Carrie Dedrick | Editor, ChristianHeadlines.com | Wednesday, July 06, 2016

Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise

A leading psychiatrist has said that after working in the field for over two decades, he believes demon possession is real. Dr. Richard Gallagher, a professor of clinical psychiatry at New York Medical College, says his opinion differs from most other professionals in the field.

Gallagher has seen over one hundred people who appeared to have paranormal abilities. He deemed that most of these individuals suffered from mental illness. Still, he claims to have also seen the real thing.

"For the past two-and-a-half decades and over several hundred consultations, I've helped clergy from multiple denominations and faiths to filter episodes of mental illness - which represent the overwhelming majority of cases - from, literally, the devil's work," Gallagher said.

According to Gallagher, demonic possessions could even be on the rise.

"The Vatican does not track global or countrywide exorcism, but in my experience and according to the priests I meet, the demand is rising," he said.

"The United States is home to about 50 'stable' exorcists - those who have been designated by bishops to combat demonic activity on a semi-regular basis - up from just 12 a decade ago.”

As a doctor, Gallagher said he believes it would be wrong to reject the possibility that demonic attacks were real.

"As a psychoanalyst, a blanket rejection of the possibility of demonic attacks seems less logical, and often wishful in nature, than a careful appraisal of the facts,” he said.


Publication date: July 6, 2016

 Orlanth wrote:
I have seen the effects of 'possession' first hand, full on possession is exceptionally rare though.
Demonisation is much more common, in fact a minor case of demonisation is quite prevelant.

One of the reason why the charismatic church has extremely high success percentages of dealing with certain conditions, notably psychological (not physical) addictions is because some conditions are not cured, they are delivered from.

Got an illness, ask for healing. It sometimes works but frankly usually doesn't. Even Paul, had to take a doctor with him as he could not heal himself. Faith is weak.
Got an addiction, don't ask for healing, ask for deliverance from demons, this does very often work, even with our low faith. Spiritual warfare is one of the areas where prayer is most effective.
Because its deliverance ministry, a subset of (low grade) exorcism, this work has little credit in the medical community. Because most people don't even believe Satan and demons exist, and I am not just counting atheists. The Keyser Soze quote at the end iof Usual Suspects is lifted directly from church teaching word for word. However there are enough who beleive, time and again some ministries achieve quite remarkable results, verifiable by the testimony of addicts who claim to have lost their addiction. Some church groups persistently have a release from addiction success rates that conventional medicine is lucky to achieve a fraction of.

There is a saying in the charismatic church, don't try to deliver a disease, don't try to cure a demon.

 Peregrine wrote:
So, what kind of loot do these demons drop? I've been farming for that epic sword I want and not having any luck, should I try Christian demons instead?

 IllumiNini wrote:
Shall we call Sam & Dean Winchester? Castiel as well? Should we be afraid of Crowley now?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

I was under the impression that the church had really cut back on their exorcisms. I think it was because, well, they realized it was bullgak.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

I mean really. You think the devil is going to possess somebody who is not going to have an impact on more than just themselves? No, the devil only goes for certain people. The best people, if you will.

Dreadwinter wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
Shall we call Sam & Dean Winchester? Castiel as well? Should we be afraid of Crowley now?

Maybe we should all play it safe and get that tattoo.....

Dr. Richard Gallagher, a professor of clinical psychiatry at New York Medical College, says his opinion differs from most other professionals in the field.

 Crazyterran wrote:
I think Dr. Stormrage knows more than the clown In the OP.

 sebster wrote:

Dr. Richard Gallagher, a professor of clinical psychiatry at New York Medical College, says his opinion differs from most other professionals in the field.

Well that'd be quite the understatement.

Anyhow, this is probably a good reminder that some individuals with very impressive credentials can still be totally out there.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I cannot and will not respect a man who is putting mentally ill people at risk because he is unable to diagnose a patient, so he decides it must be demons. There is absolutely no scientific evidence of it and his reasoning is flawed. He is being dismissed by his peers and rightly so. There are many religious medical professionals, but they know the difference between science and faith. Mixing them can lead to dangerous consequences, such as this quack and faith healers.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
I cannot and will not respect a man who is putting mentally ill people at risk because he is unable to diagnose a patient, so he decides it must be demons. There is absolutely no scientific evidence of it and his reasoning is flawed. He is being dismissed by his peers and rightly so. There are many religious medical professionals, but they know the difference between science and faith. Mixing them can lead to dangerous consequences, such as this quack and faith healers.

6. How can you claim there is no scientific evidence for exorcism? Even if you cannot see a link between God and the cure, the cure itself can be seen. Exorcists are not a fringe church ministry, they are a mainstream church ministry, and despite the billion people in the Roman Catholic faith, there are only a handful of exorcists, and they have fair claim to have produced results. Exorcism is heavily documented.

As a psychiatrist, I diagnose mental illness. Also, I help spot demonic possession.

How a scientist learned to work with exorcists.

By Richard Gallagher

July 1
Richard Gallagher is a board-certified psychiatrist and a professor of clinical psychiatry at New York Medical College. He is at work on a book about demonic possession in the United States.

Matt Rota for The Washington Post

In the late 1980s, I was introduced to a self-styled Satanic high priestess. She called herself a witch and dressed the part, with flowing dark clothes and black eye shadow around to her temples. In our many discussions, she acknowledged worshipping Satan as his “queen.”

I’m a man of science and a lover of history; after studying the classics at Princeton, I trained in psychiatry at Yale and in psychoanalysis at Columbia. That background is why a Catholic priest had asked my professional opinion, which I offered pro bono, about whether this woman was suffering from a mental disorder. This was at the height of the national panic about Satanism. (In a case that helped induce the hysteria, Virginia McMartin and others had recently been charged with alleged Satanic ritual abuse at a Los Angeles preschool; the charges were later dropped.) So I was inclined to skepticism. But my subject’s behavior exceeded what I could explain with my training. She could tell some people their secret weaknesses, such as undue pride. She knew how individuals she’d never known had died, including my mother and her fatal case of ovarian cancer. Six people later vouched to me that, during her exorcisms, they heard her speaking multiple languages, including Latin, completely unfamiliar to her outside of her trances. This was not psychosis; it was what I can only describe as paranormal ability. I concluded that she was possessed. Much later, she permitted me to tell her story.

The priest who had asked for my opinion of this bizarre case was the most experienced exorcist in the country at the time, an erudite and sensible man. I had told him that, even as a practicing Catholic, I wasn’t likely to go in for a lot of hocus-pocus. “Well,” he replied, “unless we thought you were not easily fooled, we would hardly have wanted you to assist us.”

So began an unlikely partnership. For the past two-and-a-half decades and over several hundred consultations, I’ve helped clergy from multiple denominations and faiths to filter episodes of mental illness — which represent the overwhelming majority of cases — from, literally, the devil’s work. It’s an unlikely role for an academic physician, but I don’t see these two aspects of my career in conflict. The same habits that shape what I do as a professor and psychiatrist — open-mindedness, respect for evidence and compassion for suffering people — led me to aid in the work of discerning attacks by what I believe are evil spirits and, just as critically, differentiating these extremely rare events from medical conditions.

Is it possible to be a sophisticated psychiatrist and believe that evil spirits are, however seldom, assailing humans? Most of my scientific colleagues and friends say no, because of their frequent contact with patients who are deluded about demons, their general skepticism of the supernatural, and their commitment to employ only standard, peer-reviewed treatments that do not potentially mislead (a definite risk) or harm vulnerable patients. But careful observation of the evidence presented to me in my career has led me to believe that certain extremely uncommon cases can be explained no other way.

The Vatican does not track global or countrywide exorcism, but in my experience and according to the priests I meet, demand is rising. The United States is home to about 50 “stable” exorcists — those who have been designated by bishops to combat demonic activity on a semi-regular basis — up from just 12 a decade ago, according to the Rev. Vincent Lampert, an Indianapolis-based priest-exorcist who is active in the International Association of Exorcists. (He receives about 20 inquiries per week, double the number from when his bishop appointed him in 2005.) The Catholic Church has responded by offering greater resources for clergy members who wish to address the problem. In 2010, for instance, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops organized a meeting in Baltimore for interested clergy. In 2014, Pope Francis formally recognized the IAE, 400 members of which are to convene in Rome this October. Members believe in such strange cases because they are constantly called upon to help. (I served for a time as a scientific adviser on the group’s governing board.)

Unfortunately, not all clergy involved in this complex field are as cautious as the priest who first approached me. In some circles, there is a tendency to become overly preoccupied with putative demonic explanations and to see the devil everywhere. Fundamentalist misdiagnoses and absurd or even dangerous “treatments,” such as beating victims, have sometimes occurred, especially in developing countries. This is perhaps why exorcism has a negative connotation in some quarters. People with psychological problems should receive psychological treatment.

But I believe I’ve seen the real thing. Assaults upon individuals are classified either as “demonic possessions” or as the slightly more common but less intense attacks usually called “oppressions.” A possessed individual may suddenly, in a type of trance, voice statements of astonishing venom and contempt for religion, while understanding and speaking various foreign languages previously unknown to them. The subject might also exhibit enormous strength or even the extraordinarily rare phenomenon of levitation. (I have not witnessed a levitation myself, but half a dozen people I work with vow that they’ve seen it in the course of their exorcisms.) He or she might demonstrate “hidden knowledge” of all sorts of things — like how a stranger’s loved ones died, what secret sins she has committed, even where people are at a given moment. These are skills that cannot be explained except by special psychic or preternatural ability.

I have personally encountered these rationally inexplicable features, along with other paranormal phenomena. My vantage is unusual: As a consulting doctor, I think I have seen more cases of possession than any other physician in the world.

Most of the people I evaluate in this role suffer from the more prosaic problems of a medical disorder. Anyone even faintly familiar with mental illnesses knows that individuals who think they are being attacked by malign spirits are generally experiencing nothing of the sort. Practitioners see psychotic patients all the time who claim to see or hear demons; histrionic or highly suggestible individuals, such as those suffering from dissociative identity syndromes; and patients with personality disorders who are prone to misinterpret destructive feelings, in what exorcists sometimes call a “pseudo-possession,” via the defense mechanism of an externalizing projection. But what am I supposed to make of patients who unexpectedly start speaking perfect Latin?

I approach each situation with an initial skepticism. I technically do not make my own “diagnosis” of possession but inform the clergy that the symptoms in question have no conceivable medical cause.

I am aware of the way many psychiatrists view this sort of work. While the American Psychiatric Association has no official opinion on these affairs, the field (like society at large) is full of unpersuadable skeptics and occasionally doctrinaire materialists who are often oddly vitriolic in their opposition to all things spiritual. My job is to assist people seeking help, not to convince doctors who are not subject to suasion. Yet I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the number of psychiatrists and other mental health practitioners nowadays who are open to entertaining such hypotheses. Many believe exactly what I do, though they may be reluctant to speak out.

* * * * * * *

As a man of reason, I’ve had to rationalize the seemingly irrational. Questions about how a scientifically trained physician can believe “such outdated and unscientific nonsense,” as I’ve been asked, have a simple answer. I honestly weigh the evidence. I have been told simplistically that levitation defies the laws of gravity, and, well, of course it does! We are not dealing here with purely material reality, but with the spiritual realm. One cannot force these creatures to undergo lab studies or submit to scientific manipulation; they will also hardly allow themselves to be easily recorded by video equipment, as skeptics sometimes demand. (The official Catholic Catechism holds that demons are sentient and possess their own wills; as they are fallen angels, they are also craftier than humans. That’s how they sow confusion and seed doubt, after all.) Nor does the church wish to compromise a sufferer’s privacy, any more than doctors want to compromise a patient’s confidentiality.

Ignorance and superstition have often surrounded stories of demonic possession in various cultures, and surely many alleged episodes can be explained by fraud, chicanery or mental pathology. But anthropologists agree that nearly all cultures have believed in spirits, and the vast majority of societies (including our own) have recorded dramatic stories of spirit possession. Despite varying interpretations, multiple depictions of the same phenomena in astonishingly consistent ways offer cumulative evidence of their credibility.

As a psychoanalyst, a blanket rejection of the possibility of demonic attacks seems less logical, and often wishful in nature, than a careful appraisal of the facts. As I see it, the evidence for possession is like the evidence for George Washington’s crossing of the Delaware. In both cases, written historical accounts with numerous sound witnesses testify to their accuracy.

In the end, however, it was not an academic or dogmatic view that propelled me into this line of work. I was asked to consult about people in pain. I have always thought that, if requested to help a tortured person, a physician should not arbitrarily refuse to get involved. Those who dismiss these cases unwittingly prevent patients from receiving the help they desperately require, either by failing to recommend them for psychiatric treatment (which most clearly need) or by not informing their spiritual ministers that something beyond a mental or other illness seems to be the issue. For any person of science or faith, it should be impossible to turn one’s back on a tormented soul.

 jmurph wrote:
And a longer article by Gallagher on possession:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/01/as-a-psychiatrist-i-diagnose-mental-illness-and-sometimes-demonic-possession/

As a psychiatrist, I diagnose mental illness. Also, I help spot demonic possession.

How a scientist learned to work with exorcists.

By Richard Gallagher

July 1
Richard Gallagher is a board-certified psychiatrist and a professor of clinical psychiatry at New York Medical College. He is at work on a book about demonic possession in the United States.

Matt Rota for The Washington Post

In the late 1980s, I was introduced to a self-styled Satanic high priestess. She called herself a witch and dressed the part, with flowing dark clothes and black eye shadow around to her temples. In our many discussions, she acknowledged worshipping Satan as his “queen.”

I’m a man of science and a lover of history; after studying the classics at Princeton, I trained in psychiatry at Yale and in psychoanalysis at Columbia. That background is why a Catholic priest had asked my professional opinion, which I offered pro bono, about whether this woman was suffering from a mental disorder. This was at the height of the national panic about Satanism. (In a case that helped induce the hysteria, Virginia McMartin and others had recently been charged with alleged Satanic ritual abuse at a Los Angeles preschool; the charges were later dropped.) So I was inclined to skepticism. But my subject’s behavior exceeded what I could explain with my training. She could tell some people their secret weaknesses, such as undue pride. She knew how individuals she’d never known had died, including my mother and her fatal case of ovarian cancer. Six people later vouched to me that, during her exorcisms, they heard her speaking multiple languages, including Latin, completely unfamiliar to her outside of her trances. This was not psychosis; it was what I can only describe as paranormal ability. I concluded that she was possessed. Much later, she permitted me to tell her story.

The priest who had asked for my opinion of this bizarre case was the most experienced exorcist in the country at the time, an erudite and sensible man. I had told him that, even as a practicing Catholic, I wasn’t likely to go in for a lot of hocus-pocus. “Well,” he replied, “unless we thought you were not easily fooled, we would hardly have wanted you to assist us.”

So began an unlikely partnership. For the past two-and-a-half decades and over several hundred consultations, I’ve helped clergy from multiple denominations and faiths to filter episodes of mental illness — which represent the overwhelming majority of cases — from, literally, the devil’s work. It’s an unlikely role for an academic physician, but I don’t see these two aspects of my career in conflict. The same habits that shape what I do as a professor and psychiatrist — open-mindedness, respect for evidence and compassion for suffering people — led me to aid in the work of discerning attacks by what I believe are evil spirits and, just as critically, differentiating these extremely rare events from medical conditions.

Is it possible to be a sophisticated psychiatrist and believe that evil spirits are, however seldom, assailing humans? Most of my scientific colleagues and friends say no, because of their frequent contact with patients who are deluded about demons, their general skepticism of the supernatural, and their commitment to employ only standard, peer-reviewed treatments that do not potentially mislead (a definite risk) or harm vulnerable patients. But careful observation of the evidence presented to me in my career has led me to believe that certain extremely uncommon cases can be explained no other way.

The Vatican does not track global or countrywide exorcism, but in my experience and according to the priests I meet, demand is rising. The United States is home to about 50 “stable” exorcists — those who have been designated by bishops to combat demonic activity on a semi-regular basis — up from just 12 a decade ago, according to the Rev. Vincent Lampert, an Indianapolis-based priest-exorcist who is active in the International Association of Exorcists. (He receives about 20 inquiries per week, double the number from when his bishop appointed him in 2005.) The Catholic Church has responded by offering greater resources for clergy members who wish to address the problem. In 2010, for instance, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops organized a meeting in Baltimore for interested clergy. In 2014, Pope Francis formally recognized the IAE, 400 members of which are to convene in Rome this October. Members believe in such strange cases because they are constantly called upon to help. (I served for a time as a scientific adviser on the group’s governing board.)

Unfortunately, not all clergy involved in this complex field are as cautious as the priest who first approached me. In some circles, there is a tendency to become overly preoccupied with putative demonic explanations and to see the devil everywhere. Fundamentalist misdiagnoses and absurd or even dangerous “treatments,” such as beating victims, have sometimes occurred, especially in developing countries. This is perhaps why exorcism has a negative connotation in some quarters. People with psychological problems should receive psychological treatment.

But I believe I’ve seen the real thing. Assaults upon individuals are classified either as “demonic possessions” or as the slightly more common but less intense attacks usually called “oppressions.” A possessed individual may suddenly, in a type of trance, voice statements of astonishing venom and contempt for religion, while understanding and speaking various foreign languages previously unknown to them. The subject might also exhibit enormous strength or even the extraordinarily rare phenomenon of levitation. (I have not witnessed a levitation myself, but half a dozen people I work with vow that they’ve seen it in the course of their exorcisms.) He or she might demonstrate “hidden knowledge” of all sorts of things — like how a stranger’s loved ones died, what secret sins she has committed, even where people are at a given moment. These are skills that cannot be explained except by special psychic or preternatural ability.

I have personally encountered these rationally inexplicable features, along with other paranormal phenomena. My vantage is unusual: As a consulting doctor, I think I have seen more cases of possession than any other physician in the world.

Most of the people I evaluate in this role suffer from the more prosaic problems of a medical disorder. Anyone even faintly familiar with mental illnesses knows that individuals who think they are being attacked by malign spirits are generally experiencing nothing of the sort. Practitioners see psychotic patients all the time who claim to see or hear demons; histrionic or highly suggestible individuals, such as those suffering from dissociative identity syndromes; and patients with personality disorders who are prone to misinterpret destructive feelings, in what exorcists sometimes call a “pseudo-possession,” via the defense mechanism of an externalizing projection. But what am I supposed to make of patients who unexpectedly start speaking perfect Latin?

I approach each situation with an initial skepticism. I technically do not make my own “diagnosis” of possession but inform the clergy that the symptoms in question have no conceivable medical cause.

I am aware of the way many psychiatrists view this sort of work. While the American Psychiatric Association has no official opinion on these affairs, the field (like society at large) is full of unpersuadable skeptics and occasionally doctrinaire materialists who are often oddly vitriolic in their opposition to all things spiritual. My job is to assist people seeking help, not to convince doctors who are not subject to suasion. Yet I’ve been pleasantly surprised by the number of psychiatrists and other mental health practitioners nowadays who are open to entertaining such hypotheses. Many believe exactly what I do, though they may be reluctant to speak out.

* * * * * * *

As a man of reason, I’ve had to rationalize the seemingly irrational. Questions about how a scientifically trained physician can believe “such outdated and unscientific nonsense,” as I’ve been asked, have a simple answer. I honestly weigh the evidence. I have been told simplistically that levitation defies the laws of gravity, and, well, of course it does! We are not dealing here with purely material reality, but with the spiritual realm. One cannot force these creatures to undergo lab studies or submit to scientific manipulation; they will also hardly allow themselves to be easily recorded by video equipment, as skeptics sometimes demand. (The official Catholic Catechism holds that demons are sentient and possess their own wills; as they are fallen angels, they are also craftier than humans. That’s how they sow confusion and seed doubt, after all.) Nor does the church wish to compromise a sufferer’s privacy, any more than doctors want to compromise a patient’s confidentiality.

Ignorance and superstition have often surrounded stories of demonic possession in various cultures, and surely many alleged episodes can be explained by fraud, chicanery or mental pathology. But anthropologists agree that nearly all cultures have believed in spirits, and the vast majority of societies (including our own) have recorded dramatic stories of spirit possession. Despite varying interpretations, multiple depictions of the same phenomena in astonishingly consistent ways offer cumulative evidence of their credibility.

As a psychoanalyst, a blanket rejection of the possibility of demonic attacks seems less logical, and often wishful in nature, than a careful appraisal of the facts. As I see it, the evidence for possession is like the evidence for George Washington’s crossing of the Delaware. In both cases, written historical accounts with numerous sound witnesses testify to their accuracy.

In the end, however, it was not an academic or dogmatic view that propelled me into this line of work. I was asked to consult about people in pain. I have always thought that, if requested to help a tortured person, a physician should not arbitrarily refuse to get involved. Those who dismiss these cases unwittingly prevent patients from receiving the help they desperately require, either by failing to recommend them for psychiatric treatment (which most clearly need) or by not informing their spiritual ministers that something beyond a mental or other illness seems to be the issue. For any person of science or faith, it should be impossible to turn one’s back on a tormented soul.

lonestarr777 wrote:
Jrelly89 pretty sure no 'witch' was ever burned in Salem, they were all hanged.

A bit more on topic. If you ever walk into a shrinks office and he jumps to demonic possession. Smile, thank him for his time, politely leave and then call the medical board of the hospital he is associated with to report hesa fething nutter.

 Orlanth wrote:
Still exorcisms are rare as full possession is rare.

 jreilly89 wrote:

lonestarr777 wrote:
Jrelly89 pretty sure no 'witch' was ever burned in Salem, they were all hanged.

A bit more on topic. If you ever walk into a shrinks office and he jumps to demonic possession. Smile, thank him for his time, politely leave and then call the medical board of the hospital he is associated with to report hesa fething nutter.

Huh, interesting. Apparently it was primarily a European thing to burn them at the stake, but it says all but one of the Salem witches were hanged, the other was pressed to death for refusing to enter a plea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_for_witchcraft

http://www.history.com/news/ask-history/were-witches-burned-at-the-stake-during-the-salem-witch-trials

yellowfever wrote:
I've got a question that I hopefully present well. All posters except one are saying this guy is crazy. But if that's the case shouldn't all religious people be considered crazy. I mean this guy is just talking about the evil version of God/angels. The bible has the devil/daemons in it. So If a person believes in god/angels don't they kinda have to believe in the devil/daemons. After all its all in the same book.

yellowfever wrote:
I've got a question that I hopefully present well. All posters except one are saying this guy is crazy. But if that's the case shouldn't all religious people be considered crazy. I mean this guy is just talking about the evil version of God/angels. The bible has the devil/daemons in it. So If a person believes in god/angels don't they kinda have to believe in the devil/daemons. After all its all in the same book.

yellowfever wrote:
I've got a question that I hopefully present well. All posters except one are saying this guy is crazy. But if that's the case shouldn't all religious people be considered crazy. I mean this guy is just talking about the evil version of God/angels. The bible has the devil/daemons in it. So If a person believes in god/angels don't they kinda have to believe in the devil/daemons. After all its all in the same book.

yellowfever wrote:
All posters except one are saying this guy is crazy.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Still exorcisms are rare as full possession is rare.

Oh aye, in the same way that Unicorns, Fairies and Kelpies are rare.

I wonder if this man's colleagues would describe him as a "leading Psychiatrist". I suspect not, or at least not anymore.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Still exorcisms are rare as full possession is rare.

Oh aye, in the same way that Unicorns, Fairies and Kelpies are rare.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

I wonder if this man's colleagues would describe him as a "leading Psychiatrist". I suspect not, or at least not anymore.

 Daemonhammer wrote:
How we can live in the 21th century and still have people believe in demonic possessions is completely beyond me.

yellowfever wrote:
I've got a question that I hopefully present well. All posters except one are saying this guy is crazy. But if that's the case shouldn't all religious people be considered crazy. I mean this guy is just talking about the evil version of God/angels. The bible has the devil/daemons in it. So If a person believes in god/angels don't they kinda have to believe in the devil/daemons. After all its all in the same book.

 jmurph wrote:
And a longer article by Gallagher on possession:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/07/01/as-a-psychiatrist-i-diagnose-mental-illness-and-sometimes-demonic-possession/

As a psychiatrist, I diagnose mental illness. Also, I help spot demonic possession.

How a scientist learned to work with exorcists.

By Richard Gallagher

July 1
Richard Gallagher is a board-certified psychiatrist and a professor of clinical psychiatry at New York Medical College. He is at work on a book about demonic possession in the United States.

 Orlanth wrote:

Practicing exorcists with a work record exist, records of exorcisms conducted exist.
Any evidence for unicorns?

 chromedog wrote:

Kelpies are NOT rare.

They are just another bats*** insane breed of dog.

 Orlanth wrote:
Why say that. Demonology is standard mainstream religion. Jesus talked about hell and demons a lot of the time, it was his third most visited topic of his ministry after salvation and God. Many medical professionals are religious and can hold those beliefs without being targeted for ridicule. Atheism is not a free pass to abuse someone with a different worldview. By speaking out Dr Gallagher is in danger of discrimination despite there being no valid reason to suspect he is unable to conduct his duties properly.

yellowfever wrote:
I've got a question that I hopefully present well. All posters except one are saying this guy is crazy. But if that's the case shouldn't all religious people be considered crazy. I mean this guy is just talking about the evil version of God/angels. The bible has the devil/daemons in it. So If a person believes in god/angels don't they kinda have to believe in the devil/daemons. After all its all in the same book.

 Peregrine wrote:
This is a valid point. The primary reason we don't say that all religious people are crazy is social rules about being polite to people.

It's ok to say whatever you like about minority religious groups that are "weird enough" to be considered acceptable targets, but you'd better not be rude to the majority.

 sebster wrote:

It's ok to say whatever you like about minority religious groups that are "weird enough" to be considered acceptable targets, but you'd better not be rude to the majority.

No, it's never okay to bash someone's religion.

 jmurph wrote:
It's worth noting that it's not simply a failing of the educational system. There is a very strong anti-intellectual sentiment prevalent in many cultural conservatives. It begins with a hostility towards "liberal" academia and ends in a pretty thorough rejection of critical thinking and the scientific method.

 sebster wrote:
....No, it's never okay to bash someone's religion.

 r_squared wrote:

 sebster wrote:
....No, it's never okay to bash someone's religion.

We can still have legitimate criticism, challenge of privilege and insistence of a separation between religion and state though?

 r_squared wrote:

 sebster wrote:
....No, it's never okay to bash someone's religion.

We can still have legitimate criticism, challenge of privilege and insistence of a separation between religion and state though?

 Tyr13 wrote:
I think hes talking about cults, not actual religions. Ie, scientology, stuff like that. Which generally *are* at least somewhat acceptable targets.

 r_squared wrote:
We can still have legitimate criticism, challenge of privilege and insistence of a separation between religion and state though?

 gunslingerpro wrote:
Howard and I have similar feelings. The ritual or exorcism is as good a placebo for the cure of 'demons' as anything else. I see no harm in it so long as the act isn't harmful in itself.

However, being that this doctor likely makes decent sums consulting on these cases, my views are summed up as such: the efficacy of snake oil is always touted by those who profit from its consumption.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
'Exorcism' might 'cure' someone on the basis that a religious delusion can be treated by something the patient believes in. But let's not kid ourselves that any priest is literally removing evil spirits and demons from people, it's utterly preposterous.

On another forum I recall someone describing how possession by spirits was a real phenomenon and children had been cured by exorcism despite being violent and in some cases needing to be held down. Apparently they had the strength greater than that of an adult. Anyone with experience of a child who is mentally disturbed and really going berserk could get this impression but really possession isn't at all credible but handling physically violent children is something professionals have much training in, it's not a nice thing to deal with.

Now let's get this straight, possession by demons isn't real so that means the child is suffering from some psychiatric or physical condition, but instead of qualified individuals dictating treatment, the accepted solution is to have several adults hold that child down and carry out an 'exorcism' - and this doesn't amount to some form of abuse?

I'm sure this occurs in very few cases, but even one is too many. Possession isn't real, the treatment at best is a trick in the mind, so any attempt to force treatment upon someone is wrong.

 Tyr13 wrote:

 sebster wrote:

It's ok to say whatever you like about minority religious groups that are "weird enough" to be considered acceptable targets, but you'd better not be rude to the majority.

No, it's never okay to bash someone's religion.

I think hes talking about cults, not actual religions. Ie, scientology, stuff like that. Which generally *are* at least somewhat acceptable targets.

 sebster wrote:

It's ok to say whatever you like about minority religious groups that are "weird enough" to be considered acceptable targets, but you'd better not be rude to the majority.

No, it's never okay to bash someone's religion.

 Yodhrin wrote:
Why? People are not born religious, it's not a state of being beyond their control, it's a collection of ideas and beliefs they choose to adopt of their own free will(insofar as such a thing can be said to exist) & can choose to discard at any time, and deserves no more or less protection or respect than any other set of ideas and/or beliefs.

It can be impolite to "bash" someone's beliefs, but if you're willing to accept the social consequences of that impoliteness then it's perfectly "okay" to express your opinion on the matter just as it would be on any other subject.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
'Exorcism' might 'cure' someone on the basis that a religious delusion can be treated by something the patient believes in. But let's not kid ourselves that any priest is literally removing evil spirits and demons from people, it's utterly preposterous.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

On another forum I recall someone describing how possession by spirits was a real phenomenon and children had been cured by exorcism despite being violent and in some cases needing to be held down. Apparently they had the strength greater than that of an adult. Anyone with experience of a child who is mentally disturbed and really going berserk could get this impression but really possession isn't at all credible but handling physically violent children is something professionals have much training in, it's not a nice thing to deal with.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

Now let's get this straight, possession by demons isn't real so......

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

so that means the child is suffering from some psychiatric or physical condition,

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

so but instead of qualified individuals dictating treatment, the accepted solution is to have several adults hold that child down and carry out an 'exorcism' - and this doesn't amount to some form of abuse?

 Howard A Treesong wrote:

I'm sure this occurs in very few cases, but even one is too many. Possession isn't real, the treatment at best is a trick in the mind, so any attempt to force treatment upon someone is wrong.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Until you show us evidence, not anecdotal, but full on studies with videos and credible witnesses, demonic possession is not real.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Just because you believe in something, does not make it real. Where is your evidence? You keep saying demonic possession is real but you have provided us with nothing other than "Well, it is my belief that it is real."

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Faith is not illegal, but it is certainly not science. If you plan on invading the realm of science with your faith, you need to bring something to back it up. This is how it works.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Evidence has been asked for, and not provided.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Faith is not illegal, but it is certainly not science. If you plan on invading the realm of science with your faith, you need to bring something to back it up. This is how it works.

Secular mental health is not hard science either, and far less in preactice than in theory. In fact its more guesswork there is a lot of leeway for pet thoeries and dogma, and personal opinion. Diagnosis is far more art than science also, as for the most part mental health workers have to interpret conversation with the sufferer and have fw tools to do so. It isn't mathematics or physics, don't pretend it is.

Actually there is often less guesswork and better results in deliverance, if its a spiritual cause to begin with, very often its not, as Dr Gallgher attests and the ministry will not be appropriate solution in those cases.

 Orlanth wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Evidence has been asked for, and not provided.

Actually you are quite correct. Linked exaples of testimony evidence was added to the other concurrent religion thread not this one

Here you go:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=deliverence+ministry&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&gws_rd=cr&ei=3weuV86PEoObgAb45KDwDA#channel=suggest&q=deliverence+ministry+testimonies

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=deliverence+ministry&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&gws_rd=cr&ei=3weuV86PEoObgAb45KDwDA#channel=suggest&q=exorcism+testimonies

Tip of iceberg.

 Orlanth wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Evidence has been asked for, and not provided.

Actually you are quite correct. Linked exaples of testimony evidence was added to the other concurrent religion thread not this one

Here you go:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=deliverence+ministry&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&gws_rd=cr&ei=3weuV86PEoObgAb45KDwDA#channel=suggest&q=deliverence+ministry+testimonies

https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=deliverence+ministry&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&gws_rd=cr&ei=3weuV86PEoObgAb45KDwDA#channel=suggest&q=exorcism+testimonies

Tip of iceberg.

 Dreadwinter wrote:


Cool, now show me where faith comes in to that. Mental health is not an exact science, it is an evolving science. A science where faith plays no role.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Did you just link me two google searches?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

I would like the point out that you did not spell deliverance correctly in the first one.

 Wolfblade wrote:

Anything... specific? Anything not more or less anecdotal? Like... Verified undoctored videos/photos, impartial 3rd parties, etc. A lot of what you linked in the google searches is basically "here's a story, I swear it happened!" (which, by the way seems like a quick cope out instead of finding something that might be scientifically accepted)

 Wolfblade wrote:

which, by the way seems like a quick cope out instead of finding something that might be scientifically accepted)

BossJakadakk wrote:
"If google finds results when I type in words, you can bet yer bippy something there shows I'm right" is not a valid way to show evidence or support your view.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Anything... specific? Anything not more or less anecdotal? Like... Verified undoctored videos/photos, impartial 3rd parties, etc. A lot of what you linked in the google searches is basically "here's a story, I swear it happened!" (which, by the way seems like a quick cope out instead of finding something that might be scientifically accepted)

I explained earlier why anecdotal evidence is valid. Just apply multiple sourcing and look for credibility or lack thereof in the individual making the claim.
If you dont accept that, then you should shut down the courthouses in the world, as the law relies on the same burden of evidence.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

which, by the way seems like a quick cope out instead of finding something that might be scientifically accepted)

Also I am not asking for scientific acceptance, I know better than to try as do most ministries.
It is not unheard of for a deliverence ministry to outperform secular medicine, notably with regards to delivery from addiction. This is verifiable to some extent via performance statistics.

 Orlanth wrote:

BossJakadakk wrote:
"If google finds results when I type in words, you can bet yer bippy something there shows I'm right" is not a valid way to show evidence or support your view.

Its actually a form of protest. Evidence is out there but people here demand proof from me, require none for themselves, and move the goalposts afterwards.

And when I do take the time to actually provide something more substantial the evidence is handwaved away. So why bother. People can find the evidence for themselves, I have full confidence it is out there, because I know it to be true from my own testimony and witness, and know that details are in the public domain.

 Wolfblade wrote:

If I find X people who SWEAR they've seen a magical flying unicorn, but have no other proof, does that mean their anecdotal evidence is valid? No. (X being whatever large number you wish it to be)
Anecdotal evidence is pretty much the worst there is, as anyone can claim anything.

 Wolfblade wrote:

Again, proof of your claim?

 Wolfblade wrote:

I could see addiction as it gives them something else to be obsessed with, but what else? Most actual illnesses (i.e. cancer, the flu, whatever) is better treated with medicine than hopeful wishes.

 Wolfblade wrote:

"A form of protest"? No, you don't have any solid/real evidence and can't provide anything other than anecdotal evidence/are getting tired of the question "got any proof"?

 Wolfblade wrote:

Or, the evidence isn't really evidence/falls apart when actually looked at.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

If I find X people who SWEAR they've seen a magical flying unicorn, but have no other proof, does that mean their anecdotal evidence is valid? No. (X being whatever large number you wish it to be)
Anecdotal evidence is pretty much the worst there is, as anyone can claim anything.

If you took that evidence to a court would you win the case?
Likely not.

Why not?

because you need credible multiple sourcing.
I made pains to make tis point. Why ignore it?

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Again, proof of your claim?

Again I am not here to provide proof. Were anyone be able to do so there would be no room for atheism, or other faiths, or even faith.

As for the evidence. I am responding to those who on this thread react to the OP link and the very idea that there could be a demonic influence wth reidicule.
There are a lot of sweeping statements saying that its 'all bullgak', or 'cannot exist in the 21st century' etc etc.

However the demonic is an integral part of religion that is practiced today believed today and is not openly ridiculed in this way. Though some humanists want that to be the standard reaction to religion in general, which would be highly oppressive. Nobody has asked you and those others who try to definitively say the demonic cannot exist and that there is no room whatsoever fr exorcism. I know better because all you can come up with is the defence of ridicule.
This is important because a lot of the incredulity was weaponised. How can Dr Gallagher still perform his duties as a doctor, why does he still have a career? You don't stop to think, why not? What harm is he because he believes things you do not.

To my denegrators here its preposterous because you cant think beyond the possibility of it not being preposterous. Smacks of brainwashing frankly. They ask for evidence as if you had a scientific mind, but completely advocate a thinking system at total loggerheads to scientific process.
The concensus for the unthinking sceptics on this thread is that it is ridiculous to believe in exorcism, because it just is, and they don't know why.

The correct defence to his is to say that there are people who believe in it from personal experience. It is up to them to prove the sources are all lying because I am not the one making the sweeping statements. Neither is Dr Gallagher in the OP. So I do what I need to do, point the thread in the general direction of the evidence. Some of it wont stack up, but some will.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

I could see addiction as it gives them something else to be obsessed with, but what else? Most actual illnesses (i.e. cancer, the flu, whatever) is better treated with medicine than hopeful wishes.

Again. The above point was explained earlier. Theologically - Would one be delivered from a spirit of cancer? No. Cancer is a physical illness. Now people can be healed of cancer but that is different.
Also outside some fringe cults faith is not a total substitute for medicine. It is not walking in unbelief or heretical in the Bible and similar texts to approach a doctor.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

I also learned that the flying spaghetti monster is real, because two separate people believe in it and that is all the proof we need.

Facts.

 jmurph wrote:
One of the nice things about faith is that it doesn't require proof. Which is convenient, because pretty much all supernatural phenomena falls under the "can't be measured by mere mortals" rubric. Works pretty well for various promises, too.

Any attempts to dissuade a true believer will likely be futile as faith is not evidence or logic based. Emotion and assumption is generally sufficient for human belief. Additionally, once something becomes tied to identity, it is almost impossible to shake.

Hence why you just nod and smile and wave goodbye.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
This isn't like the atheism thread, proof and lack of proof and belief. Circumstances are totally different, this has real consequences for people involved.

When dealing with people exhibiting serious psychoogical episodes and trauma, you need to have a solid evidence basis for treatment. People study years in the field upon a raft of scientific research. Demonic possession isn't real. Yes, says me. And unless there's a good evidence basis on which to base treatment of this nature, it should not be carried out, just like any other form treatment. It's akin to a medical procedure by people claiming to be treating real symptoms.

Stories of people having to be restrained to be 'exorcised' are extremely troubling given that it's total quackery to claim that they have a demon in them. Any treatment of a physical/psychological problem should be grounded in solid evidence and good medical practice before being administered. Anything else is recklessly dangerous and fraudulent.

Where's the evidence base? What's the procedure for diagnosis? Who is qualified? Has this identification of possession been demonstrated as reliable? I doubt it given that you can't even prove spirits exist. Where's the proof that it's beneficial or effective to carry out an exorcism? And this means proof, surveys, tested ei dence and not a handful of anecdotes. Where's the ongoing analysis of patients post procedure? Can it be demonstrated that there's no risk of harm, or what the risks actually are, for an exorcism?

When you start treating people for a condition, simply saying 'I believe' isn't good enough however heartfelt. It could be extremely harmful, it could be useless. Either way it's not appropriate to administer without evidence.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

If I find X people who SWEAR they've seen a magical flying unicorn, but have no other proof, does that mean their anecdotal evidence is valid? No. (X being whatever large number you wish it to be)
Anecdotal evidence is pretty much the worst there is, as anyone can claim anything.

If you took that evidence to a court would you win the case?
Likely not.

Why not?

because you need credible multiple sourcing.
I made pains to make tis point. Why ignore it?

Because anecdotal evidence sucks, especially when combined with faith in any way as it then it falls back on "But I have faith so I don't feel the need for evidence".

 Wolfblade wrote:

All I got from this was "Even with no evidence, and thus no reason for a logically minded person to believe it, they should still believe because they can't personally provide evidence against it."

 Wolfblade wrote:

Sorry, burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, i.e. "demonic possession is real".

 Wolfblade wrote:

You're going down the same route of logic as "I believe in an invisible unicorn that only talks to me, and lives in my sock drawer. Prove it doesn't exist."

 Wolfblade wrote:

Replace "Unicorn lives in my sock drawer" with "demonic possession" and you get my point.

 Wolfblade wrote:

Without actual evidence (i.e. not random easily made up testimonies posted on the internet where everything is 100% true (/sarcasm for that last bit)) it can simply be dismissed as being non existent, and potentially harmful to people with REAL problems that need a REAL doctor, not some nutjob.

 Wolfblade wrote:

All the religion is doing is giving them something else to be focused on (or addicted to, but that's too strong of a word imo), which is why it works. Not because god magically heals them of their addiction or something similar.

 Wolfblade wrote:

And all of that from what I looked at was either clickbait articles ("10 Terrifying Cases of Demonic Possession"), or again, unverified anecdotal evidence, or are completely unrelated to what we're talking about.
In short, none of that is evidence.

 Wolfblade wrote:

As for Olmos, I don't know enough about it to say one way or the other, but I imagine when you feth up and get sent to prison, you start being willing to accept anything that gives you a "second chance" regardless of what it is.

 Orlanth wrote:
There is evidence, you just prefer not to accept it because it involves God.

There is a whole internets worth of such testimonies.

I ignore the invisible unicorn, first because it likely either isn't relevant or doesn't exist because if it did there would be myriad testimonies of its existance.

No I dont because you dont have billions of people believing in religions which include as a core tenet of their beliefs that unicorns exist. Wheras Judaism, Christinaity and Islam all point to the existance of demons as core, not fringe, theology.
You don't get it . Believing in demonic influence is as commonplace a belief as any other which causes millions to goto a church, mosque or synagogue every week.
So its not the same as unicorns in your closet.

By what right t you write off billions of religious people as mentally ill.

The Roman Catholic Church's official diagnostic criteria for discerning genuine demonic possession includes speaking in tongues or languages formerly unfamiliar to the possessed person, supernatural physical strength, and visibly negative reactions of the victim to prayers, holy water, priests, etc. But for the modern Church, physical and/or psychiatric disorders must first be ruled out.

But another way of looking at this same possession syndrome is that in such cases what we are seeing are the most extreme and treatment resistant states of mind manifested in patients who may truly believe themselves to be demonically possessed. The pertinent question then is how best to treat such severely disturbed and deeply suffering individuals? It seems that at least some familiarity with their religious beliefs and meaningful integration of these beliefs into their psychotherapy is essential. These patients have usually tried traditional psychiatric treatment, with its neurobiological bias, to no avail. Providing some way to help such patients make sense of their frightening and bewildering subjective experiences and integrate them meaningfully into a deeper psychological and spiritual understanding of themselves and the world is what real psychotherapy should, at its best, strive toward. Without such a meaning-centered, spiritually sensitive secular psychotherapy (see my prior post), exorcism is seen to be their only hope.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
God doesn't heal, science does.

I speak from personal experience which means you can't refute it.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

If I find X people who SWEAR they've seen a magical flying unicorn, but have no other proof, does that mean their anecdotal evidence is valid? No. (X being whatever large number you wish it to be)
Anecdotal evidence is pretty much the worst there is, as anyone can claim anything.

If you took that evidence to a court would you win the case?
Likely not.

Why not?

because you need credible multiple sourcing.
I made pains to make tis point. Why ignore it?

Because anecdotal evidence sucks, especially when combined with faith in any way as it then it falls back on "But I have faith so I don't feel the need for evidence".

Does it suck? The law uses it everyday to put criminals away in court cases.
Also you are sticking to the dogma that faith is mutually exclusive to evidence.

...

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
There is evidence, you just prefer not to accept it because it involves God.

No, we reject it because your so-called evidence is complete garbage.

 Peregrine wrote:

Ever hear the saying "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'"?

 Peregrine wrote:

There are myriad testimonies of the unicorn's existence. I've seen lots of them, so many lives changed by the invisible unicorn. I can give you thousands of pages of testimonies if you'd like, but I know you'll reject them because they're about a different god.

 Peregrine wrote:

How popular a belief is has nothing to do with how reasonable it is. Belief in demons is no more reasonable than belief in the sock-drawer unicorn, and pointing out how many billions of people believe in demons just means that billions of people are wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:

By the right of "they believe in something that is factually wrong and completely absurd". Talking about how rude it is to call them "mentally ill" doesn't prove that their beliefs are reasonable, it just demonstrates that in our society we don't like it when you criticize someone's religion too strongly.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


When a court hears a piece of eyewitness evidence, it is not anecdotal, it is specific to the case being tried. Caling it anecdotal is like you telling us you had fried egg for breakfast today and none of us believing you because there aren't 99 other Orlanths of whom 74 also say they had fried egg for breakfast.

If we want to find out the percentage of the population who have fried egg for breakfast, then asking you only is a waste of time. That is anecdotal evidence.

 Orlanth wrote:
snip

 Orlanth wrote:
I could expect you to say that. You don't believe in God and therefore all evidence for God is garbage because you daren't consider the possibility of it being anything else.
That isn't a rational argument and you draw that conclusion before even looking at or for evidence. Which shows how devoid of logic and reason your response is.

Sure. I can play that game. What history has your religion, where are its adherents, where is the history of belief or hold texts, where are the testimonies. Show me this and I will not disrespect your unicorn or laugh at a doctor who chooses to believe in unicorns and call for his career to be terminated.

Billions of people can be wrong as most of the religions are mutually exclusive you can be assured of that. But you aren't the judge as to whether they are.

Have you heard of the revised calendar for ancient middle east history. Back until about twenty years ago there was a huge gap in the timeline of middle eastern ancient history. This was because one important source was always dismissed, the Old Testament. However when the Hittite and Egyptian sources were combined with the Bible timeline it actually made better sense.
Historians were forced to conclude there was three hundred year dark age in which no recorded text survives despite adjacent copies of texts from before and after that time. When they got over their dogma of not using Biblical sources as historical sources the timeline was 'repaired' without the three hundred year gap and the history of the ancient middle east made sense.
Here s one example of scholars itself using the Bible as a historical source, after a period of discarding it as a source and finding it better it the evidence that science was finding.

You can give your own testimony but the changed life must be witnessed properly over time for any validity to be placed by a claim.

 Wolfblade wrote:

1. As kilkrazy, they said it very well. And faith is exclusive from evidence (real, acceptable evidence, not anecdotal evidence) which is why it's called faith and not evidence/proof/fact

 Wolfblade wrote:

2. Actually it IS the scientific one. As far as science goes, there has been exactly zero legit proof of any god whatsoever. And my mind isn't closed, if you brought me real, tangible proof of god/demons/the invisible unicorn in the sock drawer, I'd accept it and change my view on reality. Until the day you actually provide said proof, I'm just going to keep dismissing god/demons/the invisible unicorn in the sock drawer.

 Wolfblade wrote:

3. Oh, you mean MORE anecdotal evidence? The kind we've been saying isn't valid this ENTIRE time?

 Wolfblade wrote:

4. You missed the point. Replace "invisible unicorn" with "demon" and "lives in my sock drawer" with "is possessing people".

 Wolfblade wrote:

5. Just because something is commonplace does not make it fact. (That's the "Mob Appeal" fallacy btw)

 Wolfblade wrote:

6. Good strawman, I didn't say everyone who believes in religion OR demons is nuts. I said believing in demonic possession are nutjobs.

 Wolfblade wrote:

7. What does any of that have to do with what I said?
9. Was any of it not anecdotal evidence?.
10. No, I said I don't know enough, then took a stab in the dark at why it might be working. I could be totally right, or totally wrong I don't know as I said

 Wolfblade wrote:

"In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:

"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"
"information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"

 Wolfblade wrote:

There's the definition of basically every bit of "evidence" you've tried to use. Including the bible, which is a terrible source as not only was it written well after Jesus's death, but also heavily altered.

 Orlanth wrote:
Faith is not mutually exclusive with evidence. You can believe because of what you know or what you presume.

{same old already addressed claims about how you evidence isn't garbage}

However in law evidence such as this can send a man to prison. i.e testimony has validity.

Where do you get the doctrine that the Bible it has been heavily altered. Other than wishful thinking and handwaves.

 Peregrine wrote:

IOW: "UR SO BIASED YOU HATE GOD". No matter how many times you repeat it that doesn't make your evidence any better.

 Peregrine wrote:

Consider homeopathy in comparison. The supposed mechanism behind it is incoherent nonsense, and it has failed miserably in controlled trials. When we dismiss isolated anecdotes of "this water totally healed me guys, spend all of your money on it!" with "show me the successful controlled trials" very few people would think it would be reasonable to argue that we're just biased and afraid to admit that homeopathy works. Most people would recognize the obvious: that the pro-homeopathy side has done a terrible job of proving their case and they need better evidence before belief in homeopathy is a reasonable thing. But somehow, when it comes to god, the standards change completely and this garbage evidence must be accepted or you're biased against religion.

 Peregrine wrote:

You can play that game, but a game is all it will ever be. Arguing "BUT I HAVE SO MUCH HISTORY" will never be a credible argument.

 Peregrine wrote:

And eventually the same will happen with religion.

 Peregrine wrote:

Why am I not the judge? Because I disagree with your opinion?

 Peregrine wrote:

Have you heard of the revised calendar for ancient middle east history. .....

{citation needed}

 Peregrine wrote:

Could you give some more information on this? Searching for "revised middle east calendar" turns up nothing, and the only ~300 year "gap" in history that comes up is some fringe theory that mainstream historians don't take seriously at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

Also, there's a huge difference between using the bible as a historical source and believing all of its religious claims.

 Peregrine wrote:

You can give your own testimony but the changed life must be witnessed properly over time for any validity to be placed by a claim.

And this is what I mean about garbage evidence. A "changed life" isn't evidence for the truth of your religion, just like the happy marriage you have after you stubbornly believe that your spouse is faithful doesn't change the fact that they're cheating on you. It is entirely possible to have positive results from believing a lie, so no amount of "believing in this changed my life" is credible evidence that the belief is true.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

2. Actually it IS the scientific one. As far as science goes, there has been exactly zero legit proof of any god whatsoever. And my mind isn't closed, if you brought me real, tangible proof of god/demons/the invisible unicorn in the sock drawer, I'd accept it and change my view on reality. Until the day you actually provide said proof, I'm just going to keep dismissing god/demons/the invisible unicorn in the sock drawer.

Go ahead, but that is your choice. However there is evidence out there. I gave some very strong secularly verifiable evidence on the other thread. How a unique prediction event in human history occurred when a two and a half millenia old prophecy was enacted to the day as it was predicted, and its enaction was dependent on too many factors to be feasibly manipulable. This event being the foundation of Israel in 1948.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
4. You missed the point. Replace "invisible unicorn" with "demon" and "lives in my sock drawer" with "is possessing people".

Your point is not valid. There is no historicity for belief n invisible unicorns,.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

6. Good strawman, I didn't say everyone who believes in religion OR demons is nuts. I said believing in demonic possession are nutjobs.

Not a strawman. As explained the theology of demon possession is mainstream teaching. Jesus preached on it and delivered possessed people according to Bible witness.

 Orlanth wrote:
Mark 16:17 :And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues.

Luke 8:26-29 26 So they arrived in the region of the Gerasenes across the lake from Galilee. 27 As Jesus was climbing out of the boat, a man who was possessed by demons came out to meet him. For a long time he had been homeless and naked, living in the tombs outside the town. 28 As soon as he saw Jesus, he shrieked and fell down in front of him. Then he screamed, “Why are you interfering with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Please, I beg you, don’t torture me!” 29 For Jesus had already commanded the evil[b] spirit to come out of him.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

"In science, definitions of anecdotal evidence include:

"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"
"information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"

However in law evidence such as this can send a man to prison. i.e testimony has validity.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

You can give your own testimony but the changed life must be witnessed properly over time for any validity to be placed by a claim.

And this is what I mean about garbage evidence. A "changed life" isn't evidence for the truth of your religion, just like the happy marriage you have after you stubbornly believe that your spouse is faithful doesn't change the fact that they're cheating on you. It is entirely possible to have positive results from believing a lie, so no amount of "believing in this changed my life" is credible evidence that the belief is true.

Your example isn't a good analogy for a 'changed life'. A cheating wife who returns to her husband contrite and never cheating again and seeking forgiveness is a changed life analogy. In fact its a Biblical one and the very example is used several ties in the Old and New Testaments.

 Peregrine wrote:

No. The definition of faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 IllumiNini wrote:


1948 an oddly specific number to supposedly be written into a text that was written and compiled thousands of years ago. Not only that, it's definitely not a stretch of imagination or fact to say that they used a different calendar system to the one we use in relatively modern history. And even if we disregard the date and focus on the event as well as the prophecy predicting just the event, a quick Google search will bring up any number of articles that go on to explain why the prophecy wasn't fulfilled.

 IllumiNini wrote:

I'm sorry, but the way I see it is that this is one of those things that is a real stretch at best and is only strengthened in your mind by your faith.

 IllumiNini wrote:

He also supposedly fed a large amount of people with an apparently insufficient amount of food, cured afflictions such as blindness, and so on, but it makes a lot more logical sense to take these sorts of stories as metaphors and/or stories that are trying to teach us something. Same thing goes for Daemon Possession. How do you (or any of us for that matter) know whether or not he was trying to preach metaphorically and/or trying to teach us a lesson?

 IllumiNini wrote:

Quoting the Bible isn't going to help you here, and nor is it evidence. As Peregrine said with the historians and 9/11 example, we have no way for filtering the truth from everything else and thus discerning whether or not daemons and daemonic possession are real from the Bible is impossible.

 Wolfblade wrote:

But we're not in a court of law. We're debating the validity of the existence of a God or set of Gods, thus what flies in a court of law doesn't necessarily hold up here.

 Orlanth wrote:
Your argument would be better received if you werent so consistently poisonous about belief in God. You have every right not to believe, less right to ridicule people who do, or just handwave discourse away without ever giving reasoning as to why.

You have very consitently said the evidence is rubbish. You have never articulated why it s rubbish. Partly beause that would involve looking at the evidence, and you prefer to dismiss it a priori.

Most forms of Christianity is against homeopathy, but the reasons vary. Homeopathy derives and presumed power from potentisation. Solutions are diluted to an extent that you could replace the original mixture with radiactive waste dilute it directly and end up with something potable. As each stage dilutes the solution by approx 99%, and there are normally up to about thirty stages of dilution. Potentisation is a faith based process, as despite the extemely heavy levels of dilution a solution that is purportedly stronger as it becomes more dilute.
Chemically it makes no sense, theologically the options are open, it can make perfect sense, as the potentisation is a personal process. Practitioners are instructed not to just diluted and that doesnt work, it is beleived by homeopathy practioners there is an impartation during the shaking which should be by hand. It is similar in some ways to spiritism, this is why most churches have little to do with homeopathy, as it only makes any sense if it involves spiritual processes, and ones that are as far as we are aware not of God.

it has already happened. in China there are brutal persecutions of the church justified on the grounds that man has outgrown religion.
The Chinee authorities found a phenomenon they couldnt undestsand though. The more Christians they imprisoned and brutalised the faster the church grew.

Because you gave your verdict before seeing any of the evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Rohl)

This is true, but the corroboration throws cold water on the popular assumption by critics that the Bible must be just a book to fairy tales with zero basis in fact.

Your example isn't a good analogy for a 'changed life'. A cheating wife who returns to her husband contrite and never cheating again and seeking forgiveness is a changed life analogy. In fact its a Biblical one and the very example is used several ties in the Old and New Testaments.

 Orlanth wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
1948 an oddly specific number to supposedly be written into a text that was written and compiled thousands of years ago. Not only that, it's definitely not a stretch of imagination or fact to say that they used a different calendar system to the one we use in relatively modern history. And even if we disregard the date and focus on the event as well as the prophecy predicting just the event, a quick Google search will bring up any number of articles that go on to explain why the prophecy wasn't fulfilled.

it does indeed use a different calendar system, the Jewish religious calendar. Which is still in continuous use today. It is exact according to that calendar.

Let us see:

http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm

 Orlanth wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
I'm sorry, but the way I see it is that this is one of those things that is a real stretch at best and is only strengthened in your mind by your faith.

Prediction is still accurate to the day based on known biblical start dates for the chronology, the exile and the return to build the temple of Jerusalem.

 Orlanth wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:
He also supposedly fed a large amount of people with an apparently insufficient amount of food, cured afflictions such as blindness, and so on, but it makes a lot more logical sense to take these sorts of stories as metaphors and/or stories that are trying to teach us something. Same thing goes for Daemon Possession. How do you (or any of us for that matter) know whether or not he was trying to preach metaphorically and/or trying to teach us a lesson?

I can go along with metaphor, but if so a metaphor for what?

 Orlanth wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

Quoting the Bible isn't going to help you here, and nor is it evidence. As Peregrine said with the historians and 9/11 example, we have no way for filtering the truth from everything else and thus discerning whether or not daemons and daemonic possession are real from the Bible is impossible.

I am not trying to prove anything to you. I know better, there will be no absolute proof until the second coming.

I am pointing out that demonology is mainstream Christin teaching, not fringe teaching. It is no more outlandish than believing that Jesus is God, which is a belief that doesnt attract ridicule from anyone but rolls.

Former presumptive Republican presidential nominee and comedian Donald Trump’s polling performance among likely voters has taken surprising upswing.

The poll response comes on the heels of Trump unveiling a surprisingly softer tone at a rally yesterday.

“Don’t worry about race or religion, you’re all doomed and will cave to my power,” said Trump in blend of several voices. “To me you are but flesh, equally weak and in need of my intervention. There is no Donald, there is only Baal.”

Trump went on to completely abandon his harsh immigration stances.

“Building a wall and banning Muslim entry would mean less soldiers for my dark army,” said Trump. “We need to support our troops by bringing in more!”

According to political analyst and occult expert Rupert Giles, Trump was displaying classical signs of demonic possession.

“If confirmed, this would be the first candidate to suffer from demonic possession since Goldwater,” said Pope Barry Manilow II, a demonic possession hobbyist.

Even some of the more Christian conservatives were more accepting of the Baal-possessed Trump.

Baal Trump even received an endorsement from formal rival Ted Cruz.

“Hillary is pretty damn evil, and so was Trump,” said the Zodiac Killer. “But I think we can all agree that there is nothing on Baal’s public record that shows it is more evil than Hillary or Trump. I’m willing to hitch my wagon and see where this ride takes us.”

Orlanth wrote:Historians were forced to conclude there was three hundred year dark age in which no recorded text survives despite adjacent copies of texts from before and after that time. When they got over their dogma of not using Biblical sources as historical sources the timeline was 'repaired' without the three hundred year gap and the history of the ancient middle east made sense.

Good Omens (by Pratchett & Gaiman) wrote:
..Many phenomena — wars, plagues, sudden audits — have been advanced as evidence for the hidden hand of Satan in the affairs of Man, but whenever students of demonology get together the M25 London orbital motorway is generally agreed to be among the top contenders for Exhibit A...

...Most of the members of the convent were old-fashioned Satanists, like their parents and grandparents before them. They'd been brought up to it and weren't, when you got right down to it, particularly evil. Human beings mostly aren't. They just get carried away by new ideas, like dressing up in jackboots and shooting people, or dressing up in white sheets and lynching people, or dressing up in tie-dye jeans and playing guitars at people. Offer people a new creed with a costume and their hearts and minds will follow...

...There were people who called themselves Satanists who made Crowley squirm. It wasn't just the things they did, it was the way they blamed it all on Hell. They'd come up with some stomach-churning idea that no demon could have thought of in a thousand years, some dark and mindless unpleasantness that only a fully-functioning human brain could conceive, then shout "The Devil Made Me Do It" and get the sympathy of the court when the whole point was that the Devil hardly ever made anyone do anything. He didn't have to.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Your argument would be better received if you werent so consistently poisonous about belief in God. You have every right not to believe, less right to ridicule people who do, or just handwave discourse away without ever giving reasoning as to why.

You have very consitently said the evidence is rubbish. You have never articulated why it s rubbish. Partly beause that would involve looking at the evidence, and you prefer to dismiss it a priori.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Don't do this. Also, I have articulated why your evidence is rubbish, you just don't like the answer.

 Peregrine wrote:

You're completely missing the point here. I'm not arguing that homeopathy is valid, or that Christianity supports homeopathy. I'm pointing out the fact that the kind of "evidence" you keep trying to provide in support of your religion is the same kind of "evidence" that we throw out as obvious garbage when it comes to homeopathy. You're trying to set a much more generous standard for what counts as evidence for your own religion.

 Peregrine wrote:

No, that's not what I'm talking about at all. Religion will not end because the state oppresses it and ends it by force, nor do I support that. Religion will end when people say "you know, this is pretty silly" and stop believing.

 Peregrine wrote:

And of course the church grew under persecution, that's what happens when you make martyrs out of people and inspire sympathy for their position. That, of course, does not mean that the beliefs of the church are true..

 Peregrine wrote:

And here's a nice quote from that:

Egyptologists have not adopted the New Chronology, continuing to employ the standard chronology in mainstream academic and popular publications.

 Peregrine wrote:

Your supposed victory for bible-based history is actually nothing more than a fringe theory that is not taken seriously by mainstream historians.

 Peregrine wrote:

This is true, but the corroboration throws cold water on the popular assumption by critics that the Bible must be just a book to fairy tales with zero basis in fact.

Please don't make straw man arguments. Nobody is claiming that the bible contains no truth at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

Even other books of fairy tales (which everyone, including the authors, understands are fairy tales) often include some elements of the real world in the stories. What people are actually arguing is that the parts of the bible that are relevant to theology (IOW, not the random background events/places that have little to do with the story of Jesus) have little or no basis in fact.

 Peregrine wrote:

It isn't intended to be a direct analogy for a "changed life". It's simply illustrating the point that sincere belief in something, even sincere belief that allows you to change your life, does not mean that the thing you believe in is true.

 Orlanth wrote:


My points on homeopathy stand as a reference, also to show a distinction. Homeopathy is not a good parallel to religion in general.
Also homeopathy has its adherents in medical profession. For example you can get it on the NHS, whereas you cant get faith treatments on the NHS. Homeopathy might not be universally recognised, far from it, there is opposition indeed calls for it to be removed from the NHS and similar organisations in other European countries. But there is support from a number of qualified doctors and healthcare professionals, and governmental health bodies have decided to continue to fund its application for public healthcare in several countries including the UK. Those are flat facts.
It is in decline though.

Homeopathy is not available on the NHS in all areas of the country. Two NHS hospitals provide homeopathy, and some GP practices also offer it.

 Ketara wrote:

Good Omens (by Pratchett & Gaiman) wrote:...There were people who called themselves Satanists who made Crowley squirm. It wasn't just the things they did, it was the way they blamed it all on Hell. They'd come up with some stomach-churning idea that no demon could have thought of in a thousand years, some dark and mindless unpleasantness that only a fully-functioning human brain could conceive, then shout "The Devil Made Me Do It" and get the sympathy of the court when the whole point was that the Devil hardly ever made anyone do anything. He didn't have to.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Good Omens (by Pratchett & Gaiman) wrote:...There were people who called themselves Satanists who made Crowley squirm. It wasn't just the things they did, it was the way they blamed it all on Hell. They'd come up with some stomach-churning idea that no demon could have thought of in a thousand years, some dark and mindless unpleasantness that only a fully-functioning human brain could conceive, then shout "The Devil Made Me Do It" and get the sympathy of the court when the whole point was that the Devil hardly ever made anyone do anything. He didn't have to.

Reminds me of a scene from Lucifer (the TV series) where he gets right pissed at being blamed for every nasty thing people think up to do to other people. I tried to find a clip but couldn't. Was a great scene.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Do you believe in witchcraft Orlanth?

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Do you believe in witchcraft Orlanth?

As a witch, I can tell you that Wiccan beliefs don't really have this kind of involuntary possession.

Without a belief in hell or heaven, demons are right out- although we do recognize spirits aplenty, of the benevolent and pernicious variety. But those that would take over a human host that didn't invite them in is not a belief we hold.

I also am quite curious to hear Orlanths answer. His beliefs are fervent, and curiouser and curiouser.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
It's ridiculous to see this thread devolve into a shouting match between members of different view points when it comes to faith.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
The point of debate is to produce an argument that renders response impossible.

 IllumiNini wrote:


Even so, that still leaves a large number of articles (which, as I said, can be obtained by a quick Google search) that seem to discredit the fulfillment of this prophecy using logical deduction. Care to address those (or at least their existence)?

 IllumiNini wrote:

I'm sorry, but I don't see it. Based on my Google searches, it seems like two dots are being connected out of convenience rather than because they should actually be connected.

 IllumiNini wrote:

I honestly don't know what for because I haven't given it any thought in the better part of a decade, but think about it from a purely logical stand-point (and by that I mean try to ignore the conviction your faith allows): How am I (as an agnostic) supposed to believe that Jesus fed a whole bunch of people with a less than adequate amount of food? From a purely logical standpoint, that's impossible - no two ways about it; so how could it be anything but a metaphorical story or a lesson in something?

 IllumiNini wrote:

But whether or not Jesus is God as an actual fact that can be verified by the non-believing public is not being brought into question in this thread. The idea of daemons and daemonic possession is.

 Orlanth wrote:

The existence of the demonic is a core Biblical principle, from inception to today. The Lords Prayer includes the line 'deliver us from the evil' with evil in this context meaning the demonic.
It is not a fringe belief but a core tenet of the churches and always has been. It cant be separated out of Christianity, or the rest of the Judaic religions.

 r_squared wrote:
Apart from the fascinating back and forth about evidence, the real world tragedies endured by this "belief" are having horrific consequences for real people and children the world over.

 r_squared wrote:

Torture, mutilations and death are frequent results endured by innocent and vulnerable people by those acting on their "faith".

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/01/accusations-witchcraft-pattern-child-abuse

https://www.google.com.cy/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6416/1/RR750.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwix8vLWq77OAhUKvRoKHbLwBHgQFggeMAI&usg=AFQjCNHkBOWQAjaU2jtyzVZuQp08F4BpIg

 r_squared wrote:

I'd like to hear your justifications for the continuation of this barbaric and primitive belief system.

 r_squared wrote:

Real people are dying horrible deaths, and you are stubbornly refusing to relinquish the idea that somehow this absurd idea is anything other than fantasy.

 r_squared wrote:

and you are stubbornly refusing to relinquish the idea that somehow this absurd idea is anything other than fantasy.

 Orlanth wrote:

It is not a fringe belief but a core tenet of the churches and always has been. It cant be separated out of Christianity, or the rest of the Judaic religions.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The line is "deliver us from evil", not "the evil".

 LordofHats wrote:
No its not. Not even remotely. On either count. Prior to the Crusading era, Christians had few if any beliefs about Demons or the Devil.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

It is not a fringe belief but a core tenet of the churches and always has been. It cant be separated out of Christianity, or the rest of the Judaic religions.

No its not. Not even remotely. On either count. Prior to the Crusading era, Christians had few if any beliefs about Demons or the Devil. A lot of beliefs now held as "definitive" by many Christians don't originate in the Bible at all or even from the Church, but from fiction works of the late Renaissance and early Enlightenment (Dante, Milton, and Marlowe are major contributors).

 LordofHats wrote:

The idea that the Devil is an actual person as opposed to a metaphor for "personal sin resulting from the fall of man" (as defined by Augustine of Hippo in his theodicy) is actually face lifted into Christianity from Islam.

 LordofHats wrote:

Christians picked it up during the Crusading Era, and became widely popularized by Calvinism and the Counter Reformation. Virtually all early Christians rejected the idea of demons or the Devil as the source of human evil because they inherited a huge chunk of Greek philosophy on the "problem of evil" and like Greek scholars largely resolved the problem by attributing evil to the abuse of free will, not some mean spirit whispering bad thoughts into your ear.

 LordofHats wrote:

Judaism (at least Rabbinic Judaism, which modern Judaic traditions almost completely descend from) contains few if any beliefs about Demons. Ancient Judaic practices codified demons in a manner completely different from anything discussed in this thread.

 Smacks wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
No its not. Not even remotely. On either count. Prior to the Crusading era, Christians had few if any beliefs about Demons or the Devil.

There are passages in the New Testament that appear to deal directly with daemonic possession (Mark 5:2, Jesus performs an exorcism). The "evil spirits" calling themselves Legion, even beg Jesus not to banish them, and to let them possess a heard of pigs instead. That doesn't sound "metaphorical", it sounds like exactly the same literal interpretation of daemonic possession that is popular today, and it's taken directly from the New Testament. That would seem to be at odds with your assertion that Christian beliefs in Daemons doesn't originate from the Bible.

 Orlanth wrote:
What! We have surviving manuscript Bibles predating the renaissance that have the same content as today, and the New Testament has clear reference to demons.

Strange that the Devil is also mentioned in the book of Job, the earliest written part of the Old Testament, and is referenced in the Pentateuch.

Demonology and sources of evil are not necessarily the same. Deliverence theology doesn't anywhere include and ideology that a demon must be the source of any or all sin.

This doesn't correspond to the plain open text of the Old Testament.

 LordofHats wrote:


I said beliefs about demons, not in demons. Demons have always been a feature of Middle Eastern religious traditions, but what we now call Demons has little relation to that tradition. The word Demon comes from Daemon, which is Greek and in Greek culture Daemons were neither inherently evil nor inherently good. In the ancient Middle East, these spirits had a lot of names. Judaism called them Shedim (this word only appears twice in the Babylonian/Jerusalem Tanakh to give context for how nonexistent these spirits fit in the religious tradition Christianity came out of). These spirits were not fallen angels, or out to get you, they weren't even necessarily "evil" hence why Matthew specified them as evil spirits.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
What! We have surviving manuscript Bibles predating the renaissance that have the same content as today, and the New Testament has clear reference to demons.

It makes clear reference to things we now interpret as demons. There's a difference.

 LordofHats wrote:

Strange that the Devil is also mentioned in the book of Job, the earliest written part of the Old Testament, and is referenced in the Pentateuch.

No a figure called Satan is mentioned in the Book of Job.

Job 1:6-8
6 One day the angels came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan also came with them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “Where have you come from?”
Satan answered the Lord, “From roaming throughout the earth, going back and forth on it.”
8 Then the Lord said to Satan, “Have you considered my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him; he is blameless and upright, a man who fears God and shuns evil.”

Luke 10:18-19
18 And He [Jesus] said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.

Revelation 12:9
9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

 LordofHats wrote:

I'm talking about what ancient Christians believed.

 LordofHats wrote:

This doesn't correspond to the plain open text of the Old Testament.

As stated above, the Jewish word for "demon" only appears twice in the Old Testament.

 Smacks wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
No its not. Not even remotely. On either count. Prior to the Crusading era, Christians had few if any beliefs about Demons or the Devil.

There are passages in the New Testament that appear to deal directly with daemonic possession (Mark 5:2, Jesus performs an exorcism). The "evil spirits" calling themselves Legion, even beg Jesus not to banish them, and to let them possess a heard of pigs instead. That doesn't sound "metaphorical", it sounds like exactly the same literal interpretation of daemonic possession that is popular today, and it's taken directly from the New Testament. That would seem to be at odds with your assertion that Christian belief in Daemons doesn't originate from the Bible.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The line is "deliver us from evil", not "the evil".

There is no consensus as to whether the evil referred to is just general evil or the devil.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Go read the Catholic Catechism on www.vatican.va. Mark 5:2 explains the relationship between the sick and God. The term "sick" or "sickness" is mentionned 60 times on this article, and "demons" only once, and only as a quote of the original text.

vatican.va wrote:2851 In this petition, evil is not an abstraction, but refers to a person, Satan, the Evil One, the angel who opposes God. The devil (dia-bolos) is the one who "throws himself across" God's plan and his work of salvation accomplished in Christ.

 Smacks wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Go read the Catholic Catechism on www.vatican.va. Mark 5:2 explains the relationship between the sick and God. The term "sick" or "sickness" is mentionned 60 times on this article, and "demons" only once, and only as a quote of the original text.

A link to the specific article you want me to read would be helpful. I had a look at vatican.va for texts pertaining to the exorcism at Gerasene but the Catechism appears to be organised by themed ideas rather than passage.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4K.HTM wrote:Illness in human life

1500 Illness and suffering have always been among the gravest problems confronted in human life. In illness, man experiences his powerlessness, his limitations, and his finitude. Every illness can make us glimpse death.

1501 Illness can lead to anguish, self-absorption, sometimes even despair and revolt against God. It can also make a person more mature, helping him discern in his life what is not essential so that he can turn toward that which is. Very often illness provokes a search for God and a return to him.

The sick person before God

1502 The man of the Old Testament lives his sickness in the presence of God. It is before God that he laments his illness, and it is of God, Master of life and death, that he implores healing.98 Illness becomes a way to conversion; God's forgiveness initiates the healing.99 It is the experience of Israel that illness is mysteriously linked to sin and evil, and that faithfulness to God according to his law restores life: "For I am the Lord, your healer."100 The prophet intuits that suffering can also have a redemptive meaning for the sins of others.101 Finally Isaiah announces that God will usher in a time for Zion when he will pardon every offense and heal every illness.102

Christ the physician

1503 Christ's compassion toward the sick and his many healings of every kind of infirmity are a resplendent sign that "God has visited his people"103 and that the Kingdom of God is close at hand. Jesus has the power not only to heal, but also to forgive sins;104 he has come to heal the whole man, soul and body; he is the physician the sick have need of.105 His compassion toward all who suffer goes so far that he identifies himself with them: "I was sick and you visited me."106 His preferential love for the sick has not ceased through the centuries to draw the very special attention of Christians toward all those who suffer in body and soul. It is the source of tireless efforts to comfort them.

1504 Often Jesus asks the sick to believe.107 He makes use of signs to heal: spittle and the laying on of hands,108 mud and washing.109 The sick try to touch him, "for power came forth from him and healed them all."110 and so in the sacraments Christ continues to "touch" us in order to heal us.

1505 Moved by so much suffering Christ not only allows himself to be touched by the sick, but he makes their miseries his own: "He took our infirmities and bore our diseases."111 But he did not heal all the sick. His healings were signs of the coming of the Kingdom of God. They announced a more radical healing: the victory over sin and death through his Passover. On the cross Christ took upon himself the whole weight of evil and took away the "sin of the world,"112 of which illness is only a consequence. By his passion and death on the cross Christ has given a new meaning to suffering: it can henceforth configure us to him and unite us with his redemptive Passion.

"Heal the sick . . ."

1506 Christ invites his disciples to follow him by taking up their cross in their turn.113 By following him they acquire a new outlook on illness and the sick. Jesus associates them with his own life of poverty and service. He makes them share in his ministry of compassion and healing: "So they went out and preached that men should repent. and they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many that were sick and healed them."114

1507 The risen Lord renews this mission ("In my name . . . they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."115) and confirms it through the signs that the Church performs by invoking his name.116 These signs demonstrate in a special way that Jesus is truly "God who saves."117

1508 The Holy Spirit gives to some a special charism of healing118 so as to make manifest the power of the grace of the risen Lord. But even the most intense prayers do not always obtain the healing of all illnesses. Thus St. Paul must learn from the Lord that "my grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness," and that the sufferings to be endured can mean that "in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his Body, that is, the Church."119

1509 "Heal the sick!"120 The Church has received this charge from the Lord and strives to carry it out by taking care of the sick as well as by accompanying them with her prayer of intercession. She believes in the life-giving presence of Christ, the physician of souls and bodies. This presence is particularly active through the sacraments, and in an altogether special way through the Eucharist, the bread that gives eternal life and that St. Paul suggests is connected with bodily health.

 Smacks wrote:
In any case, I'm not usually impressed by "interpretations", generally viewing them as clumsy revisionism.

 Smacks wrote:
Incidentally, while I was browsing the Catechism index entry for Demons, I cam across a reference to the "evil" in the lord's prayer, this is what it says...

vatican.va wrote:2851 In this petition, evil is not an abstraction, but refers to a person, Satan, the Evil One, the angel who opposes God. The devil (dia-bolos) is the one who "throws himself across" God's plan and his work of salvation accomplished in Christ.

 IllumiNini wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:
It's ridiculous to see this thread devolve into a shouting match between members of different view points when it comes to faith.

Though I am part of said devolving, I think that - if nothing else - it's important to realise that the existence of daemons and daemonic possession almost surely relies on faith and belief (i.e. relies on Christianity or Islam) before you can consider it a possibility and thus make sense of it.

That being said, I was hoping we could have ended the religion side and come to a conclusion about the psychiatrist in question, but alas: This is Dakka. < Insert 300 Movie Meme >

 BigWaaagh wrote:
The point of debate is to produce an argument that renders response impossible.

The point of a debate is to reach a rational, logical, and agreed-upon solution/conclusion. Rending any response impossible is not the point of a debate.

 Orlanth wrote:
You mean its rubbish because its rubbish. You posted no reasons.

Homeopathy is not a good parallel to religion in general.

You don't understand why China is a good example of your error.

The trouble with wikipedia is that it a collage of data. Read the next line.

"By contrast, other Egyptologists recognise the value of Rohl's work in challenging the bases of the Egyptian chronological framework."

Actually atheists have been trying to say that a lot.

They say that too. Which is why I can point out and say that Biblical prophecy promise the return of Israel, i.e. the religious stuff, not the David was King history stuff. this was accomplished with the rebuilding of Jerusalem, but the nation did not return, add in the sevenfold curse to the remain time and you come to a certain exact date in 1948....

 Orlanth wrote:
they were the exact same Biblical references to demons back before the renaissance

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

They are one and the same.

The (chief) fallen angel is described in Ezekiel 28:12–18

Luke 10:18-19
18 And He [Jesus] said to them, “I was watching Satan fall from heaven like lightning.

Revelation 12:9
9 And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Ancient Christians believed in the charismata and their closest counterpart is the modern charismatic church.

The Book of Acts is clear about the nature of the churches beliefs and practices, and thy certainly beleived in deliverance, in the devil/Satan.

It need not do more than that. Evidently it is Biblical.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
τοῦ πονηροῦ translates directly to "the evil one".

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
You mean its rubbish because its rubbish. You posted no reasons.

Going to resort to outright lying, I see. I've posted reasons why your so-called evidence is garbage, you've just chosen to ignore them for some reason. But I'll post them again, just to be clear. All of your evidence falls into one of four categories:

 Peregrine wrote:

1) Using confirmation bias to turn anecdotes into "data".

 Peregrine wrote:

2) Testimony from people that consists of nothing more than "I believe in god". As I pointed out with the cheating spouse analogy the mere fact that belief in something was good for a person does not mean that the belief is true. So all of your examples of people saying "god changed my life" are proof that a lot of people believe in god's ability to change lives, they aren't proof that those people are correct in their beliefs.

 Peregrine wrote:

3) Vague statements about "I felt god's presence".

 Peregrine wrote:

4) Fringe theories of history that are not taken seriously by mainstream historians. Sorry, but all of that stuff about bible prophecies and alternate timelines is just garbage. The experts in the field have already thrown it out and only a few religious groups believe it is at all credible.

 Peregrine wrote:

So, there's some reasons. Whether or not I specifically listed one of your pieces of "evidence" it all falls into one of those categories.

 Peregrine wrote:

Your so-called evidence would be garbage if it were presented as proof for anything other than a religion that you already believe in.

 Peregrine wrote:

No, I simply reject the fact that China has anything to do with what I'm talking about. Ending a religion by government force and religion naturally fading away as people stop believing are two entirely different things. And, like it or not, religion is declining right now. The only question is whether this decline will stop at some point as the true faithful refuse to abandon their religions, or if it will continue on until believers are a small minority at most.

 Peregrine wrote:

Page after page of search results are all explicitly Christian churches and religious groups.

Also there are plenty of Egyptologists which support the New Chronology.
http://www.newchronology.org

 Peregrine wrote:

Actually atheists have been trying to say that a lot.

Please stop making blatant straw man arguments. "Some atheists" may say that the bible contains literally nothing that is true, but there are stupid people in pretty much any group.

 Peregrine wrote:

Could you provide some examples of mainstream historians accepting and commenting on the "prophecy" of Israel being founded in 1948? Because, based on a quick search, all of the claims seem to come from fringe Christian "end times" groups.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
So wait, does Orlanth believe in witchcraft or not?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
In any case, I'm not usually impressed by "interpretations", generally viewing them as clumsy revisionism.

Then you necessarily exclude Catholicism from a discussion that concerns Christianity as a whole. That seems right to you?

 Orlanth wrote:

'All testimonies are spurious/anecdotal', or 'confirmation bias'. You handwave away! How about people who woke up in morgues after being pronounced dead and having claim to have seen Jesus and been returned. People being healed of yet incurable diseases.

 LordofHats wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
τοῦ πονηροῦ translates directly to "the evil one".

It only directly translates to "evil." The reason it is often translated to "evil one" is because the word ponéros can be used as a masculine form (contextually "his evil"), and is often used as such contextually elsewhere in the New Testament, leading to the later singular translation at times being favored due to weight of usage. Alternatively however, within the whole of existing Koine Greek works, the use of ponéros as a masculine form is incredibly rare, which has been used to justify alternate translations of the verse to just be read as "evil." EDIT: The general "deliver us from evil" is probably more recognized in the English speaking world simply because of the prolific King James Bible so I wouldn't be surprised if most people are more familiar with that version. EDIT EDIT: oh, and of course the Gospel of Luke has an alternate version of the Prayer which doesn't reference the evil bit.

You can probably guess that which version a given translation supports, generally corresponds to how seriously the translators take Satan (proper noun) as a figure of Biblical texts

 insaniak wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

'All testimonies are spurious/anecdotal', or 'confirmation bias'. You handwave away! How about people who woke up in morgues after being pronounced dead and having claim to have seen Jesus and been returned. People being healed of yet incurable diseases.

I think this is the crux of where the disagreement comes from.

You're seeing things that you have no immediate explanation for, and assuming that God must have been responsible.

An atheist sees things they have no immediate explanation for, and wants proof of cause before concluding what happened.

 insaniak wrote:

Not understanding why something happened doesn't mean that magic caused it. Without some sort of proof that a supernatural being was involved, an atheist is going to consider that a doctor made a mistake before assuming that God brought someone back from the dead.

 Orlanth wrote:
Come back to me when someone wakes up in the morgue and says they were healed by Neitzche.

τοῦ πονηροῦ is in the definitive articular form. That's what τοῦ means. "The".

 Orlanth wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

'All testimonies are spurious/anecdotal', or 'confirmation bias'. You handwave away! How about people who woke up in morgues after being pronounced dead and having claim to have seen Jesus and been returned. People being healed of yet incurable diseases.

I think this is the crux of where the disagreement comes from.

You're seeing things that you have no immediate explanation for, and assuming that God must have been responsible.

An atheist sees things they have no immediate explanation for, and wants proof of cause before concluding what happened.

Come back to me when someone wakes up in the morgue and says they were healed by Neitzche.

 insaniak wrote:

Not understanding why something happened doesn't mean that magic caused it. Without some sort of proof that a supernatural being was involved, an atheist is going to consider that a doctor made a mistake before assuming that God brought someone back from the dead.

The clue is in the NDE testimony. So there is a logic to it. You are free to disbeleive in it as you will not be presented with proof as you cant read minds.
Not all NDE's are Christian, I will grant you that also.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

How often do people get resurrected these days?

Have I missed something? I think that would be front page news.

 Orlanth wrote:
Come back to me when someone wakes up in the morgue and says they were healed by Neitzche.

The clue is in the NDE testimony.

 insaniak wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

How often do people get resurrected these days?

Have I missed something? I think that would be front page news.

You still hear the odd story every now and then. It's usually put down to a misdiagnosis of a near-death coma.

 Orlanth wrote:
Come back to me when someone wakes up in the morgue and says they were healed by Neitzche.

People see all sorts of things during NDEs. I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here.

 insaniak wrote:
The clue is in the NDE testimony.

All that NDE testimony proves is that people having NDEs sometimes hallucinate. It's no more proof of anything than any other dream or hallucination, and this isn't changed by multiple people having similar hallucinations... just like multiple people dreaming they can fly doesn't mean that man secretly has the ability to do so.

 Orlanth wrote:
Before I challenge your four assumptions I will ask you to not cross the line and accuse me of lying.

On correction those were not anecdotes, because a large number of original sources are mulltiply sourced, this doesn't make them anecdotes. And there are plural of those.

Irrelevant. So long as lives are changed and there is corroboration of that, which a community can provide by knowing the person over time, then there is no reason to consider the cause to be baseless. However that is exactly what you do, you make definitive statement to say that the testimonies are 'bullgak', when results can be quantified. Furthermore you claim this is the case for all of them.

However no action is takes without multiple independent sourcing.

How about people who woke up in morgues after being pronounced dead and having claim to have seen Jesus and been returned.

People being healed of yet incurable diseases.

Find me any, even just one event that was predicted to the day centres ahead of its time by any secular means. We cant even do medium term weather predictions because chaos maths gets in the way.
Yet the restoration of Israel more than just stops a butterfly effect.

Thank you for the evidence of how far off the mark you are. So they are 'all explicitly religious sources'. All of them? Right. Let's see.

Answers in ing Genesis

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/07/why-atheists-dont-think-the-bibl-is-historically-reliable/

 Orlanth wrote:
they were the exact same Biblical references to demons back before the renaissance, th Bible has not changed, and some copies dating back into the medieval era and even some pre-medieval documents still exist.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Before I challenge your four assumptions I will ask you to not cross the line and accuse me of lying.

I'll stop accusing you of lying when you stop lying.

 Peregrine wrote:

Find me any, even just one event that was predicted to the day centres ahead of its time by any secular means. We cant even do medium term weather predictions because chaos maths gets in the way.
Yet the restoration of Israel more than just stops a butterfly effect.

Find me any bible prediction that was made in clear terms before the event happened.

 Peregrine wrote:

The "art" of bible prophecy is entirely in taking real-world events and finding ways, no matter how convoluted, to match them to something in the bible.

 Peregrine wrote:

Nobody in 1940 was saying "on May 14th 1948 Israel will be founded", they only decided that the founding of Israel on that date fit with some "prophecy" once it had already happened and they knew what real event they needed to interpret the text to refer to.

 Peregrine wrote:

PS: Christians can't even agree on whether this "prophecy" is true or not: http://www.bible.ca/premillennialism-rapture-replacement-theology-supersessionism-three-promises-abraham-fulfilled-israel-god-land-joshua-solomon.htm

 Peregrine wrote:

Thank you for the evidence of how far off the mark you are. So they are 'all explicitly religious sources'. All of them? Right. Let's see.

Yes, let's look at these sources. From a google search for "new chronology Rohl":

 Peregrine wrote:

Page after page of search results are all explicitly Christian churches and religious groups.

 Peregrine wrote:

Oh really? How do you provide "multiple independent sourcing" for a claim like yours about seeing a demon:

I only actually ever seen one once and only because I was allowed to do so by God.
The demon, one it knew I had seen it immediately fled and didn't leave treasure behind.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
So, what kind of loot do these demons drop? I've been farming for that epic sword I want and not having any luck, should I try Christian demons instead?

I choose to take your question at face value.

How would I know. I only actually ever seen one once and only because I was allowed to do so by God.
The demon, one it knew I had seen it immediately fled and didn't leave treasure behind.

Hope this helps a little.

 Orlanth wrote:
Enough. There still seems to be open license to troll me.

I am not mandated to agree with anyones opinion, that doesn't imply I don't understand them, I have and articulate my own points and reply properly om my detractors - on topic.

 Peregrine wrote:
Most likely they were "pronounced dead" before being actually "dead". Death is not a single point in time, it's a process of the body failing and shutting down. And if a person experiences something like this it's quite likely that their interpretation of the events will follow the "Christian near death experience" story that is common in our culture. I strongly suspect that if you look at these cases they involved people who were dying gradually, not from some catastrophic destruction of the body. You probably aren't going to be able to post any examples of, say, someone having their body blown apart from a direct hit from a tank shell miraculously waking up in the morgue and saying "hey, that Jesus guy is kind of neat".

The real question here is how do you deal with the experiences of people who had near-death experiences but claimed to encounter some other religion's god?

 Ketara wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Enough. There still seems to be open license to troll me.

I am not mandated to agree with anyones opinion, that doesn't imply I don't understand them, I have and articulate my own points and reply properly om my detractors - on topic.

Speaking as an impartial observer, you seem to spend more time ignoring the good points and answering the question you'd like to answer than anything else.

 Ketara wrote:

Anyone ever tell you you'd make a good politician?

 gunslingerpro wrote:
I want more LordofHats. The linguistic discussion and systematic breakdown of uses of devil/demon was far more interesting than anything else in this thread.