenly one day say "oh look, we were silly to believe in these gods. Let's not believe in them anymore" and just stop. They were replaced over time, much as I expect over time the gods people now worship will be replaced with increasingly sophisticated ones as the population finds the old ones no longer do the job. During this change -- this evolution -- some parts of the belief system will fall away sooner than others.

And that's where I think your "we all believe what we want to believe" comment fits. I think the concept of god is appealing to people because most people do like the idea they are special (god created you) and that someone powerful and caring is there for them. The devil isn't quite so cuddly, so a lot of people have already given him the boot. They are both unscientific -- it's just that people want to believe in god, whereas they don't want to believe in demons.

I suppose that's true. But for a believer to use the "demons are unscientific" argument is still disingenuous though.

I think most arguements about belief or lack thereof tend towards the disingenuous though, because no one, whether believer or atheist, wants to admitt that none of us can really prove a damn thing in the end, and that what we want to believe really carries a lot more weight than we want to admitt. How often do you meet a believer who says, "Ugh, God is awful, but. . .I am compelled by the evidence of his imperious working in my life to believe that He is real." How often do you meet an atheist who says "Wow, the concept of God is so wonderful and beautiful. . .and yet I am forced to disbelieve because the evidence against his existence is too strong."

I think the former type of believer (one who believes grudgingly in a horrible God) was more common years ago when people attributed things they couldn't explain to God. People back then may have believed in God because they had no other "option." But even then, explanations were not (and still are not) the core reason for religious faith. It's a common misrepresentation of belief that it's all about explaining natural events that we have no scientific explaintion for. That is an element of belief but I don't think it is the core of belief. The core has everything to do with our mortality and our unwillingness to accept it. Look at the egyptians. . .their faith was consumed with the after life--the pyramids, the mummification of the dead etc--these things werent' about explaining why the sun comes up and the nile floods. I think it's a mistake to think that religion will disappear with scientific progress because the core questions of faith are not scientific questions.