Demons are real

[Ronin]

Demons are real. (http://www.2theadvocate.com/opinion/42716837.html?showAll=y&c=y)

We Christians do believe in the existence of demons for one simple reason: Our God told us that they exist. A brief review of the Gospels will prove this.

Of course, there is no evidence for the existence of demons and this is the best case that this southern lawyer can assert for his case.

They exist because a God told him that they exist and a book written by other folk who believe they exist corroborates it.

I'm continuously amazed that full grown adults still believe in this stuff.

[LoneWolf]

It is ridiculous. But I don't find it anymore ridiculous than their belief in the Flood or the Resurrection.

[Ray Moscow]

If they aren't real, let's see you disprove them, Mr. atheist-smartypants!

... and fairies, leprachans, unicorns, space aliens, Atlantis, ghosts, jinn, ...

[Monad]

It is ridiculous. But I don't find it anymore ridiculous than their belief in the Flood or the Resurrection.

Or god.

btw do deists believe in the equivalent of demons (for them maybe it would be something like Thanatos, a death/destructive force or "dark side", although arguably death is necessary to life so how can it be evil?)

[LoneWolf]

It is ridiculous. But I don't find it anymore ridiculous than their belief in the Flood or the Resurrection.

Or god.

btw do deists believe in the equivalent of demons (for them maybe it would be something like Thanatos, a death/destructive force or "dark side", although arguably death is necessary to life so how can it be evil?)

Back when I was a deist I didn't. I just believed some ultimate intelligence was responsible for the creation of the universe. Other than that I didn't believe in anything supernatural. Other deists may think differently.

[Ray Moscow]

It is ridiculous. But I don't find it anymore ridiculous than their belief in the Flood or the Resurrection.

Or god.

btw do deists believe in the equivalent of demons (for them maybe it would be something like Thanatos, a death/destructive force or "dark side", although arguably death is necessary to life so how can it be evil?)

I can't speak for all deists, but my understanding is that their "god" is pretty much limited in action to the beginnings of the universe and that it doesn't concern itself much, if at all, with humanity. Otherwise, they are naturalists without much room for "demons" or such.

Jefferson, for example, took all the supernatural stuff out of his (heavily edited) version of the gospels.

[Mediancat]

One of my best friends is a "fideist," and more or less believes in the Prime Mover concept of a god. Demons or their equivalent have no place in their belief system. She's effectively atheistic in everything but that.

Rob

[Matty]

Real or not they can be used for fun or practical purposes. There was a local radio interview a while back about a a N Irish authors book detailing cases of "real" possession and one of the cases was this highly devout couple who had their teenage son sent for an exorcism becasue they found out he had been (gasp, this bit is not for the faint hearted) drinking, smoking, having sex and experimenting with recreational drugs.

Now this was a good Xtian boy, been raised right and all that, dont forget, so the only explanation his parents had for that behaviour was that he was possessed by either a demon or Keith Richards (alright i made up the keith richards bit, no one could survive that)


Assuming it wasnt the sort of Emily Rose exorcism (and from what they said i think it was more of a sprinkling of holy water and some boring waffle type one, not that they would admit anything else of course) , i bet he couldnt believe his fucking luck. You dont normally get away with blaming your imaginary friend that blatantly for stuff past the age of 5 or so do you? Thats like a "the dog ate my home work" calibre of excuse, "my demon rolled that huge fucking spliff and made me smoke it whilst the vicars daughter was blowing me, honest mom" . Never mind son, you cant help it these demons are real fuckers.

And then after another 6months of fun relapse, have another chat with the priest and no shit from the concerned and devoutly gullible parents.

[Criada]

The sad thing is that this sort of rubbish makes the real (in my opinion and experience) cases of demonic attack/possession so much less likely to be believed or taken seriously.

[Ray Moscow]

The sad thing is that this sort of rubbish makes the real (in my opinion and experience) cases of demonic attack/possession so much less likely to be believed or taken seriously.

How does one sort out the "rubbish" demonic accounts from the "serious" ones?

[Matty]

The sad thing is that this sort of rubbish makes the real (in my opinion and experience) cases of demonic attack/possession so much less likely to be believed or taken seriously.

No offence but .......... mmmff....ppfftfttf.....BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Oh fuck that was a good one.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Why don't demons ever go on Letterman, or even Leno? Seriously, that'd be awesome. Fuck, imagine a Jon Stewart interview.


Demon: Well, yes Jon, but then I could always just ...
*turns into wisp of smoke, floats into nostril*
Jon Stewart: ...possess you, and put word in your mouth - literally!
*does obligatory head-spinning routine, climbs walls*

[Lanakila]

The sad thing is that this sort of rubbish makes the real (in my opinion and experience) cases of demonic attack/possession so much less likely to be believed or taken seriously.
There is real demon possession?:dunno:

[Lanakila]

The sad thing is that this sort of rubbish makes the real (in my opinion and experience) cases of demonic attack/possession so much less likely to be believed or taken seriously.
There is real demon possession?:dunno:
Confirmation bias doesn't count as evidence btw.

[Ray Moscow]

Why don't demons ever go on Letterman, or even Leno? Seriously, that'd be awesome. Fuck, imagine a Jon Stewart interview.


Demon: Well, yes Jon, but then I could always just ...
*turns into wisp of smoke, floats into nostril*
Jon Stewart: ...possess you, and put word in your mouth - literally!
*does obligatory head-spinning routine, climbs walls*


But if they proved their reality like this, that would prove God's reality, too, which would undo their devilish schemes. Jesus would kick their devlish asses back to hell and back.

Tricky guys, these demons. You have to give them that.

[Criada]

The sad thing is that this sort of rubbish makes the real (in my opinion and experience) cases of demonic attack/possession so much less likely to be believed or taken seriously.
There is real demon possession?:dunno:
Confirmation bias doesn't count as evidence btw.

Which is why I wouldn't even attempt to argue it here.

[DMB]

I suppose demons are a hangover from an animstic/polytheistic past.

[Ray Moscow]

For Socrates (via Plato), his "demon" was sort of an inner guiding voice, which sounds OK to me.

It's not a disembodied, evil spirit though, is it?

[Laton]

From a recent submission to FSTDT

My son's daughter and I were riding down the road and the door locks started opening and locking by themselves.

At first I thought I had hit the button on the door, when I realized I didn't and it kept happening, I asked my son's girlfriend is it was her, she said no.

As it kept happening we both became alarmed, she said it must be a ghost. I said they're is no such thing, I said it could be an evil spirit. I asked her is she was messing with anything she shouldn't "weegie board, etc". (excuse my spelling, not sure how to spell that board) She said no. Bolding mine

Can't argue with that line of reasoning. :eek:

[DMB]

In the original piece linked to in the OP, the lawyer refers to "we Christians". I wonder which particular lot of Christians he is speaking for.

[DMB]

Which is why I wouldn't even attempt to argue it here.

That's a pity. This forum is for intellectual discussions and arguments.

[BioBeing]

Sure is easier to blame ghosts sorry, spirits, than faulty electronics.

[David B]

I suppose demons are a hangover from an animstic/polytheistic past.

Perhaps. But also the accounts of people who have sleep paralysis experiences (including me) and schizophrenic experiences (not including me). And then again, there are psychedelic drugs, which I understand have been used in a wide variety of cultures, past and present.

David

[Ray Moscow]

Sure is easier to blame ghosts sorry, spirits, than faulty electronics.

Demons are pretty much the only possible explanation here. :D

[BioBeing]

In the original piece linked to in the OP, the lawyer refers to "we Christians". I wonder which particular lot of Christians he is speaking for.

He also said "Our God". As opposed, obviously, to other people's Gods who don't tell them that demons do exist.

[Utu]

Sure is easier to blame ghosts sorry, spirits, than faulty electronics.

Demons are pretty much the only possible explanation here. :D
It's cheaper too.

Anyone who thinks it could be faulty electronics, door lock actuators, or pin switches is engaging in naturalistic, physicalistic, close-mindedness and scientism. :D

[Criada]

Which is why I wouldn't even attempt to argue it here.

That's a pity. This forum is for intellectual discussions and arguments.

Exactly.
My beliefs are based on the bible and on my own experience.
Intellectually I agree with most people here... there is no way I can provide any solid evidence for the existence of demons, and my own faith is fairly wobbly at the moment, so I am not going to try to convince anyone of what I can't even be sure of myself.

[DMB]

Which is why I wouldn't even attempt to argue it here.

That's a pity. This forum is for intellectual discussions and arguments.

Exactly.
My beliefs are based on the bible and on my own experience.
Intellectually I agree with most people here... there is no way I can provide any solid evidence for the existence of demons, and my own faith is fairly wobbly at the moment, so I am not going to try to convince anyone of what I can't even be sure of myself.

OK. I don't want to pressurise you. :)

[JamesBannon]

I used to debate with a guy on apologetics.com who was absolutely convinced he was possessed by demons! Nothing I, or anyone else, could say would convince him otherwise.

[Davidnic]

I believe in demons. And I am a fairly grounded person. I don't have a lot of time right now, but I think a case can be made for the unexplainable in cases that would argue for the existence of demons. Now, at some point there is a leap of faith.

So is: "Because God told us" a valid line of thought? Yeah...but it is not going to be one in a discussion. But I can make an argument for Demons, as well as the Miraculous without an appeal to faith as sole justification.

Maybe if I have time later at break I will give it a try. If not, probably tomorrow. I think it is sometimes better to address it in the context of "can an argument be made for spiritual beings of any kind" and move on from there.

[David B]

I believe in demons. And I am a fairly grounded person. I don't have a lot of time right now, but I think a case can be made for the unexplainable in cases that would argue for the existence of demons. Now, at some point there is a leap of faith.

So is: "Because God told us" a valid line of thought? Yeah...but it is not going to be one in a discussion. But I can make an argument for Demons, as well as the Miraculous without an appeal to faith as sole justification.

Maybe if I have time later at break I will give it a try. If not, probably tomorrow. I think it is sometimes better to address it in the context of "can an argument be made for spiritual beings of any kind" and move on from there.

I'm very much looking forward to it:)

I hope it's better than a case that could be made for Russell's Teapot.

David (is, for the moment at least, of the opinion that a better case could be made against spiritual beings of any kind)

[Davidnic]

I believe in demons. And I am a fairly grounded person. I don't have a lot of time right now, but I think a case can be made for the unexplainable in cases that would argue for the existence of demons. Now, at some point there is a leap of faith.

So is: "Because God told us" a valid line of thought? Yeah...but it is not going to be one in a discussion. But I can make an argument for Demons, as well as the Miraculous without an appeal to faith as sole justification.

Maybe if I have time later at break I will give it a try. If not, probably tomorrow. I think it is sometimes better to address it in the context of "can an argument be made for spiritual beings of any kind" and move on from there.

I'm very much looking forward to it:)

I hope it's better than a case that could be made for Russell's Teapot.

David (is, for the moment at least, of the opinion that a better case could be made against spiritual beings of any kind)

Yeah the old teapot is not really helpful. About as helpful as it is microscopic.

My arguments for spiritual beings are fairly Thomistic. I work, usually, on the idea that all things have a cause and without the un-caused cause everything sums to zero and can't exist. So it all has, as it's cause the un-caused cause. I also argue that there is natural law and that comes from somewhere, instilled as a reflection of a greater law that has it's origin in God. There is also the odds of prophecy fulfillment. But that is more of a validity of Christ argument.

But that is just to give you an idea of my general approach.

What is not my approach can be summed up in saying I find that very little in these conversations can be gained by either side if the Christian argues from a Pre-Suppositional standpoint where the truth of Christianity validates the truth. That goes into a situation where we get: "Why?" "Because God said so". Not really helpful.

You already know I would describe myself as a person of faith...God saying so may be why it is true in a cosmological sense in my opinion. But that is different from...why it I believe and accept it as true in my opinion after my reflection on the issue. Pre-Suppositional arguments blur that important distinction.

Only slightly more helpful is Anecdotal or Experiential where a person's personal conversion and experience thereof is brought to the table as proof. There can be merit in that, but in many ways it is too personal and subjective to do anything but make the conversation circular.

Again and always, ultimately there is a leap of faith at some point. But that leap is made from a personal assurance in other truth after examining your beliefs that gives one (using this word only to some extent, as much as it can be with faith) the surety to make that leap. Not as some uncrossable pothole in a discussion where we accept without thinking.

As far as demonic activity, I was talking about recorded situations that defy scientific explanation. The same thing with many of the Miracles recorded at Lourdes. And I think any look at Lourdes can show the honest and very upfront keeping of the medical records. The procedure to get a miracle approved at Lourdes is an endurance trial of proofs and medical documents. But I only mention such things to highlight that there are recorded incidents of demonic possession where there have been abilities manifested that are unexplainable by science.

I find that if someone is going to discount the "God says so" argument, then only infinitesimally more valid in a discussion is: "Science just has not found a reason yet." At that point both parties are making a leap of faith. One the faith in God and the other the faith that it has an explanation that science will discover outside of God. It is really a personal call on which is more "rational" to who.

So I think the discussion can be approached by looking at various case studies and evidence of possession and seeing if there are things beyond our understanding and then discussion as to the potential cause. If I have time I will try to gather such case studies. Now, I will try to be direct in what "level" of evidence we are talking about in each case. How much is anecdotal. How much is recorded with factual backup. Contrast cases where the Church (I am going to approach this from a Catholic standpoint since that is my training and such) ruled something not possession and why.

It may take me some time. I am evaluating daycare options at the moment and I am not sure what possession books are here at the library right now :)

There are a few that are pretty good in breaking stuff down more logically than others.

[Davidnic]

I'll probably start with what we believe are indications of possession. Those are fairly upfront.

[David B]

I'll probably start with what we believe are indications of possession. Those are fairly upfront.

OK. Are you also going to demonstrate that these indications cannot be more parsimoniously explained by some sort of psychosis?

David

[Davidnic]

I'll probably start with what we believe are indications of possession. Those are fairly upfront.

OK. Are you also going to demonstrate that these indications cannot be more parsimoniously explained by some sort of psychosis?

David

Well I will differentiate where the Church made the call that sometimes they were a result of psychosis. And the times when they did not. Now, maybe the difference is that one bishop was less discerning than another. In some cases, if I remember correctly, there were some really strange things that do not fit with what science can explain.

Ultimately it is up to others to make their own calls on it. But yeah, I'll try to play both ends even. And example is that one of the signs is fluency in a language the person does not know. But there are medical cases of people with brain energy lapsing into a language they did not know. Foreign Language Syndrome. Often it is just the accent, but there are incidents where, to some extent both a deeper understanding of the language and even grammatical errors are effected. Like this case: link (http://digg.com/d1EWAH)

So obviously the brain can do it. So if I present a case with the language reason (just as an example) I will mention what steps were taken to disprove it having other causes. After that it will be up to each person to decide if that was enough or if it has another cause.

[Davidnic]

The books I plan to use at the moment would be:

Exorcism: The Report of a Commission Convened by the Bishop of Exeter as gathered and edited by Robert Petitpierre

And Possessed by Satan : the church's teaching on the devil, possession, and exorcism by Adolf Rodewyk

Now I will, as I do this, try to be upfront. The first thing that both of these books are old. Not ancient but 20-40 years old. So although they accurately give situations and assessment models...the cases (when mentioned) did not have recourse to cutting edge medical technology. And it some cases it may be possible to see something now that might have been missed. Who knows. I will also look for more modern case studies. But I present these two books for their background on the process of assessment in these cases rather than for the cases themselves. I likely will not get to much before tomorrow. And then, as I said, most of my free time is taken up pricing daycare for after June. But I will not forget about it and do it as quickly and evenly as possible.

[Davidnic]

You do know that the stories written about Jesus were written after the prophecies were made, right?
And are read by a biased audience; namely, Christians. One might as well argue that the Muslims are correct when they argue that the Kuran is holier because it was handed to Mohammed by the angel Gabriel. Both arguments are utter bullshit.

And the cosmological argument? Please, you're going to have to do better than that old chesnut!

I am not trying to do anything actually. I am not a contentious person by nature. But I am also not a stupid or foolish one.

If it does not seem I am personally invested in defending these arguments it is because I cited them as examples of what I think is better than the "God says so" presupposition and what is more my own apologetic style, when I choose to have one, than that one. I did not mention them in the context of this thread to enter into full debate on them. I will if people want. I'll respectfully address any point necessary. I'll respectfully debate and thank you kindly for that respect in return.

But ultimately the arguments don't have a great deal of bearing on why I believe as I do. I may think, this one is better than that one..or that makes a degree of sense. But in the end I don't think you can argue to prove or disprove matters of faith that way. For people who believe the belief is, at it's core, a supernatural event. Not necessarily an irrational event, but one that can defy explanation on a personal level or lack any hope of adequate expression. That is why you see most Christians do the "personal testimony" thing. Because they have no other way to express what is, in the end, a personal event, or personal encounter.

I just think when someone says they believe in demons, as was the issue with the thread, that they should not try to justify that to someone who does not by saying: "God said so." They should give the reasons they believe outside of that and let the person make up their own mind. That's what I was trying to do with the issue of demons.

Of course if people want to first address, in depth, the existence spiritual beings...namely God, rather than the demon thing. Ok. In the end, as I said all along, my time here is limited since the new baby is on the way. But for what it is worth, when I am here I hope to be respectful in discussions with anyone and everyone. I am 99% sure we will not be agreeing on matters of faith. But that does not mean we can not have some good conversations.

On matters of faith you can make arguments on each side...some better than the next. Some really good. Some very bad. But in the end there is a leap of faith that someone can not be argued into taking. Some points, on both sides, resonate better with some people and those same points can be laughed at by the person next to them.

What you call utter bullshit might, and does, lead someone to a leap of faith that lasts a lifetime. And what leads one to a leap of faith might, and does, make someone else laugh so hard they never take religion or faith seriously again.

[Davidnic]

Well, my time is done for the night, Nice meeting people. I'll be back tomorrow for a bit.

[Jobar]

For those of you who believe in the existence of demons- where do they come from? Who created them, and when?

I've never gotten any sort of answer to this.

If your God is benevolent, some even say omnibenevolent, then why would he be creating malevolent beings who lead humans to evil? (You can't very well blame the Fall of Man here; wasn't the serpent in the garden a demon, if not the Devil himself?)

So, are demons part of God's creation, or not? And if not, where the hell (to coin a phrase :D) did they come from?

[Gooch's Dad]

Good questions, Jobar.

I think the demon issue, at least for those Christians who believe in literal demonic possession, are a big opening for the falsifiability of those Christians' beliefs.

I'm sure many here have been accused of being "under the influence of Satan", or even of being possessed by a demon. Many fundamentalist Christians (such as Pentecostals) do make that claim about atheists--they only are atheists because Satan, or a lesser demon, has control of them.

But isn't the bible very clear about Christians having power over demons? If they call on Jesus to cast out the demon, doesn't Jesus do that? I haven't seen a good reason why they would not have that power in EVERY case.

So all it would take is for them to bring someone like me into their Pentecostal gathering, and have them attempt to cast out "my demon". And of course I would leave an atheist, showing that their belief about demons, and Jesus' supposed power over them, is demonstrably false.

[DMB]

Questions about a "first cause" and whether Jesus fulfilled any prophecies threaten to swell and burst this little thread, so I have moved them to their own thread (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=1284). No reason why you shouldn't cross refer between the two threads.

[Criada]

Good questions, Jobar.

I think the demon issue, at least for those Christians who believe in literal demonic possession, are a big opening for the falsifiability of those Christians' beliefs.

I'm sure many here have been accused of being "under the influence of Satan", or even of being possessed by a demon. Many fundamentalist Christians (such as Pentecostals) do make that claim about atheists--they only are atheists because Satan, or a lesser demon, has control of them.

But isn't the bible very clear about Christians having power over demons? If they call on Jesus to cast out the demon, doesn't Jesus do that? I haven't seen a good reason why they would not have that power in EVERY case.

So all it would take is for them to bring someone like me into their Pentecostal gathering, and have them attempt to cast out "my demon". And of course I would leave an atheist, showing that their belief about demons, and Jesus' supposed power over them, is demonstrably false.

Demons, as I understand it, are fallen angels, those who chose to support lucifer in his rebellion against God. They weren't created evil, any more than man was created to fall, but they, like us, have free will.

The Bible does indeed say that Christians have power over demons.. it also says that we can heal the sick, raise the dead and move mountains. Sadly, we see few instances of any of these things, although they do happen (the healings anyway, I have no first hand evidence of the dead being raised or mountains moved).

However, I have not come across any Christians who think that atheists are possessed by demons.. I don't think that an opinion can be 'cast out'. I have had Christians trying to cast both a 'spirit of depression' and a 'spirit of homosexuality' out of me... for the former I found medication a more helpful solution... for the latter I suspect that demons are less to blame than genetics.

[Matty]

Sadly, we see few instances of any of these things, although they do happen (the healings anyway, I have no first hand evidence of the dead being raised or mountains moved).I dont want to be a dick Criadad, but you have first hand evidence of godly healing?

[Jobar]

Demons, as I understand it, are fallen angels, those who chose to support lucifer in his rebellion against God. They weren't created evil, any more than man was created to fall, but they, like us, have free will.

Now, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that nothing at all of this can be found in the Bible. All that was made up by the Catholic church.

Anyway, there's a catastrophic logical problem in all that even if you accept it.

As *I* understand it, angels are supposed to be of an earlier and more perfect 'order of creation' than mankind. Despite this, some percentage of these 'more perfect' beings rebelled against their creator, with whom they could have direct discourse.

Now, if you accept that God is omnipotent and perfect, it would seem that if he wanted to create something, it would come into being EXACTLY as he wished it to be. Any attribute or quality of that creation, immediately apparent or in potential, should be just as God wills it to be.

So if an angel rebels- up to and including Lucifer- then God purposely created that rebelliousness in angels.

That same problem is of course inherent in the Fall of Man.

Yes, yes, I've argued this line enough to know that believers will start blathering about free will at this point. But if God wasn't aware of this consequence of instilling free will into His creations, then he is not omniscient, or omnipotent. And if He *was* aware, then He is not benevolent, and has no cause to be angry or displeased with His creations if they do rebel, or sin.

Yet the Bible makes it very clear that God is both angry and displeased with sin.

This is the very root of the Problem of Evil- From whence comes evil?? If it comes from that which God instilled into creation at the beginning, then He is not benevolent, or perfect. And if He did not purposely instill the potential for evil, then he is not omnipotent, or perfect.

[BioBeing]

The Bible does indeed say that Christians have power over demons.. it also says that we can heal the sick, raise the dead and move mountains.

It also says Christians have the power to consume poison without dieing.

[Davidnic]

Yes, yes, I've argued this line enough to know that believers will start blathering about free will at this point. But if God wasn't aware of this consequence of instilling free will into His creations, then he is not omniscient, or omnipotent. And if He *was* aware, then He is not benevolent, and has no cause to be angry or displeased with His creations if they do rebel, or sin.


He was, I would think, well aware of it as a consequence of free will. But love forced or programmed is not worth anything. The logic that if He was aware He is not benevolent is faulty. We are aware when children grow up they could make choices that are bad...even deadly. That does not mean that if we trust our children and they do drugs that we do not have the right to be angry they chose to disobey and ignore a lifetime of teaching. It does not make a parent not benevolent. But...we are not all powerful...wouldn't we...if we could, remove those dangers? Would we...if it meant the children never grow...progress...have a life outside of a padded environment with no real choices or development? Is that a benevolent act?

And yes, God could have lobotomized all people so they did not have any personal drive or individuality. No free will. That would have been the act of a non-benevolent God. He could also have removed everything that could have endangered us...kept us infants in padded rooms for our whole lives. Again, not a good thing.

For choice and life to have merit they need to be real choices with real consequences. And we all don't live in a bubble so our actions effect each other. The price of being more than drones and lobotomized robots is the presence and risk of evil that is allowed to happen as a function of choice. God made us so we could freely seek the greatest good, but that seems to require that evil exist to make the choice real. Now, did God create evil? He allowed it to come into being as a consequence of choice against good. A distinction that some accept and others reject.

And as far as the Catholic Church making up the fall of Angels and such. Folklore for that pre-dates the Church by thousands of years. A good deal of it is in Midrash.


This is the very root of the Problem of Evil- From whence comes evil?? If it comes from that which God instilled into creation at the beginning, then He is not benevolent, or perfect. And if He did not purposely instill the potential for evil, then he is not omnipotent, or perfect.


Does not follow. If we have the choice for good...the consequence of choosing against it is evil. That there is a consequence of choice is not something that makes God not benevolent. Not when all measures are taken to show humanity that the choice for Good is there. And if God blocked evil as a consequence...then the choice is false. So evil is a natural result of abused free will. That is not anything against God.

[Jobar]

^Of course I disagree with you about most all that; but we risk derailing a good topic here, so let's go back to demons, instead of the umpteenth go-round on the nature of free will. If they are fallen angels, it would seem that this constitutes a 'fall' entirely different from the Fall of Man. (I hear no argument that the serpent was a demon, so obviously demons existed before the FoM.)

Makes you wonder if God is a consistently poor designer. None of his creations seem to please him unfailingly; yet given perfection and omnipotence, they should. For how can perfection be the source of imperfection?

[Pendaric]

This is the very root of the Problem of Evil- From whence comes evil?? If it comes from that which God instilled into creation at the beginning, then He is not benevolent, or perfect. And if He did not purposely instill the potential for evil, then he is not omnipotent, or perfect.

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

[Criada]

Sadly, we see few instances of any of these things, although they do happen (the healings anyway, I have no first hand evidence of the dead being raised or mountains moved).I dont want to be a dick Criadad, but you have first hand evidence of godly healing?

Yes
I won't derail this thread any further, but if you want to start one on the subject, I'd be glad to share my experiences.

[Davidnic]

My answers are going to be from a Catholic view. So I don't pretend to be explaining what other Christians think of Demons. I'm going to, as back ground give what we believe are the hallmarks of demons and then of demonic possession.

First, we believe that you can not prove the existence of spiritual beings such as demons. To know they exist takes a gift of grace. All logical examination can do it point at what little we can know.

We freely admit that most demon lore is contradictory. It comes from multiple sources and cultures that inter-mingled and borrowed from each other. A folklore and cultural study of the subject is a feat in and of itself. So names of, numbers...folklore about...that is vast. I am going to focus on what we believe about them in general and what we believe about possession.

We believe demons were created as Angels naturally good and became evil by their own doing. Their choice against God is definite because they have definite knowledge of Him. Being spiritual beings they know fully what they are rejecting in God by an act of reason, something material beings can not know fully.

Demons exist as beings of pure spirit and beyond the normative means of our perception and understanding.

So what Christians believe about them is a result of an act of faith in Scripture and ultimately in God.

There are some basic signs of possession and these signs can also indicate psychological conditions as well as physiological ones:


Victim speaks or understands unknown languages without ever studying the language being spoken or hearing
Knows things that are distant or hidden (Claraudience/Clairvoyance)
Can predict future events
Has an intense hatred for holy things
Shows a physical strength far above his age or normal condition


Again, these things can have many different causes. I mentioned in a previous post one of the ways knowledge of languages can be due to other causes. In addition we all know that there are cases of medical adrenalin surge under stress, need or psychotic episode that could explain away abnormal strength.

I just wanted to get those criteria up while I look through case studies. Called most of the daycare people today so tomorrow is looking like my breaks will be a bit more free. So I should have more time tomorrow to hopefully get some of the case studies up.

Night all.

[Jobar]

We believe demons were created as Angels naturally good and became evil by their own doing. Their choice against God is definite because they have definite knowledge of Him. Being spiritual beings they know fully what they are rejecting in God by an act of reason, something material beings can not know fully.

OK- but why would they have done this?? What possible reason could there be, if you knew- knew, by direct and undeniable experience- that you were created by an all-powerful and all-loving being, to rebel against that being?

You say "an act of reason", but it just isn't reasonable!

I'm really trying to understand this from within your own belief system (technically the proper word is 'mythos'.) But no matter how I try, it doesn't add up, even if I make all the assumptions you've mentioned.

I think you have to eventually retreat to "it's a mystery" or "unknown purpose"- which is basically surrendering the field of rational disputation to us unbelievers. But I'd be very interested, if shocked, to be proved wrong in this.

[Davidnic]

We believe demons were created as Angels naturally good and became evil by their own doing. Their choice against God is definite because they have definite knowledge of Him. Being spiritual beings they know fully what they are rejecting in God by an act of reason, something material beings can not know fully.

OK- but why would they have done this?? What possible reason could there be, if you knew- knew, by direct and undeniable experience- that you were created by an all-powerful and all-loving being, to rebel against that being?

You say "an act of reason", but it just isn't reasonable!

I'm really trying to understand this from within your own belief system (technically the proper word is 'mythos'.) But no matter how I try, it doesn't add up, even if I make all the assumptions you've mentioned.

I think you have to eventually retreat to "it's a mystery" or "unknown purpose"- which is basically surrendering the field of rational disputation to us unbelievers. But I'd be very interested, if shocked, to be proved wrong in this.

Pride. The belief is that they felt themselves so far above man that their pride...even though they knew the nature of God, to many Christians it was that pride would not let them accept God as man. In Jewish lore it was pride that God would raise Adam above them. The argument is that pride can make beings go against what they know is right.

Call it mythos if you want, this is your place. Call it folklore if you want.

Thing is I feel I know by direct personal experience that I am created by a perfect and all powerful being. Now, my understanding may be imperfect. But..it does not matter because to me, the fact of God's perfection and goodness is known. But I still sin. So from within our belief structure it is not too hard to think that Angels fell because of pride.

But it must be said that there is a difference between our knowledge and the complete knowledge of angels who are looking right at God. But I do believe that an angel, or a person can look right at God and reject Him. Human beings can go one step further, they can choose not to love God. Complete ignore Him and walk away. And Angel, even fallen, would still love God...maybe under the mask of hate thinking themselves shunned and abandoned. But in the end the opposite of love is not hate...it's apathy. And fallen angels can not be apathetic, they are pitiful beings. Filled with rage because they feel set aside and know, in their deepest being, that God is not wrong and the mistake is theirs. But they will never admit it, because of pride.

Now, you may say a lot of that is projection of human understanding or our own emotions on other beings. But it is the same thing we do when we try to discern what other animals are thinking. What we do when we try to understand anything that we are not. It does not make it a mystery...but it does make it sketchy no matter what.

At least that is from within out own belief system/mythos/folklore/club

Side note, the reason I favor belief system over mythos is because a mythos is a single cultural entity. Judeo-Christianity is not a single cultural entity. So belief system is my preferred expression in mixed discussion. But whatever floats your boat.

[Ray Moscow]

Davidnic, I'm curious just what biblical basis you think there is for what you just posted.

As far as scientific or empirical evidence, I think we both know that there isn't any.

IMO, what you stated is just drawn from folklore with a bit of your own spin on it.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Real or not they can be used for fun or practical purposes. There was a local radio interview a while back about a a N Irish authors book detailing cases of "real" possession and one of the cases was this highly devout couple who had their teenage son sent for an exorcism becasue they found out he had been (gasp, this bit is not for the faint hearted) drinking, smoking, having sex and experimenting with recreational drugs.

Now this was a good Xtian boy, been raised right and all that, dont forget, so the only explanation his parents had for that behaviour was that he was possessed by either a demon or Keith Richards (alright i made up the keith richards bit, no one could survive that)


Assuming it wasnt the sort of Emily Rose exorcism (and from what they said i think it was more of a sprinkling of holy water and some boring waffle type one, not that they would admit anything else of course) , i bet he couldnt believe his fucking luck. You dont normally get away with blaming your imaginary friend that blatantly for stuff past the age of 5 or so do you? Thats like a "the dog ate my home work" calibre of excuse, "my demon rolled that huge fucking spliff and made me smoke it whilst the vicars daughter was blowing me, honest mom" . Never mind son, you cant help it these demons are real fuckers.

And then after another 6months of fun relapse, have another chat with the priest and no shit from the concerned and devoutly gullible parents.
That's Catholicism all over though, isn't it? Say a few Male Hairies and away you go, all absolved an' stuff, ready for the next round of debauchery or kiddie-fiddlin'.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Jumping the gun possibly, having read no further yet, but...The sad thing is that this sort of rubbish makes the real (in my opinion and experience) cases of demonic attack/possession so much less likely to be believed or taken seriously.
... how does one tell the difference? Does it involve rotating heads and the vomiting of pea soup?

[Davidnic]

Davidnic, I'm curious just what biblical basis you think there is for what you just posted.

As far as scientific or empirical evidence, I think we both know that there isn't any.

IMO, what you stated is just drawn from folklore with a bit of your own spin on it.

Biblical basis. There is none for the cause of the angels fall...with the exception of some hints in Isaiah that could also refer to the king of Babylon. All we have from scripture is that they did fall, not much on why.

But I do not believe everything is in Scripture. I believe in Scripture and Tradition (Big T as opposed to ""t"like a custom) that was passed by Christ to the Apostles and handed down by the Catholic Church. I also think it is valuable to read the Talmud and other sources to understand the view of all of this in early BC/AD.

But I am not a Scriptural literalist. I do believe it's composition is inspired and prevented from theological error, to me it is a Holy and special book...but it must be viewed in it's context as a work of literature as well. If you do not do that you can't answer why there are two different genealogies for Christ, why each Gospel writer is writing for a different audience and some of the parallel stories in Kings and other histories. None of this prevents it from being inerrant where it is intended to be inerrant...as theology.

So personally, I do not strive to make sure Scripture backs up what I am saying on all points. I am not contradicting it...but there is another source of Divine Revelation to me. And that is the Tradition I can trace back through the Church.

[Davidnic]

That's Catholicism all over though, isn't it? Say a few Male Hairies and away you go, all absolved an' stuff, ready for the next round of debauchery or kiddie-fiddlin'.

Not exactly our view of confession. And not the norm for the Ritual of Exorcism.

[Oolon Colluphid]

That's Catholicism all over though, isn't it? Say a few Male Hairies and away you go, all absolved an' stuff, ready for the next round of debauchery or kiddie-fiddlin'.

Not exactly our view of confession. And not the norm for the Ritual of Exorcism.
Well, I was at a Catholic school (run by the de la Mennais teaching brotherhood, no less) for thirteen years, and that was precisely the way it was perceived by regular sin-committers.

But then, maybe none of us were True CatholicsTM ;) :p

[Oolon Colluphid]

The sad thing is that this sort of rubbish makes the real (in my opinion and experience) cases of demonic attack/possession so much less likely to be believed or taken seriously.

How does one sort out the "rubbish" demonic accounts from the "serious" ones?
Ah. Beaten to it by the inestimable Ray again, I see. :bang: :D

[Oolon Colluphid]

Why don't demons ever go on Letterman, or even Leno? Seriously, that'd be awesome. Fuck, imagine a Jon Stewart interview.


Demon: Well, yes Jon, but then I could always just ...
*turns into wisp of smoke, floats into nostril*
Jon Stewart: ...possess you, and put word in your mouth - literally!
*does obligatory head-spinning routine, climbs walls*


I'd love to see one interviewed by Jeremy Paxman!
"Did you threaten to possess him?"
"I didn't possess this one."
But did you threaten to possess him...?"

[Oolon Colluphid]

Sure is easier to blame ghosts sorry, spirits, than faulty electronics.
It's the ghost in the machine.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I believe in demons. And I am a fairly grounded person. I don't have a lot of time right now, but I think a case can be made for the unexplainable in cases that would argue for the existence of demons. Now, at some point there is a leap of faith.

Sounds more like a Demon of the Gaps argument to me. Unexplainable? Well it must be a demon then, obviously.
So is: "Because God told us" a valid line of thought? Yeah...but it is not going to be one in a discussion. But I can make an argument for Demons, as well as the Miraculous without an appeal to faith as sole justification.

Sounds like fun. I'm all ears.

[Davidnic]

That's Catholicism all over though, isn't it? Say a few Male Hairies and away you go, all absolved an' stuff, ready for the next round of debauchery or kiddie-fiddlin'.

Not exactly our view of confession. And not the norm for the Ritual of Exorcism.
Well, I was at a Catholic school (run by the de la Mennais teaching brotherhood, no less) for thirteen years, and that was precisely the way it was perceived by regular sin-committers.

But then, maybe none of us were True CatholicsTM ;) :p

Yes, many people perceive it that way, and with good reason. The Sacrament is pretty abused and disrespected, mostly by Catholics. More than half of the Catholics in the world have likely never been exposed to an in depth presentation of the Reconciliation that tries to get to the true purpose.

I am not making a judgment on anyone's True Catholicism. I am saying though that on an institutional level catechist training and education sucks. Or at least it did. It has become better.

I was in Catholic school for my whole education as well as in the seminary. And I believe I was lucky to have about 5 people who answered questions rather than making things an assembly line of quick answers and making the Sacraments something to be understood as much a possible and approached with a purpose rather than being a stale obligation.

[Davidnic]

Sounds more like a Demon of the Gaps argument to me. Unexplainable? Well it must be a demon then, obviously.

No not obviously. But it does still keep it as a possibility until disproved. There still very well may be a cause we just don't know about yet. But, personally, I do not rule out demons. I think those who jump to demons as an immediate cause are irresponsible and dangerous.

[Davidnic]

I guess a question before I continue later today is...I do not know many people here but what do most of you think of things like telekinesis, levitation and telepathy? Is it the same as the religious lines of thought where it is hooey or is it something that is explainable in some degree by science? I ask because I just found a case certified by an MD in the US that has these issues. So before I checked it out more to try to get all the details I wanted to know the general feeling on those things.

[Oolon Colluphid]

My arguments for spiritual beings are fairly Thomistic. I work, usually, on the idea that all things have a cause and without the un-caused cause everything sums to zero and can't exist. So it all has, as it's cause the un-caused cause.
Next stop, quantum mechanics, is it?
I also argue that there is natural law and that comes from somewhere, instilled as a reflection of a greater law that has it's origin in God.
Just to clarify, ahead of time, that natural laws are descriptive of the universe, not proscriptive.
There is also the odds of prophecy fulfillment.
First, fulfil your prophesy. Then, calculate its odds.
But that is more of a validity of Christ argument.
Which is to say, 'none at all'.
But that is just to give you an idea of my general approach.
Fluffy woo and credulity. Yeah, got it.

*ahem* sorry, feeling a bit tetchy today. Nothing personal.
What is not my approach can be summed up in saying I find that very little in these conversations can be gained by either side if the Christian argues from a Pre-Suppositional standpoint where the truth of Christianity validates the truth. That goes into a situation where we get: "Why?" "Because God said so". Not really helpful.
Agreed.
Only slightly more helpful is Anecdotal or Experiential where a person's personal conversion and experience thereof is brought to the table as proof. There can be merit in that, but in many ways it is too personal and subjective to do anything but make the conversation circular.
Not in the least helpful, in effect then. It may be the most convincing thing for the person on the receiving end... but it is useless for the rest of us. Because, as Nietche pointed out, a casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.
Again and always, ultimately there is a leap of faith at some point.
Sure. But the question is, why make a leap of faith at all? Why not keep an open mind until (or unless) more data comes in? And why leap one way rather than another -- why (for instance) Christ, rather than Ba'al, Zeus or Quetzalcoatl?
As far as demonic activity, I was talking about recorded situations that defy scientific explanation.
Same goes for UFOs. Sure, many are weather balloons, misidentified aircraft, atmospheric phenomena, Venus, hallucinations, etc etc. But some still remain a mystery, remain unexplained. Therefore they're... alien spacecraft or whatever. What's wrong with the conclusion that that small residual percentage are ones for which we simply don't have enough information to offer a scientific explanation?
The same thing with many of the Miracles recorded at Lourdes.
Yup, all those discarded prosthetic limbs are a dead giveaway.
And I think any look at Lourdes can show the honest and very upfront keeping of the medical records.
Sure... recently. Oddly enough, the better the records, the more the accepted cures have tailed off. I think any honest look at Lourdes will show a positively pathetic and minuscule percentage of alleged cures compared to the number of participants, not one of which was of the 'wooden leg' variety. That percentage alone indicates that people are mis-estimating probabilities of even very improbable events.

(Somewhere, I wrote up a load of stuff about Lourdes for my first pet creationist, with an analysis of one of the most recent strongest examples... I'll try to find it tonight -- I know I reposted it on IIDB, but the FRDB server is down ATM, even if it's been preserved :mad:)
The procedure to get a miracle approved at Lourdes is an endurance trial of proofs and medical documents. But I only mention such things to highlight that there are recorded incidents of demonic possession where there have been abilities manifested that are unexplainable by science.
Assertions, assertions... :dunno: I'm getting a whiff of the Bellman's Fallacy already.

I find that if someone is going to discount the "God says so" argument, then only infinitesimally more valid in a discussion is: "Science just has not found a reason yet." At that point both parties are making a leap of faith.
Nonsense. That's forgetting where the burden of proof lies. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it's certainly not evidence of presence either; at most, it just means there's not enough evidence to decide (yet). To posit something supernatural, in the face of so much normal, everyday evidence that there is no supernatural, is illogical.

Still, enjoy your god of the gaps. I just hope for His sake we don't find a scientific explanation, because He's buggered if we do.
One the faith in God and the other the faith that it has an explanation that science will discover outside of God. It is really a personal call on which is more "rational" to who.
Burden of proof, Russell's teapot, god of the gaps... if you've heard of these ideas, I'm surprised you can't hear them echoing all around the hollow insides of your argumentation. :dunno:
So I think the discussion can be approached by looking at various case studies and evidence of possession and seeing if there are things beyond our understanding and then discussion as to the potential cause.
I think James Randi might have some money to offer you, too.
If I have time I will try to gather such case studies.
Yes please.
Now, I will try to be direct in what "level" of evidence we are talking about in each case. How much is anecdotal. How much is recorded with factual backup. Contrast cases where the Church (I am going to approach this from a Catholic standpoint since that is my training and such) ruled something not possession and why.

It may take me some time. I am evaluating daycare options at the moment and I am not sure what possession books are here at the library right now :)
I can also recommend Schick and Vaughn's How to Think About Weird Things (http://www.amazon.com/How-Think-About-Weird-Things/dp/0767400135) and Hines's Pseudoscience and the Paranormal (http://www.amazon.com/Pseudoscience-Paranormal-Terence-Hines/dp/1573929794/ref=pd_sim_b_5).

[Oolon Colluphid]

Sounds more like a Demon of the Gaps argument to me. Unexplainable? Well it must be a demon then, obviously.

No not obviously. But it does still keep it as a possibility until disproved.

By the same token, I don't know why my PC keeps crashing. I find it bewildering and inexplicable. Therefore, until I disprove the possibility, I have to keep the idea that it's got a gremlin in it on the table.

[Ray Moscow]

Sounds more like a Demon of the Gaps argument to me. Unexplainable? Well it must be a demon then, obviously.

No not obviously. But it does still keep it as a possibility until disproved.

By the same token, I don't know why my PC keeps crashing. I find it bewildering and inexplicable. Therefore, until I disprove the possibility, I have to keep the idea that it's got a gremlin in it on the table.

To be on the safe side, you should destroy that machine before the demons get an even greater foothold in your life.

And Davidnic is right: until this demon business is disproved, we can't be too careful.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I guess a question before I continue later today is...I do not know many people here but what do most of you think of things like telekinesis, levitation and telepathy?
Ask a qualified illusionist and mentalist, such as Derren Brown. Short answer: trickery, trickery and trickery supplemented in some cases by confirmation bias and other psychological phenomena.
Is it the same as the religious lines of thought where it is hooey or is it something that is explainable in some degree by science?
Oh, it's explainable by science, though often not by scientists. For that, you need illusionists.
I ask because I just found a case certified by an MD in the US that has these issues.
And Targ and Puthoff were deceived by Uri Geller. So a doctor is the best person to confirm these things? I think that's what these smilies were invented for: :facepalm: :rolling:
So before I checked it out more to try to get all the details I wanted to know the general feeling on those things.
As something supernatural, they're cobblers. I refer you again to the two books I've already mentioned, and to Brown's Tricks of the Mind (http://www.amazon.com/Tricks-Mind-Derren-Brown/dp/1905026358/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239725831&sr=1-1), which will tell you how (some of -- he's gotta earn a living ;)) it is done.

[Ray Moscow]

Regarding the demonic possession case: do you mean Scott Peck's account in People of the Lie?

It's a creepy story, but hardly scientifically relevant.

[Davidnic]

Regarding the demonic possession case: do you mean Scott Peck's account in People of the Lie?

It's a creepy story, but hardly scientifically relevant.


No, there is one by a Dr. Gallagher. He has some pro's as far as his education:



A board-certified psychiatrist
Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at New York Medical College
On the faculties of the Columbia University Psychoanalytic Institute
Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Princeton University, magna cum laude in Classics
Trained in Psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine


Cons that some would think are against objectivity but would also indicate an understanding of the other view on the issue:

Also serves as faculty at a seminary
Is the only American psychiatrist to have been a consistent U.S. delegate to the International Association of Exorcists
Has addressed its plenary session
The study is in a Catholic journal


I can see people both having a dialog on the merits of the case he presents giving the benefit of the doubt to his education, and also saying he is too biased a source. In addition I wanted to know the general feelings on "paranormal" as scientific.

[BioBeing]

Sounds more like a Demon of the Gaps argument to me. Unexplainable? Well it must be a demon then, obviously.

No not obviously. But it does still keep it as a possibility until disproved. There still very well may be a cause we just don't know about yet. But, personally, I do not rule out demons. I think those who jump to demons as an immediate cause are irresponsible and dangerous.

Do you rule out imps? You know how mischievous they can be. How about gremlins? And those damn Borrowers stole my needle again. Unless you can disprove Borrowers, you cannot possible assume I just lost my needle.

[BioBeing]

I guess a question before I continue later today is...I do not know many people here but what do most of you think of things like telekinesis, levitation and telepathy? Is it the same as the religious lines of thought where it is hooey or is it something that is explainable in some degree by science? I ask because I just found a case certified by an MD in the US that has these issues. So before I checked it out more to try to get all the details I wanted to know the general feeling on those things.

Hooey.

If James Randi had certified it, I might consider it had some merit.

Do you know how many MDs believe in hooey like Intelligent Design too?

[Davidnic]

*ahem* sorry, feeling a bit tetchy today. Nothing personal.


No problem. Not going to prevent a discussion. You'll find I am not one to pick up my ball and go home over what I read into what people write. I know going into this we disagree. And I know each side has not always been understanding to the other...to say the least.

I don't think any less of a person for not believing as I do in regard to faith and hope they do not think any less of me for having it. I just try to explain why I feel the way I do. I am not here to preach...convince or look down on anyone. That's not my deal. There are some issues I feel more strongly about than others. But on the whole I try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

[Davidnic]

Do you rule out imps? You know how mischievous they can be. How about gremlins? And those damn Borrowers stole my needle again. Unless you can disprove Borrowers, you cannot possible assume I just lost my needle.

Being unable to disprove an electron before it was discovered did not put it in the same category as bigfoot. And it did not make it magic. I am not saying simply not being able to disprove it makes it so. That is a first step...after that a person can give whatever credible case they want to put forth for anything. And people can have a discussion on it.

[Ray Moscow]

Do you rule out imps? You know how mischievous they can be. How about gremlins? And those damn Borrowers stole my needle again. Unless you can disprove Borrowers, you cannot possible assume I just lost my needle.

Being unable to disprove an electron before it was discovered did not put it in the same category as bigfoot. And it did not make it magic. I am not saying simply not being able to disprove it makes it so. That is a first step...after that a person can give whatever credible case they want to put forth for anything. And people can have a discussion on it.

I'm still scratching my head and wondering why you seem to expect us to take "demons" more seriously than leprechauns or fairies.

Elemental particles aren't really in the same category as leprechauns, are they?

[Davidnic]

[QUOTE=BioBeing;24484]

Do you rule out imps? You know how mischievous they can be. How about gremlins? And those damn Borrowers stole my needle again. Unless you can disprove Borrowers, you cannot possible assume I just lost my needle.

Being unable to disprove an electron before it was discovered did not put it in the same category as bigfoot. And it did not make it magic. I am not saying simply not being able to disprove it makes it so. That is a first step...after that a person can give whatever credible case they want to put forth for anything. And people can have a discussion on it.

Not now. But before they were proven what would the difference be? Both would be an unproven reason for something. Each would have a level of rational case that could be made for them. That's all I am saying. At this point things like electrons, evolution...and other things are beyond serious debate. But at some point they were indeed in the same class as Brownies and Boggarts.

I really don't expect you to take them more seriously. I do. But I don't expect you to. Like I said earlier at some point belief in Angels or Demons comes down to an act of faith. A person can argue for it and make a case for it over one thing or the next. But I would be surprised if such arguments changed anyone's mind. I would be equally surprised if the counter arguments changed the minds of the other side.

All I can do is present something that is operating outside the normal bounds of our understanding and anyone can give their arguments as to what causes or does not cause it.

[BioBeing]

I believe in demons. And I am a fairly grounded person. I don't have a lot of time right now, but I think a case can be made for the unexplainable in cases that would argue for the existence of demons. Now, at some point there is a leap of faith.

So is: "Because God told us" a valid line of thought? Yeah...but it is not going to be one in a discussion. But I can make an argument for Demons, as well as the Miraculous without an appeal to faith as sole justification.

I really don't expect you to take them more seriously. I do. But I don't expect you to. Like I said earlier at some point belief in Angels or Demons comes down to an act of faith. A person can argue for it and make a case for it over one thing or the next. But I would be surprised if such arguments changed anyone's mind. I would be equally surprised if the counter arguments changed the minds of the other side.

An act of faith does appear to be all it is.

Not now. But before they were proven what would the difference be? Both would be an unproven reason for something. Each would have a level of rational case that could be made for them. That's all I am saying. At this point things like electrons, evolution...and other things are beyond serious debate. But at some point they were indeed in the same class as Brownies and Boggarts.

The suggestion here is that Demons are NOT in the same class as Boggarts. I totally disagree.

[dancer_rnb]

Sounds more like a Demon of the Gaps argument to me. Unexplainable? Well it must be a demon then, obviously.

No not obviously. But it does still keep it as a possibility until disproved. There still very well may be a cause we just don't know about yet. But, personally, I do not rule out demons. I think those who jump to demons as an immediate cause are irresponsible and dangerous.

Do you rule out imps? You know how mischievous they can be. How about gremlins? And those damn Borrowers stole my needle again. Unless you can disprove Borrowers, you cannot possible assume I just lost my needle.

Don't forget the Sock Eater.:evil:

[Davidnic]

The suggestion here is that Demons are NOT in the same class as Boggarts. I totally disagree.

And without an act of faith they would, most definitely be viewed as in the same category. I see that.

[BioBeing]

The suggestion here is that Demons are NOT in the same class as Boggarts. I totally disagree.

And without an act of faith they would, most definitely be viewed as in the same category. I see that.

So are you retracting your statement "But I can make an argument for Demons, as well as the Miraculous without an appeal to faith as sole justification."

[Davidnic]

The suggestion here is that Demons are NOT in the same class as Boggarts. I totally disagree.

And without an act of faith they would, most definitely be viewed as in the same category. I see that.

So are you retracting your statement "But I can make an argument for Demons, as well as the Miraculous without an appeal to faith as sole justification."

Not at all. I can make an argument. And if someone feels they can make a good one for brownies that is not: "It could also be brownies!" They should feel free to do so.

That someone accepts the argument is up to them. Some people may discount any evidence as trickery like an illusionist. Some may find it compelling. Personally I find someone floating in the air claiming to be a demon, telling you stuff about you that they don't know and having physical pain/burns when holy water touches them to be a more convincing argument for demons than one for brownies saying: "Since we don't know if science can prove what that was...it could easily be brownies as well as demons."

That is why I asked earlier about such incidents and if a doctor with the credentials I cited would be considered at least a reliable source for discussion. And what would be a reliable source to the people asking.

[Ada]

The sad thing is that this sort of rubbish makes the real (in my opinion and experience) cases of demonic attack/possession so much less likely to be believed or taken seriously.
There is real demon possession?:dunno:
Oh yes. There are lots of daemons in sofware engineering. For Linux process to be daemonic it needs to operate without user supervision. I think secular cafe could be handled by one such daemon - apache http server.
I must warn you - internet is full of daemons ;-)

:-) Ada

[BioBeing]

That someone accepts the argument is up to them. Some people may discount any evidence as trickery like an illusionist. Some may find it compelling. Personally I find someone floating in the air claiming to be a demon, telling you stuff about you that they don't know and having physical pain/burns when holy water touches them to be a more convincing argument for demons than one for brownies saying: "Since we don't know if science can prove what that was...it could easily be brownies as well as demons."

That is why I asked earlier about such incidents and if a doctor with the credentials I cited would be considered at least a reliable source for discussion. And what would be a reliable source to the people asking.

You saw this with your own eyes?

[Oolon Colluphid]

The suggestion here is that Demons are NOT in the same class as Boggarts. I totally disagree.

And without an act of faith they would, most definitely be viewed as in the same category. I see that.
So why believe in -- make a leap of faith about -- demons rather than dryads, angels rather than alp-luachra, gods rather than goblins?

If the evidence is, shall we say, a bit dodgy, for all these things, why believe in one variety of unevinced thing in preference to another?

[Oolon Colluphid]

That someone accepts the argument is up to them. Some people may discount any evidence as trickery like an illusionist. Some may find it compelling. Personally I find someone floating in the air claiming to be a demon, telling you stuff about you that they don't know and having physical pain/burns when holy water touches them to be a more convincing argument for demons than one for brownies saying: "Since we don't know if science can prove what that was...it could easily be brownies as well as demons."

That is why I asked earlier about such incidents and if a doctor with the credentials I cited would be considered at least a reliable source for discussion. And what would be a reliable source to the people asking.

You saw this with your own eyes?

Hell, I have. Friedkin's a pretty good director.

[Oolon Colluphid]

The sad thing is that this sort of rubbish makes the real (in my opinion and experience) cases of demonic attack/possession so much less likely to be believed or taken seriously.
There is real demon possession?:dunno:
Oh yes. There are lots of daemons in sofware engineering. For Linux process to be daemonic it needs to operate without user supervision. I think secular cafe could be handled by one such daemon - apache http server.
I must warn you - internet is full of daemons ;-)

:-) Ada

My daemon is called Kalila, and she's a mongoose. :dunno:

[Oolon Colluphid]

That is why I asked earlier about such incidents and if a doctor with the credentials I cited would be considered at least a reliable source for discussion. And what would be a reliable source to the people asking.
Given the abilities of professional illusionists and mentalists, nothing short of properly controlled conditions overseen by someone skilled in the art of deception will do. If Targ and Puthoff can be fooled, your MD doesn't stand a hope. Plus, given his 'cons' credentials, there's a good chance he's been bitten by the confirmation bias boggart.

[dancer_rnb]

The suggestion here is that Demons are NOT in the same class as Boggarts. I totally disagree.

And without an act of faith they would, most definitely be viewed as in the same category. I see that.
So why believe in -- make a leap of faith about -- demons rather than dryads, angels rather than alp-luachra, gods rather than goblins?

If the evidence is, shall we say, a bit dodgy, for all these things, why believe in one variety of unevinced thing in preference to another?

Don't forget the Grays.

[Davidnic]

That someone accepts the argument is up to them. Some people may discount any evidence as trickery like an illusionist. Some may find it compelling. Personally I find someone floating in the air claiming to be a demon, telling you stuff about you that they don't know and having physical pain/burns when holy water touches them to be a more convincing argument for demons than one for brownies saying: "Since we don't know if science can prove what that was...it could easily be brownies as well as demons."

That is why I asked earlier about such incidents and if a doctor with the credentials I cited would be considered at least a reliable source for discussion. And what would be a reliable source to the people asking.

You saw this with your own eyes?

Nope. Again, that is why I am asking what people would consider viable sources. If that answer is, ""only what people have personally seen." Then that is one thing. If it is, A board certified psychiatrist who teaches at major universities" that is another.

I am not going to spend my time listing info if it is simply going to be derided or discounted, that is not a good use of anyone's time. That is why, before I do that I am trying for a sense of what kind of sources people would considered admissible in the discussion. Not immediately as proof but at least as able to be discussed.

[Davidnic]

The suggestion here is that Demons are NOT in the same class as Boggarts. I totally disagree.

And without an act of faith they would, most definitely be viewed as in the same category. I see that.
So why believe in -- make a leap of faith about -- demons rather than dryads, angels rather than alp-luachra, gods rather than goblins?

If the evidence is, shall we say, a bit dodgy, for all these things, why believe in one variety of unevinced thing in preference to another?

Again, I bring up anything that was considered foolish to believe in that was later proven. Before the electron was accepted by evidence a case could be made for it. One better than a little man in a box living in the cell. So each "could be" is not equal to any other "could be"

Just because it could be A and it could be B. Does not mean A is as believable as B. You have to look at the cases for each and decide for yourself which ones are more likely.

Now you are asking why A is more believable than B. And I am going through the answers to what I asked to see what kind of sources people want used so I don't waste my time going through ones you won't even consider.

[BioBeing]

Well, why not just present us the evidence that convinced you?

Any evidence of demons is going to considered hooey (to us) to some extent. Of course the MD who finds such evidence is going to join exorcism groups and what not... But what was the evidence that led him there?

[David B]

That is why I asked earlier about such incidents and if a doctor with the credentials I cited would be considered at least a reliable source for discussion. And what would be a reliable source to the people asking.
Given the abilities of professional illusionists and mentalists, nothing short of properly controlled conditions overseen by someone skilled in the art of deception will do. If Targ and Puthoff can be fooled, your MD doesn't stand a hope. Plus, given his 'cons' credentials, there's a good chance he's been bitten by the confirmation bias boggart.

Yes, this.

There are a large number of scientists and intelligent laypeople over the passing of time who have been fooled by fake woo of many sorts, including Conan Doyle, through to those who were taken in by Uri Geller.

People do lie, for all sorts of motivations.

Lying for god not least.

David

[Davidnic]

Well, why not just present us the evidence that convinced you?

Any evidence of demons is going to considered hooey (to us) to some extent. Of course the MD who finds such evidence is going to join exorcism groups and what not... But what was the evidence that led him there?

Well I suppose for me personally it is preponderance of the evidence in a combination with my own faith. Now, if we remove faith from the equation you need to set aside Scripture. Because, removing faith, it falls into a category where the age of it and medical knowledge of the time is simply not going to provide enough details to rule out medically explainable causes in a kind of retro-diagnosis.

So we are left with things that have passable medical documentation and papers presented. Now, I understand these things are not accepted outside of faith to some degree. But I do not believe they only bear merit if a person has faith.

Dr.Gallagher's case, although some would not hold him as a legitimate source, is fairly well documented. There are a few others that I can gather. These small handful of cases at least make a case for something happening beyond our understanding. Some things in them would make the claim of demons over other sources.

If those are the cases people want to have presented I will. I was just making sure I would not be posting stuff that was totally unacceptable. So, I'll get to getting some of it posted. Likely later today and tomorrow since I have rug shampooing for the nursery on Friday.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Okay. Five minutes with Google, plus a trip to the Open University library (via a few clicks ;)), turns up the source for Davidnic's good MD.

New Oxford Review Vol. 75 Issue 3, p22-32, March 2008

A Case of Demonic Possession

Richard E. Gallagher

Some excerpts (I've got the pdf if anyone would like a copy):

[...] 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.

Possession is only one and not the most common type of demonic attack. Possession is very rare, though not as exceedingly so as many imagine. So-called “oppression,” or “infestation,” is less rare, though hardly frequent either, and sometimes more difficult to discern accurately.1 For our purposes here, a truly “possessed” individual exhibits so massive and unequivocal an assault that we will use it as the paradigmatic example of a genuine demonic attack. This case will be contrasted not to the many lesser degrees of demonic assault, but rather to the varied kinds of purported demonic involvement — often psychotic conditions — that turn out to have a purely natural explanation. 2
The first thing to note is that, however sceptical he thinks he's being, he's clearly a faithhead whose starting position is that such things are possible.

What makes this example especially singular — but also particularly and powerfully convincing — is that the woman involved not only exhibited, in a highly dramatic fashion, the classic signs of possession but, having been an avowed and prominent Satanist in her life, also seemed to display “special occult powers” even outside her trance states, not infrequently in a quite open manner to anyone who came in close contact with her.
Right. So we've got one faithhead reporting about another, even more nutty, faithhead. Good start.
All the facts presented here are true
Thanks for that. It improves the credibility of the paper no end, for that is a stock phrase used in Nature abstracts. "Here we present"; "Recent studies have indicated"; "Here we report"; "It's true, honest!"...
and verifiable by the multiple and highly credible individuals involved in her care. For reasons of confidentiality, we will identify our subject with a pseudonym (she agreed to have her story published if she were not identified), and little incidental material is included.
Yup, nicely verifiable.
“Julia” is a middle-aged, self-supporting Caucasian woman who lives in the U.S. She first approached her local clergy on her own, and was soon referred to an official priest-exorcist (who collaborated on this article) to explore getting help. She herself was quite convinced from the start that she was being “attacked” in some way by a demon or Satan.

[...]
Julia revealed a long, disturbing history of involvement with explicitly Satanic groups (an obvious, historical antecedent to her then-present condition and to her accompanying “psychic” abilities, as they might be characterized).
Though raised a Catholic, she no longer practiced the Faith. But, with considerable ambivalence, she stated she might need the Catholic Rite of Exorcism.

Julia was not the typical type of individual who frequently importunes the Church for help but who is really in need of psychiatric or other medical intervention. She was in no way psychotic; in fact, she was consistently logical, highly intelligent, and even quite engaging at times, despite her obvious turmoil.

Periodically, in our presence, Julia would go into a trance state of a recurring nature. Mentally troubled individuals often “dissociate,”4 but Julia’s trances were accompanied by an unusual phenomenon: Out of her mouth would come various threats, taunts, and scatological language, phrases like “Leave her alone, you idiot,” “She’s ours,” “Leave, you imbecile priest,”
No comment.
or just “Leave.” The tone of this voice differed markedly from Julia’s own, and it varied, sometimes sounding guttural and vaguely masculine, at other points high pitched. Most of her comments during these “trances,” or at the subsequent exorcisms, displayed a marked contempt for anything religious or sacred.
I must be possessed too then. And I guess we can't rule it out :( :tin:

He then goes on to rule out DID (the option of her simply being disturbed and deluded or just muckin' about gets a mere hand-wave away) because...

Because of the complexity of this case, we assembled a team to assist. At varying points, this group comprised several qualified mental-health personnel, at least four Catholic priests, a deacon and his wife, two nuns (both nurses, one psychiatric), and several lay volunteers. We made a number of phone calls to arrange gathering together to help Julia. Julia herself was not in on these phone discussions; she was far from the area at the time. Astonishingly, Julia’s “other” voice — again sometimes deep, sometimes high pitched — would actually interrupt the telephone conversations and somehow come in over the phone line! The voice(s) would espouse the same messages: “Leave her alone,” “Leave, you idiots,” “Get away from her,” “She’s ours.”
And well might he use that exclamation mark. For at this point I did a quick look at the endnotes etc. No names are cited, and references are mainly explanatory rather than to previous studies, let alone peer reviewed ones. There's precisely ten notes (for comparison, Daeschler and Shubin's [I]Tiktaalik paper, which one might consider to be of similar magnitude of what's being reported, has 40, and Catherine Boisvert's relatively minor (in the overall scheme of things) one on the pelvic fin and girdle of Panderichthys has 14). We get referred to the works of Herbert Thurston from the 1950s on levitation, "especially The Physical Phenomena of Mysticism (Regnery, 1952)" and Robert D. Smith's "Comparative Miracles (Herder Book Co., 1965), ch. 3, “Levitations”"; to a standard textbook on psychiatric diagnoses; to Michael W. Cuneo's American Exorcism: Expelling Demons in the Land of Plenty; and... that's it.

When one is accustomed to Science, Nature, PNAS or even New Scientist, this 'paper' quickly becomes farcical. For all his protestations that "It's all true, 'onest Guv'nor! I en't makin' it up or nuffink, 'onest as the day is long, me!", the entire thing is nothing but hearsay.

Meanwhile, back to his novella paper...

As mentioned, even outside her trances, Julia unmistakably displayed “psychic” abilities; put another way, her presence was clearly associated with paranormal events. Sometimes objects around her would fly off the shelves, the rare phenomenon of psychokinesis known to parapsychologists. Julia was also in possession of knowledge of facts and occurrences beyond any possibility of their natural acquisition. She commonly reported information about the relatives, household composition, family deaths and illnesses, etc., of members of our team, without ever having observed or been informed about them. As an example, she knew the personality and precise manner of death (i.e., the exact type of cancer) of a relative of a team member that no one could conceivably have guessed. She once spoke about the strange behavior of some inexplicably frenzied animals beyond her direct observation: Though residing in another city, she commented, “So those cats really went berserk last night, didn’t they?” the morning after two cats in a team member’s house uncharacteristically had violently attacked each other at about 2 AM.

As another example, Julia once described not only the actual surroundings (including the décor of his room) but the exact state of mind (skeptical and dismissive) of a priest peripherally involved, whom she had never met. The facts were subsequently precisely confirmed. Julia could also consistently depict, from afar and with amazing detail, the activity of one of the principal priests involved. She would repeatedly report, from her distant vantage, whether and when he was in pain (he suffered from a recurring illness), often where he was (e.g., walking on a beach), and remarkably, even what he was wearing at the time (e.g., a windbreaker).

Rounding out the picture of this case, finally, were the happenings during the lengthy exorcism rituals, that Julia herself requested. There were two series of such sessions separated by a period of time. [...]

The exorcism began on a warm day in June. Despite the weather, the room where the rite was being conducted grew distinctly cold. Later, however, as the entity in Julia began to spout vitriol and make strange noises, members
of the team felt themselves profusely sweating due to a stifling emanation of heat. The participants all said they found the heat unbearable.

Julia at first had gone into a quiet trance-like state. After the prayers and invocations of the Roman Ritual had been going on for a while, however, multiple voices and sounds came out of her. One set consisted of loud growls and animal-like noises, which seemed to the group impossible for any human to mimic. At one point, the voices spoke in foreign languages, including recognizable Latin and Spanish. (Julia herself only speaks English, as she later verified to us.)

The voices were noticeably attacking in nature, and often insolent, blasphemous, and highly scatological. They cursed and insulted the participants in the crudest way. They were frequently threatening — trying, it appeared, to fight back — “Leave her alone,” “Stop, you whores” (to the nuns), “You’ll be sorry,” and the like.

Julia also exhibited enormous strength. Despite the religious sisters and three others holding her down with all their might, they struggled to restrain her. Remarkably, for about 30 minutes, she actually levitated about half a foot in the air.5
Here, one might have hoped that the footnote would have led to, oh I dunno, some supplementary material (as they say in Nature), a video, maybe, or at least signed confirmatory letters from the witnesses or something. But no, note 5 tells you to look at "classic scholarly discussion" of levitation: the books I mentioned above. :bang:

I'll also note that I can levitate my whole foot in the air. Anyway...
The presumptive target of the exorcism, the entity (or entities) that was possessing Julia, could also distinguish between holy water and regular water. She would scream in pain when the blessed water was sprinkled upon her, but have no reaction to clandestine use of unblessed water. During the ceremonies, she also, as previously, revealed hidden or past events in the lives of the various attendees, including information about deceased relatives completely unknown to her.
He then waffles on at length about "The Medical/Psychiatric Perspective", "Psychiatric Counterfeits of Possession", "Pastoral & Theological Reflections", etc; he refers to Pascal's comment that "there would be no false miracles were there not true miracles" as "astute", and so on.

And there you have it. We simply have to take his word for it. To make, as it were, a leap of faith.

Which is not normally what one needs to do with evidence.

And all we have to do at this point is to quote David Hume:

"No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish."

[Oolon Colluphid]

Dr.Gallagher's case, although some would not hold him as a legitimate source, is fairly well documented.
Absolute bollocks.
There are a few others that I can gather.
I hope they're rather better.
These small handful of cases at least make a case for something happening beyond our understanding.
So do any number of UFO books and conspiracy theories.
If those are the cases people want to have presented I will. I was just making sure I would not be posting stuff that was totally unacceptable.
Any of it is acceptable, as in, feel free to present the best you've got.

If you mean acceptable as in, we'll accept someone's word for it, then no.

D minus. Must try harder.

[Monad]

I have a reliable witness:

I saw Goody Proctor with the Devil

so it must be true

[Davidnic]

You're not going to get video of someone in that state because in every case I've ever seen people are using pseudonyms. It is not something people generally want video taped or to have their actual identity associated with. People who go through it want to move past it, and not become a display.

And you won't get footnotes to her medical records or things outside of other incidents like the above. It's not something that has experimental data. You'll get experiential data from sources with expertise and degrees in psychological fields. And yes, that is easy to shoot at or shoot down with allegations of bias. And some of those allegations may be spot on.

Now, such allegations are indeed within the parameters of a reasonable reaction to it. I am not saying that is out of bounds or belligerent. I am just telling you what you will get with this.

That being said. What do people think of this short paper on the dialog between the medical and religious community on this issue. I think it may be valuable to the discussion.

Establishing a Foundation for Dialogue: A Response to. Articles on Possession, Exorcism, and MPD by Christopher H. Rosik, Ph.D. (https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/1682/Diss_6_4_7_OCR.pdf?sequence=1)

I thought it might help to frame the interaction between the two viewpoints.

He has another article:

"Critical Issues in the Dissociative Disorders Field: Six Perspectives from Religiously Sensitive Practitioners" by Christopher H. Rosik

This is not that article but it is a fairly good breakdown if you don't have the journal: link (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-2962563/Critical-issues-in-the-dissociative.html)

[dancer_rnb]

People used to think the Black Death was due to the wrath of god, rather than Yersina pestis. I don't think faith had anything to do with what was the real cause.

[Davidnic]

People used to think the Black Death was due to the wrath of god, rather than Yersina pestis. I don't think faith had anything to do with what was the real cause.

No, faith did not. And killing the cats because they were of the devil was a pretty foolish thing to do that exacerbated the problem. Since that led to the proliferation of rats that carried the plague.

[DMB]

If they really want their papers to be taken seriously, they would do well to ask along a non-believing magician like James Randi.

[Oolon Colluphid]

You're not going to get video of someone in that state because in every case I've ever seen people are using pseudonyms. It is not something people generally want video taped or to have their actual identity associated with. People who go through it want to move past it, and not become a display.
Then proponents of these things are in something of a quandary. Why should anyone take these anecdotes seriously?
And you won't get footnotes to her medical records or things outside of other incidents like the above. It's not something that has experimental data. You'll get experiential data from sources with expertise and degrees in psychological fields. And yes, that is easy to shoot at or shoot down with allegations of bias.
I am not alleging bias (though I naturally suspect it, given that the sources are, well, biased). I am simply pointing out that, as evidence, it is worthless. Did none of those other credible witnesses not wish to be named either, for fear of embarrassment too? Well I guess I can understand that...
Now, such allegations are indeed within the parameters of a reasonable reaction to it. I am not saying that is out of bounds or belligerent. I am just telling you what you will get with this.
What I find amusing is that Gallagher (for instance) doesn't even attempt to offer supporting evidence. The entire paper rests on his say-so. Not even New Scientist would stoop that low. Does he have a sideline as a journalist on the National Enquirer? Because that's how credible what he's presented is.
That being said. What do people think of this short paper on the dialog between the medical and religious community on this issue. I think it may be valuable to the discussion.

Establishing a Foundation for Dialogue: A Response to. Articles on Possession, Exorcism, and MPD by Christopher H. Rosik, Ph.D. (https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/1682/Diss_6_4_7_OCR.pdf?sequence=1)
What do I think? I think the guy nailed it:
Of course, those who advocate a potential role for exorcism in the treatment of MPD can expect justifiable pressure to move beyond anecdotal reports to a more thoroughly researched position if they are to gain a wider acceptance within the scientific community.
Not just those advocating a role for exorcism in DID treatment, anyone claiming things like... oh I dunno... demons being real, for instance.

[Nohweh]

Meanwhile, back to his novella paper...Exactly. I think we should recognize horror fiction when we see it. All this business about demons is terribly exciting and it's fun to believe they're real. Same goes for The Rapture, The Persecution, etc. And where there is a market, there are also entrepreneurs.

[Ada]

There is real demon possession?:dunno:
I must warn you - internet is full of daemons ;-)

My daemon is called Kalila, and she's a mongoose. :dunno:
So you possess real daemon, Kalila - daemonic mongoose animating Secular Cafe. Sounds quite spooky! :evil:

:-) Ada