Demonic Possession, is it real or group hysteria?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Is Demonic Possession real or group hysteria?

  • Absolutely real

    Votes: 10 18.9%
  • Probably real

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • It's real, but you have to invite evil influences into your life

    Votes: 8 15.1%
  • No, not real; anyone claiming this is a mental case.

    Votes: 28 52.8%
  • There is a good force and a bad force in our universe-a person has to decide which force they choose

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • diamondbruno#9, do you have your own church and gospel?

    Votes: 3 5.7%
  • diamond you always make the best threads; cutting edge, pushing the intellectual and religious envel

    Votes: 6 11.3%

  • Total voters
    53
  • Poll closed .
vaz02 said:


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

Why do all atheists differ? Surely if there was no god they would all follow the same code of conduct no?
 
diamond said:
maycocksean-

what's your view on the subject of NDE and their impact?

dbs

Actually, I believe that when people die, they're dead, they don't have any consciousness or anything until the end of the age i.e. the Second Coming of Christ and they are resurrected. So my view, ironically would be more similar to that of atheist or agnostic--the NDE's are the brains reaction to shutting down etc.

This is because Adventists don't believe there is any seperation between body and the "soul"--no "ghost in the machine." It's why materialistic explanations of spiritual experiences (i.e. brain chemistry etc) really don't bother my faith outlook because for me that would be a given that God works through our biological processes not independent of them (though He is of course, Himself, independent of them).

Course we could be wrong. Let's face it nobody REALLY knows what happens when curtain falls on our mortality.
 
True, nobody knows, but we can appreciate the likelihood of different options based on the evidence; science points to no afterlife at the moment because mind is material.
 
A_Wanderer said:
True, nobody knows, but we can appreciate the likelihood of different options based on the evidence; science points to no afterlife at the moment because mind is material.

Yes, it's true that a strictly materialistic view of the world would not indicate the supernatural. For those of us who are willing to consider other types of evidence--the ancedotal, subjective stuff, if you will--there's maybe more to the story.

For some perhaps the 10,000 Maniac's lyric "Science is truth for life" is not tongue in cheek--but for many people, science alone is not enough. I'm not saying the science "should not" be enough for anyone--it clearly is for you--just stating the fact that for most of the world--even in this modern age where science answers so many questions, it appears to not be enough.
 
But the common threads of the anecdote reconcile with a brain in crisis, a brain shutting down.

Science isn't a way of life, it is a way of approximating the way things are. What cuts closer to the core is how one views reality, and in that I find it very hard to accept a God explanation - a leap of faith like that, on a question of such fundamental importance is hard, and not necessarily good.

Building up from a state of utter ignorance seems much more humbling than accepting revealed supposed truth.
 
I think science is more of man's soul groping for truth.

I also think that a paradigm shift is needed here.

Our souls are eternal. This earth life existence is in comparison to he age of our solus is about 3 seconds -once we realize how long eternity is.

I will write more on all of this later.

dbs
 
maycocksean said:


Why do all atheists differ? Surely if there was no god they would all follow the same code of conduct no?

We dont have a code of conduct and because of this we are free to choose are own destiny and make up our own minds without foreign influence, we dont have holy scrolls that attempt to dictate our lives, we dont have a spiritual leader.

Atheism could be seen as a religion in its self but obviously it isnt.
 
vaz02 said:


We dont have a code of conduct and because of this we are free to choose are own destiny and make up our own minds without foreign influence, we dont have holy scrolls that attempt to dictate our lives, we dont have a spiritual leader.

Atheism could be seen as a religion in its self but obviously it isnt.

Ha, I remember Pat Condell once called atheism a religion. I've always found him funny, even if I disagree with him.

Anyway, Christians can pretty much do whatever they want as well. It's not as if we're strapped to our faith for life and nailed down, but we choose to keep to it because we feel it generally leads us in the right direction.
 
A_Wanderer said:
But the common threads of the anecdote reconcile with a brain in crisis, a brain shutting down.

I wasn't referring to that particular anecdote. If you read my previous posts you know my view on NDE's is the same as yours.

A_Wanderer said:
Science isn't a way of life, it is a way of approximating the way things are. What cuts closer to the core is how one views reality, and in that I find it very hard to accept a God explanation - a leap of faith like that, on a question of such fundamental importance is hard, and not necessarily good.

For me at least, science is not the sole way in which I approximate how things are or the nature of reality. There are aspects of my existence that are beyond the scope of science.

A_Wanderer said:
Building up from a state of utter ignorance seems much more humbling than accepting revealed supposed truth.

I don't think you correctly understand the mindset of many religious people. . .not this religous person anyway.
 
vaz02 said:


We dont have a code of conduct and because of this we are free to choose are own destiny and make up our own minds without foreign influence, we dont have holy scrolls that attempt to dictate our lives, we dont have a spiritual leader.

Atheism could be seen as a religion in its self but obviously it isnt.

My point was that believers are different because people are different. In that sense, it's the same reason atheists differ in points of view.
 
diamond said:
Maycocksean-

Are you famliar with this site, if so what do you think?:

http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18101

dbs

I've never heard of the site, but found it interesting. RE: the discussion of NDE's in the thread. I find it interesting. . .When it comes to faith matters, they're exactly that, faith matters--we can't know for sure and thus I think theological beliefs need to be held somewhat loosely (they are not scientific after all--as has been pointed out ad nauseum on this thread already--and thus can't be proven in the traditional sense) and not fought over to the death. I'm not willing to fight tooth and nail over my belief in the indivision of body and soul, but at the same time, I'm not yet convinced that I'm wrong. It would take more than one story of somebody's grandma to do that, I think.
 
maycocksean said:


I've never heard of the site, but found it interesting. RE: the discussion of NDE's in the thread. I find it interesting. . .When it comes to faith matters, they're exactly that, faith matters--we can't know for sure and thus I think theological beliefs need to be held somewhat loosely (they are not scientific after all--as has been pointed out ad nauseum on this thread already--and thus can't be proven in the traditional sense) and not fought over to the death. I'm not willing to fight tooth and nail over my belief in the indivision of body and soul, but at the same time, I'm not yet convinced that I'm wrong. It would take more than one story of somebody's grandma to do that, I think.

Yes, there are a lot of religious site boards these days.
Catholic
LDS
7th Day Adventists
JW
Born Again

etc.

All are a little interesting and I have membership at a few outside of here.

I've known a few Adventist and respect your faith.
I understand that you guys believe:

-Christ didn't organize a visible church, that his disciples did later after his ressurecction.
-You believe in 3 seperate essences in the Godhead or Trinity.
-Man was created for the glory of God
-Your health code is similar to our Word of Wisdom, maybe we can meet up for a cup of Postum one day.
-Miracles still happen today.
-That the bread and wine our symbolic of Chirst's body and not the eurachrist.
-You believe in a literal ressurection
-Satan to be a miserable fallen being/angel. He will eventually be destroyed when God feels Satan has ran his course.


Regarding NDES:


Probably the best organized NDE site with the most respected, educated, non emotional- almost pragmatic opinions are here:

http://www.near-death.com/



They have sections and sections of rational people having NDEs.
Here's the section on Atheists:

http://www.near-death.com/atheists.html

Enjoy.

dbs
 
diamond said:


Yes, there are a lot of religious site boards these days.
Catholic
LDS
7th Day Adventists
JW
Born Again

etc.

All are a little interesting and I have membership at a few outside of here.

Wow! I barely have time for Interference. I'm amazed you're able to post on other boards as well!

diamond said:

I've known a few Adventist and respect your faith.
I understand that you guys believe:

-Christ didn't organize a visible church, that his disciples did later after his ressurecction.
-You believe in 3 seperate essences in the Godhead or Trinity.
-Man was created for the glory of God
-Your health code is similar to our Word of Wisdom, maybe we can meet up for a cup of Postum one day.
-Miracles still happen today.
-That the bread and wine our symbolic of Chirst's body and not the eurachrist.
-You believe in a literal ressurection
-Satan to be a miserable fallen being/angel. He will eventually be destroyed when God feels Satan has ran his course.

I suppose that's about right, though beliefs 1 and 3 aren't really talked about that much or emphasized. #2, I think is right if you mean that our belief in the trinity is the same as most mainstream Christians.

#5 is technically true, but especially in North America in actual practice, Adventists are pretty skittish about anything that seems too miraculous or supernaturalistic. There's no healings or exorcisms happening in our churches on any kind of regular basis.

Everything else is about right. (Though I admitt, I drink coffee and in fact that standard is slowly fading away in our church, especially in my generation).

I know a couple of LDS members here in Saipan and we've had some good talks! :)
 
maycocksean said:
I wasn't referring to that particular anecdote. If you read my previous posts you know my view on NDE's is the same as yours.
I know , the point I was making was that even if somebody thinks that an NDE is a peek into an afterlife the materialist explanation fits better.
For me at least, science is not the sole way in which I approximate how things are or the nature of reality. There are aspects of my existence that are beyond the scope of science.
Here is where there is probably some difference in outlook, while there are aspect to experience which are not readily explainable (as in they are too complex) such as art, aesthetic and feeling they are in principle the product of a material reality. Even though we all grossly simplify models for them; for instance how what we think makes us feel, decision making and relating it as free will and describing feelings. These are products of a material mind interacting with a material universe.

Just because we experience something transcendental is not exclusive to a purely material world.
I don't think you correctly understand the mindset of many religious people. . .not this religous person anyway.
The emphasis was more on science beginning with the assumption that we know absolutely nothing and building forth from that, I think contrasting that against a mentality that is very prevalent in certain quarters today that a holy book is the source of knowledge, that it does hold the answers and that all it takes is more study of the book to understand more about the world.

I am well aware that most people in the modern world won't fall back on the book as the only explanation, they accept it is out of it's domain (but only because a better explanation has come alone and usurped it's place).
 
A_Wanderer said:
.Here is where there is probably some difference in outlook, while there are aspect to experience which are not readily explainable (as in they are too complex) such as art, aesthetic and feeling they are in principle the product of a material reality. Even though we all grossly simplify models for them; for instance how what we think makes us feel, decision making and relating it as free will and describing feelings. These are products of a material mind interacting with a material universe.

Just because we experience something transcendental is not exclusive to a purely material world.

I see your point.

I guess I'm referring to realities like coping with the reality of my own mortality, the certainity of death--my dissatisfaction with perceived injustices and tragedies of this world and so on. These are not really scientific questions (though I grant you the process of thinking about them--the brain chemistry etc--is of course scientific).

A_Wanderer said:
.The emphasis was more on science beginning with the assumption that we know absolutely nothing and building forth from that, I think contrasting that against a mentality that is very prevalent in certain quarters today that a holy book is the source of knowledge, that it does hold the answers and that all it takes is more study of the book to understand more about the world.

I am well aware that most people in the modern world won't fall back on the book as the only explanation, they accept it is out of it's domain (but only because a better explanation has come alone and usurped it's place).

But I don't think anyone has ever looked to a holy book as the explanation for EVERYTHING about life. The ancient Hebrew farmer wasn't checking out the Scriptures to see whether they should sow their seed. I obviously can't prove this but I've always wondered if there weren't always people who didn't really believe in a supernatural explanation for natural events--they just didn't have any other explanation at the time. I mean surely there were A_Wanderer types in ancient times, right? :wink:
 
maycocksean said:






But I don't think anyone has ever looked to a holy book as the explanation for EVERYTHING about life. :

Our Creator gave us common sense first and foremost.


Spiritual direction is what one should look to the Holy writ for
; not the color of your neck tie.

dbs
 
This may have been mentioned at some point...but where did the article actually come from?
 
Arun V said:
This may have been mentioned at some point...but where did the article actually come from?

Actually I forget the source but it's a fansinating read.

I know Eastern Religions believe in good and bad forces in the universe.
Here's an interesting site:

http://paranormal.about.com/od/demonsandexorcism/Demons_Possession_and_Exorcism.htm
Here's a link about a Muslim supposedly possessed:

http://paranormal.about.com/od/demonsandexorcism/a/aa052906.htm
Signs of possession

"He can live normally, go to work and study, but occasionally he falls into a kind of hysteria where paranormal phenomena manifest, including: speaking in a voice other than his; episodes of contractions and seizures; demonstrations of abnormal strength; telekinetic effects on near and distant objects.

"Having recognized these signs, which reveal a case of possession, the person or his family introduces the patient to an exorcist who can attempt to help the patient.

"There are the other signs in the patient that the exorcist recognizes as those of possible possession: migraines; insomnia; depression; dreams of wolves, dogs, blood, massacre or falling endlessly into a vacuum; physical reports of awakening the night with visions; feelings of a presence in the room or the bed; skin lesions; failure in work, studies or marriage, etc.

Power of the Djinn

"These people can suffer from harassment by these Djinns [Islamic demons], who attack them with a specific goal and for a specific cause.





Demon Exorcisms
Find the top sites and offers for Demon Exorcisms
www.demonexorcisms.com
The Djinn's goal is to destroy the person's life and all that is good about it. One can say that the Djinn acts like a 'parasite' in order to destabilize his victim. Satan (Ibliss) is the master of demons, of the Djinns and of men who are devoted to him (even without them knowing it). They act for him. They mislead men in order to drive them to misfortune and even suicide.

"The exorcist does nothing but deliver these people with readings of the holy Koran and invocations in order to drive out these presences the patient's life or residence.

"In this video, at the end of exorcism the Djinn entity has been converted to Islam and thus will not inflict any m
 
Arun V said:
This may have been mentioned at some point...but where did the article actually come from?

diamond said:


Actually I forget the source but it's a fansinating read.

Oh Diamond, you know exactly where it came from:


VintagePunk said:


I was curious as to who would actually publish such crap, so I did some digging. The New Oxford Review is a religious publication, and not a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Here's the link to the original article:

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?print=1&did=0308-gallagher

I was also curious as to who this 'board certified psychiatrist' is, and what would prompt him to investigate such nonsense. This is at the beginning of the article:

Richard E. Gallagher, M.D., is a board-certified psychiatrist in private practice in Hawthorne, New York, and Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at New York Medical College. He is also on the faculties of the Columbia University Psychoanalytic Institute and a Roman Catholic seminary. He is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Princeton University, magna cum laude in Classics, and trained in Psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine. Dr. Gallagher is the only American psychiatrist to have been a consistent U.S. delegate to the International Association of Exorcists, and has addressed its plenary session.

So, he obviously has an interest in promoting a Catholic agenda.


Mystery solved. It's crap.
 
VintagePunk said:




Oh Diamond, you know exactly where it came from:



That's right you claimed it was crap and that was our first and only major disagreement, since then we've became sorta of cyber pen pals on the boards with differing view points.

<>
 
diamond said:


That's right you claimed it was crap and that was our first and only major disagreement, since then we've became sorta of cyber pen pals on the boards with differing view points.

<>

Major disagreement? I'm sorta flattered. But I do admit, I'm glad we've practically become BFF, despite our differences. :hug:

:wink:
 
VintagePunk said:


Major disagreement? I'm sorta flattered. But I do admit, I'm glad we've practically become BFF, despite our differences. :hug:

:wink:

VP-

Yes yes forgive more my oversight.

Everyday I'm poring over contracts, juggling too teenaged girls who are wonderful and sometimes demanding, a beautiful wife with a masters degree who is continually pushing me to finish my AA, and righting the wrong here in FYM, a pimp never had it so easy.:angry:

:wink:
 
Back
Top Bottom