Do Christians actually believe in demonic possession?

parrai

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes it is a generalization, and no it is not rubbish. So you are half right. I meant it as a generalization and imply nothing like the idea that all of them are sexual deviants. I imply only that the group is currently known for it, which clearly they are. Not just the ones that perform it either, but the ones that facilitate it. Maybe you mistook what I meant by "known for it". I simply mean that when you mention priests these days, this is often the connection people make in their heads. A connection that would be easier to make were you to find yourself tied to a bed, of all places.

However to stay on topic of the thread, my point was that if I was tied to a bed in a room full of such people, I would be acting as described too. The point being: Maybe the person was more likely to be acting as she was due to her situation and not due to possession or other such supernatural nonsense.

It really is Monty Python style thinking to anger someone and when they get angry use that as evidence they are demonic. It's like asking someone 100 times "Are you in a bad mood" and when they finally flip you go "SEE! I knew you were in a bad mood".

You see I fixed your post for you by putting in the the word 'a' group, you said the group were responsible, hence your generalisation.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have enough of my own words without you pretending I said something I did not. So you can give up quoting my posts and changing their contents. I said "the" group not "a" group.

You twist it how you like...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am perfectly aware of what I wrote thank you and I stand by it. The group as a whole is currently "known" in the public eye as being connected with sexual deviancy. That is all I meant. If you want to append more meaning to it than that, you can do it on your own time but you would be wrong.

That is more rubbish... So what you are saying is that every person looks at a priest and says that person is a sexual deviant? That is just absurd.

nozzferrahhtoo

parrai wrote: »

You see I fixed your post for you

Changing what someone says is not fixing anything. It is putting words in their mouth. I have no time for it.

parrai wrote: »

You twist it how you like...

Indeed, and here I am twisting it BACK to what I originally said FROM what you changed it to. If that is how you define twisting, you can expect me to keep twisting as I rather like having my words unchanged.

parrai wrote: »

That is more rubbish... So what you are saying is that every person looks at a priest and says that person is a sexual deviant?

Never said that. I just said the topic of sexual deviancy is connected to the group as a whole in many peoples minds. Certainly in the minds of people who find strapped to the bed by people from that group. I never once said anything about looking at one individual from that group and assuming he is one. You are, again it seems, changing what I said into what I did not say.

Conversation might go smoother if you reply to what I actually wrote, rather than what you invented. Conversations generally do I find... though I guess that is just another generalisation.

parrai

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Changing what someone says is not fixing anything. It is putting words in their mouth. I have no time for it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In fairness if a bunch of men in dresses strapped me to a bed, especially when said bunch of men in dresses are known for their sexual deviance, I would likely be doing a lot of cussing and struggling too. That hardly means demons exist or that I have one inside me. It does mean I do not want to be tied to a bed and I am worried about what THEY might want to put inside me.

This is what you wrote....No changes, putting words in your mouth. That is a generalisation full stop.

Yes it is a generalization, and no it is not rubbish. So you are half right. I meant it as a generalization and imply nothing like the idea that all of them are sexual deviants. I imply only that a group is currently known for it, which clearly they are. Not just the ones that perform it either, but the ones that facilitate it.


I fixed your post to what it should have said, IF you were not generalising...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have enough of my own words without you pretending I said something I did not. So you can give up quoting my posts and changing their contents. I said "the" group not "a" group.

This is twisting, big time! You did not say "the" you said, "said bunch of men" implying a blanket coverage of the priests, it is infered in the statement...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I just said the topic of sexual deviancy is connected to the group as a whole in many peoples minds

How do you know it is in many peoples minds?? It is merely underhand linguistic tactics when people say that "in many peoples minds" covers everyone...and a tactic that should be highlighted when used, or even referred to lightly as you do here. You cannot see many peoples minds, or how they think about it... no?

nozzferrahhtoo

parrai wrote: »

This is what you wrote....No changes, putting words in your mouth. That is a generalisation full stop.

You are going in circles now. Why hammer a point I have already made. Post #99 I already said "Yes it is a generalization". Any particular reason you are highlighting again what we both already agreed to, or are you just flogging a dead horse now?

parrai wrote: »

I fixed your post

Again, changing what someone said into what they did not say is not "fixing" anything. It is putting words in their mouth. I know what I said. It was not what you changed it to. Try replying to what I wrote, not what I did not.

When people clarify their meaning it is generally helpful to go with the clarification, not with what you want them to have meant. Again the meaning of my post was as follows and any other meaning you want to give it is yours and yours alone, not mine:

The group as a whole is connected in the minds of many with sexual deviancy. Not just as an organisation which contains many who performed such actions, but as an organisation containing people right up to the top that facilitated and then covered up such actions. Were I to find myself tied to a bed by such people the connection to sexual deviancy in my fears about what was about to happen would likely be heightened.

I would therefore likely act very much like the girl the user described, which was my main point: Putting someone tied to a bed who is cussing and struggling forward as evidence for demonic possession is ludicrous given their cussing and struggling is more likely to be connected with them being tied to the bed in the first place.

parrai

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are going in circles now. Why hammer a point I have already made. Post #99 I already said "Yes it is a generalization". Any particular reason you are highlighting again what we both already agreed to, or are you just flogging a dead horse now?

Fair enough, what I took issue with was you telling me that I mistook you, when I perfectly understood you.

And this:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I imply only that the group is currently known for it, which clearly they are.-

Because it doubles back on the accepting of your generalisation...we both understand each other.

nozzferrahhtoo

parrai wrote: »

Fair enough, what I took issue with was you telling me that I mistook you, when I perfectly understood you.

You did, just not on THAT bit. I perfectly clearly said it was a generalisation. As this thread is not about that, I figured a generalisation was enough to highlight the point I was actually making, which is that when finding oneself tied to the bed by such people one is generally going to be cussing and struggling.... which can only be compounded by the connection in the minds of many between the clergy and sexual deviancy. The main point being, this is hardly evidence of demonic possession as such a struggling and cussing person is likely to be perfectly in their right mind to be doing so.

In fact were someone to be wheeled into a room by such people, strapped to a bed, and they were sitting there serenely looking perfectly happy with the situation.... THAT would be evidence that something might be amiss of which people should be concerned.

parrai

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again, changing what someone said into what they did not say is not "fixing" anything. It is putting words in their mouth. I know what I said. It was not what you changed it to. Try replying to what I wrote, not what I did not.

When people clarify their meaning it is generally helpful to go with the clarification, not with what you want them to have meant. Again the meaning of my post was as follows and any other meaning you want to give it is yours and yours alone, not mine:

The group as a whole is connected in the minds of many with sexual deviancy. Not just as an organisation which contains many who performed such actions, but as an organisation containing people right up to the top that facilitated and then covered up such actions. Were I to find myself tied to a bed by such people the connection to sexual deviancy in my fears about what was about to happen would likely be heightened.

I would therefore likely act very much like the girl the user described, which was my main point: Putting someone tied to a bed who is cussing and struggling forward as evidence for demonic possession is ludicrous given their cussing and struggling is more likely to be connected with them being tied to the bed in the first place.

Imagine the priests who are genuinely decent people, who have NOTHING to do with this, how ashamed they must feel because of blanket statements/opinions of people like yourself.

Yes the upper echelons of the church are wrong, and the people involved in any way with the cover up are wrong, but there are people too that have done absolutely nothing wrong and are now, by what you say, being tarmacked with this attitude. Not all people are the same, just because they are in an organisation that has been corrrupted and twisted by evil. Jesus was crucified for what he believed in, so now, are these priests that are not guilty of anything because of some perverts and corrupt higher ranking decision makers in the church.

parrai

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You did, just not on THAT bit. I perfectly clearly said it was a generalisation. As this thread is not about that, I figured a generalisation was enough to highlight the point I was actually making, which is that when finding oneself tied to the bed by such people one is generally going to be cussing and struggling.... which can only be compounded by the connection in the minds of many between the clergy and sexual deviancy. The main point being, this is hardly evidence of demonic possession as such a struggling and cussing person is likely to be perfectly in their right mind to be doing so.

In fact were someone to be wheeled into a room by such people, strapped to a bed, and they were sitting there serenely looking perfectly happy with the situation.... THAT would be evidence that something might be amiss of which people should be concerned.

Not at all, Nosferatu, my point stands and the evidence to any honest, sane, literate person is there to see... The rest of your statement I never took issue with, other than the fact, you made a blanket,straight across the board,generalisation about priests...

You like to win, I just read and gave you the facts... simples.

nozzferrahhtoo

parrai wrote: »

Imagine the priests who are genuinely decent people, who have NOTHING to do with this, how ashamed they must feel because of blanket statements/opinions of people like yourself.

Again this is off topic but since you keep harping on at it I would point out that I have talked with such people and they recognise this is what has happened. The recent reports, media attentions... coupled with things that have come to light such as the cover ups that go right to the top and how such perverts were moved around and allowed to commit crimes again.... have all amalgamated to connect the priest in the minds of many with perversion and pedophilia.

Play around with the search function on this forum, forums like politics.ie, google and more and you will find there are people all over the world who think like this now.

The "genuinely decent people" you talk of are perfectly aware that this is the connection that has been made in the minds of many. Many of them realise their church is sick and needs work. We can hope that such work will be done and changes made, and that such people will rise to the top and the church will become the better for it.

I do not hold out a lot of hope for this given the press releases and statements made from the church and the holy see since all the revelations, but the hope is there.

Am I overly concerned with the feelings of the "genuine" people in the church however? A little but not all that much really no. I feel for people who are in the church who genuinely want to do good. I really do.

But at the same time they make a career out of selling lies to children and adults... and their continued work in the church is a partial tacit acceptance of the crimes that have been perpetrated. I know if I was working for an organisation that not only contained pedophiles but expressly facilitated the crimes, moved people around, protected them from justice and worse... I would quit and find another job. And this is only one of many crimes one can list. The recent "stolen babies" story is shocking beyond words and the Churches attitude on condoms in Africa has killed countless people. One could go on, but again its off topic.

Genuine people can do genuinely good things. The church is not the only place. So why stay on. As I said many believe they can fix the church from within and thats why they stay. I have my doubts. However I see that the seminaries are not able to fill vocations, and I see falling numbers have caused priests to take a second paycut in barely 12 months. Does this make me sad? Not all that much in the current climate no. My sympathy is best served elsewhere.

None of this, however, has anything to do with my original point: That being tied to the bed and cussing and struggling has nothing to do with evidence for demonic posession.

parrai wrote: »

Jesus was crucified for what he believed in

So the tale goes yes. However he is far from the only one who has died for a cause, person or ideal. Whatever Jesus died for, if he ever did or indeed there ever was such a person, it certainly does not appear to be for anything the Church is.

parrai wrote: »

Not at all, Nosferatu

Not sure who you are replying to but this is not my username. Changing what I write into what I did not again are we?

parrai wrote: »

my point stands

As does mine which was simply that anyone tied to a bed is likely to act as described, especially in the presence of people who are so often connected with sexual deviancy, and that this is nothing at all to do with demonic possession.

parrai

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But at the same time they make a career out of selling lies to children and adults... and their continued work in the church is a partial tacit acceptance of the crimes that have been perpetrated.

You see, if they are genuine, then this is false... They believe they are carrying out Gods work... This is what they are they for...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I know if I was working for an organisation that not only contained pedophiles but expressly facilitated the crimes, moved people around, protected them from justice and worse... I would quit and find another job. And this is only one of many crimes one can list. The recent "stolen babies" story is shocking beyond words and the Churches attitude on condoms in Africa has killed countless people. One could go on, but again its off topic.

I too agree with this...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Genuine people can do genuinely good things. The church is not the only place. So why stay on. As I said many believe they can fix the church from within and thats why they stay. I have my doubts. However I see that the seminaries are not able to fill vocations, and I see falling numbers have caused priests to take a second paycut in barely 12 months. Does this make me sad? Not all that much in the current climate no. My sympathy is best served elsewhere.

None of this, however, has anything to do with my original point: That being tied to the bed and cussing and struggling has nothing to do with evidence for demonic posession.

No, It has nothing to do with this superficial thread topic, but you are being extremely honest and fair in what you now are saying.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So the tale goes yes. However he is far from the only one who has died for a cause, person or ideal. Whatever Jesus died for,if he ever did or indeed there ever was such a person, it certainly does not appear to be for anything the Church is.

Yes again fair and honest commentary... And it's widely accepted that he did exist...It's the idea of God that people have a problem with as there is no proof.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not sure who you are replying to but this is not my username. Changing what I write into what I did not again are we?

I found ironic is all... Nothing intended by way of offence.

nozzferrahhtoo

parrai wrote: »

You see, if they are genuine, then this is false... They believe they are carrying out Gods work... This is what they are they for...

Maybe they do, but I was not commenting on them but on ME. I was saying that given they have made a career out of selling lies to children I am not all that moved by their plight. Somewhat moved yes, but not as moved as I might be. Of course I am sympathetic that someone who genuinely wants to do good finds themselves in an institution that is being hammered on all sides by revelations of all kinds of crimes against humanity, and that such people are likely to become associated with that purely by their career choice in that origanisation. I feel SOME sympathy for this, but a lot lot less than I might.... especially given their continued willingness to work for an organisation perpetuating all these crimes makes it appear they on some level accept them. As we agreed, you and I would both very quickly quit our jobs if working for people who committed maybe even one of the crimes, let alone ALL of them.

parrai wrote: »

but you are being extremely honest and fair in what you now are saying.

Indeed, and a quick look at my posting history will tell you this is what I say, all the time, whenever I get a podium to do so. I may have reduced my commentary to a single generalised sentence in THIS thread given that THIS thread was not about that, but I am sure now I have expanded upon it you can see where I am coming from.

I still stand by original post however, despite your discomfort with the generalization, because in the context of the point I was actually making at the time the generalization was sufficient to carry the point.

parrai wrote: »

And it's widely accepted that he did exist...

Well of course it is given the number of Christians, who all accept it by default as part of the faith. If you solely whittle it down to just scholars on the subject however you will find that although the majority do accept it... that majority is not as large as you might think. It is certainly a more contested claim than many today imagine and there is a wealth of very interesting literature on the debate available to those, like myself, who find reading such things interesting. Not just the lack of evidence but also the fact that many aspects of the tales seem to be plagarisms of people or stories that came before. Again not the thread for this however and it has been done to death in the religion forums on boards.

Although interesting reading I do not find contesting his existence myself all that interesting. I do not care if he did or not. If he did he was just a moral philosopher remarkable only in that he was slightly ahead of his time (though behind ours in may ways, slavery for example) and espoused his views in the face of persecution.

The supernatural stuff assigned to him is unsubstantiated in the extreme, and even if it was true I think actually takes AWAY from the fairy tale as the "sacrifice" Jesus is meant to have made for us becomes meaningless in the light of eternal life and Resurrection and the like. If Jesus the _man_ existed and sacrificed himself for what he believed best for mankind.... that can at least be respected. Asking us to accept the Christian fairy tale as a sacrifice is not only an insult to our intelligence however, but an insult to those of our species who actually have given their life for a person, ideal or cause.

philologos

old hippy wrote: »

Who longs to know?

If we're honest with ourselves, all mankind longs to know.

TwoShedJackson wrote:

What form did this revelation take?

Through a lot of thinking through the Bible, His Word, He showed me who He was. This isn't beyond anyone, and I'm not special in that regard. Most people who have been inspired by God have found Him through this means. Accepting Jesus on the basis of what He said to them, and being convinced by the results that came about in their lives.

Ghost Buster

philologos wrote: »

If we're honest with ourselves, all mankind longs to know.



What utter conceited horse sh1te!
Anyone not subscribing to your hocus pocus supernatural hokum is dishonest?
Get outta here......

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

If we're honest with ourselves, all mankind longs to know.

So someone who sees no reason to think there is a god, and so has no interest in "knowing" that god, is simply not being honest with themselves?

I simply love the linguistic backflips you people perform to get out of substantiating your claims in ANY way at all. You come on to forums like this espousing the most nonsense notions such as invisible beings in the sky watching over us... and as soon as someone doubts you you run away from any attempts to substantiate those claims and instead act like the person asking is at fault somehow.

Either they are not being honest with themselves, or they are blind, or as the bible says they are a "fool". Anything at all that gets you out of providing a scrap of evidence you will latch on to and swing at the skeptic like a hammer.

Thankfully, I think, although slowly less and less people are being duped by these tactics each day.

parrai

The Irony....:D

nozzferrahhtoo

The unfinished throw away sentences.....

vampire of kilmainham

another ploy by the catholic church to try and gain power again they will start another inquisition yet. Who the fcuk do they think they are do they ever stop all the evil that has come from the catholic church for centuries it's whole inistatution should be wiped out and destroyed for once and for all for they are the real demon's

sandmanporto

dilbert2 wrote: »

Considering all we know about mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, epilepsy etc. and how they can affect a persons personality or physical capacity, are there still actually religious people who believe that invisible demonic forces can gain control of a persons body, when the supposed demonically possessed victim is suffering from a as of yet un-medicated neurological or medical condition such as the two noted above.

Who cares

Napper Hawkins

Plenty, apparently.

philologos

vampire of kilmainham wrote: »

another ploy by the catholic church to try and gain power again they will start another inquisition yet. Who the fcuk do they think they are do they ever stop all the evil that has come from the catholic church for centuries it's whole inistatution should be wiped out and destroyed for once and for all for they are the real demon's

Your argument might be valid if the thread was titled "Do Roman Catholics actually believe in demonic possession?".

The thread is actually titled "Do Christians actually believe in demonic possession".

You've excluded about half of all Christians from consideration when you talk exclusively about Roman Catholicism.

Churches which range in size from larger to bigger believe that there are evil presences in the world which can influence our lives. This is a position that has been around since the very beginning of world Christianity. If you open the Gospel of Mark and read, you'll see numerous counts of it being described.

The Christian church at Mark's time didn't have a huge amount of worldly power and influence. All it had was the power of Jesus Christ. There wasn't really much desire for political control within the church either. It was much happier to grow as a grassroots movement. Christianity is better as a grass roots movement anyway. Churches should grow because people want to follow Jesus, not because they were forced to.

Kasabian

Demons exist, how else could you explain Jedward?

Seaneh

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Thankfully, I think, although slowly less and less people are being duped by these tactics each day.

Well that's entirely inaccurate, Pentecostal Christianity is the fastest growing movement of any kind in the history of humanity, it's gone from a handful of people 100 years ago to hundreds of millions today and continues to be the fastest growing movement on the planet by a considerable distance

MrPudding

Here is a thread from our one of our very own forums:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=75016988

MrP

nozzferrahhtoo

Seaneh wrote: »

Well that's entirely inaccurate, Pentecostal Christianity is the fastest growing movement of any kind in the history of humanity, it's gone from a handful of people 100 years ago to hundreds of millions today and continues to be the fastest growing movement on the planet by a considerable distance

And yet atheism is the fastest growing minority in the US and people are leaving the Catholic church all over the world. Indeed I would like to see real worldwide stats on the issue of what is growing, what is shrinking, but I hold out some hope that the death of religion, although nail growingly slow, is at least beginning in our life time.

However on the topic of the post you replied to, and the accuracy of what I specifically meant in it, I think it important to highlight I was not just talking about religion in that sentence but of the tactic I was talking about as a whole, not just in religion but in every subject.

The tactic I was talking about was that of avoiding giving evidence by deriding the "mark" that you are trying to con. The tactic of suggesting that failing to accept the product/idea/claim being offered is because you are somehow being foolish, dishonest, idiotic, blind or worse. It is an age old tactic to make the "mark" feel like they are some how deficient for not accepting whatever it is you are selling.

I would like to think, though I admit this is more from hope than any actual study or statistic, that people are waking up to people playing that tactic more and more. Of course looking at our advertising industry (Offer on now, you would be a FOOL to miss it) would certainly temper my hope.

All I can to for my part is highlight the tactic when people like Jakkass (aka Philologos) employ it and point out that they are not only not offering any evidence, but they are cynically copping out of offering any by hiding behind deriding those that do not accept their claims. There simply is no evidence, argument, data or reasons on offer to suggest there even IS a god, so Jakkass here simply resorts to calling you dishonest if you do not think there is one.

People should not be let get away with that tactic unchallanged.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Churches which range in size from larger to bigger believe that there are evil presences in the world which can influence our lives.

There is. Other people.

The idea of blaming things on "bad spirits" however is not just devoid of evidence, it likely is just people who do not want to admit to their own failings and wrongs explaining them away by blaming invisible wisps to temper their own guilt and shame.

housetypeb

Why would christians worry about demons when they each have a Guardian angel acting as a bodyguard?
So the invisible angel can fight the invisible demon while you offer up praise and worship to the invisible sky god who caused it all to happen.
I still think sci-fi is better than reli-fi, but each to his own.

c_man

housetypeb wrote: »

Why would christians worry about demons when they each have a Guardian angel acting as a bodyguard?

I fired my guardian angel, hired some Blackwater guys as bodyguards instead. Much better.

IT-Guy

philologos wrote: »

As far as I see it, it isn't obvious because it's not true Killer Pigeon.

This post is the most ironic thing I've ever read.

IT-Guy

philologos wrote: »

It can stand up to scrutiny on its own merit. Compartmentalisation isn't particularly necessary if one believes that the world was created by God, as a result Creation including all scientific laws and all logic were created by Him also.

In fact it would be compartmentalisation if I believed what I did and divorced elements of Creation from His dominion and authority.

Above bolded bit is a very strong definition of compartmentalization for me i.e. a belief in a supernatural entity to explain events that don't require it.

the purple tin

c_man wrote: »

I fired my guardian angel, hired some Blackwater guys as bodyguards instead. Much better.

Yes, because you'll be much safer with a bunch of burnt out, alcoholic maniacs protecting you :P

Batsy

Kasabian wrote: »

Demons exist, how else could you explain Jedward?

How else could you explain Satan and his minions?

Ghost Buster

Batsy wrote: »

How else could you explain Satan and his minions?

Or
Unicorns exist. How else do you explain Unicorns?
Fairys exist. How else do you explain fairy dust?
Santa exists. How else do you explain santa and his reindeer?

You have essentially said "demons exist. How else do you explain demons.?"

I thought "being on the telly" was all the evidence you needed any how.

parrai

Do not forget Dracula and aliens mwuhahaha

Ghost Buster

parrai wrote: »

Do not forget Dracula and aliens mwuhahaha

Aliens exist. How else do you explain UFO's
Vampires exist. How else do you explain Dracula?
Gotcha!!;)

parrai

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Aliens exist. How else do you explain UFO's
Vampires exist. How else do you explain Dracula?
Gotcha!!;)

:eek::D