Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
2016/08/14 22:58:41
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
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.
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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/15 05:25:26
2016/08/15 05:14:12
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
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.
Did you just "QUOTE" yourself in a reply? Are the voices in your head talking to each other again? It may be a possession...
2016/08/15 05:26:06
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
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. You claimed that I have not said why I dismiss your claims when I clearly have (and I'm pretty sure we've even argued about those reasons for dismissing your claims). That is a lie.
Or, I suppose maybe you made a careless mistake and didn't bother to read or remember the posts you're arguing with. If you'd like to apologize for claiming that I haven't provided any reasons then I'll drop the accusation 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.
No part of the definition of "anecdote" requires that it be told by a single person. Your stories are anecdotes because they are unreliable stories of isolated incidents told without independent verification.
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.
And here you're completely missing the point. You have provided evidence that belief in Christianity can change lives. You have NOT provided evidence that Christianity is true. As I keep telling you belief in a false thing can have positive effects. You have to provide a lot more than people saying "I believe that god changed my life" for the claim that god changes lives to be credible.
However no action is takes without multiple independent sourcing.
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.
Do Christians have secret brain-recording technology that allows multiple independent sources for something like this?
How about people who woke up in morgues after being pronounced dead and having claim to have seen Jesus and been returned.
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?
People being healed of yet incurable diseases.
Likely either an incorrect diagnosis or they're the lucky 0.0001% that managed to fight off the disease. I'll just point out that you only have occasional isolated examples, not a consistent pattern of prayer curing people with "incurable" diseases that can be demonstrated in controlled trials (the usual standard for proving the effectiveness of a new treatment). If you take 1000 people with these diseases and pray for them at least 999 of them will probably die as expected. All you're really doing is the equivalent of looking at a plane crash where 99 of the 100 passengers died and saying "wow, what a miracle, isn't god great?". It's not persuasive at all unless you're starting from a position of "I want to believe that my god can do this".
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. 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. 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.
Ugh. That was way too much work to win a silly internet debate, but there's the first two pages of search results. Perhaps "they're all Christian" was exaggerated a bit since there was a single (apparently) secular source in there but that's a lot of endorsements from Christian groups. And, honestly, when Answers in Genesis is saying good things about your ideas you should really start worrying.
Do you understand the difference between "the bible is not reliable" and "the bible contains nothing at all that is true"? From your own link:
So Paul’s (authentic) letters may be a good source of information about the early church as Paul knew it, if you take into account that Paul was taking a side in fights within the early church and that may have distorted his reporting.
There's an atheist saying that the bible can be a historical source. If even your supposed link to an atheist saying that nothing in the bible is true or a valid source says the exact opposite I think it's safe to say that whoever these atheists are they're a pretty irrelevant minority.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/15 08:39:19
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/08/15 09:14:26
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
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.
This is not entirely true.
One, we know from fragmentary texts that the four standard books differ from the original two sources written during the lifetimes of the apostles (Mark and 'Q source' which has been unfortunately lost)
Two, The 'Codex Sinaiticus' was a product of the Synod of Hippo, which took place not all that long before in 393. While many people assume that the Council of Nicaea was the point at which the 'official' bible was sorted out, it wasn't really until the Synod of Hippo that was 'officially' recognized by a council of bishops, though Alexandria came close. It was then approved by Carthage and passed on to Rome.
Fate is in heaven, armor is on the chest, accomplishment is in the feet. - Nagao Kagetora
2016/08/15 11:59:48
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
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.
Ok we are done here. You persist in accusing me of lying, and don't support yourself with any quotes.
Yo disagree, faith enough, but that doesn't make me a liar.
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.
Well the prediction was written in the Old Testament.
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.
So you will be able to show examples then. If its art you can do it, take a biblical prophesy and apply it to Obama. There are fringe cases on YouTube doing just that. But that is completely different.
Also there was noting 'convoluted' in taking the timeline and multiplying by seven, the prescribed Biblical judgement. It is a straight forward mutiplication.
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.
That isn't the purpose of Biblical prophesy, I wont repeat because I explained earlier. If you wont read before you wont read again.
That is a fairly out there isite you have stumbled upon. You get those in every walk of life.
The fact that this guy exists doesn't mean that ancient historians are divided
What you are purporting is similar.
Also it doesn't link to or mention the turn prophecy at all, the author as a problem with Biblical eschatology.
He says that Abraham received all his promises, this is scriptural.
But uses this erroneously to claim that if Abrahams promises are fulfilled there is no Biblical purpose to retoring Israel.
He only says that because he wants to believe eschatology is a modern doctrine and not scriptural, even though Jesus clearly teached on the subject, and Daniel and Revelations are dominated by the subject.
It is a Christian site, the author understands salvation, but the author has messed up with fringe teaching and is trying to re-interpret huge swathes of the texts to make his 'point'.
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":
Good bit of handwaving. You had to dig through several pages to find them. I made no comment that religious people would not reference Rohl's work.
encountered your blantant denial saying that ALL the support was from
Page after page of search results are all explicitly Christian churches and religious groups.
You didnt just 'make an exagerration' you deliberately handwaved away information you didnt want to agree exists.
Whether you lied or just made the handwave comments wunthinkingly is not relevant.
There isn't any excuse, no matter how any links of church cased supporters of Rohl you can find. There are also secular archeological websites supporting Rohl, and Rohl himself is not part of any faith or religious group from what we know of him.
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.
That wasn't presented to the thread for that purpose. You made a joke comment, probably to troll, I responded to it as a jest rather than an insult.
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.
If you keep it in context there is nothing to try to base a theology here.
You have no ground to accuse anyone else of dishonesty.
Please stop this and debate honestly, or not at all.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2016/08/15 12:42:43
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
Stop with the "I'm not a liar, you're a liar, debate honestly or gtfo" nonsense. Anymore of that in this thread and someone is having a holiday. Keep it polite, that sort of arguing is most certainly not.
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
2016/08/15 13:29:39
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
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.
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.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2016/08/15 17:05:40
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
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.
Anyone ever tell you you'd make a good politician?
2016/08/15 17:22:09
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
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?
Not related to god since Buddhism has no belief in god per se but Buddhism has fairly detailed process of death(and indeed advocate you should do mental practice of it...). Starts with 4 elements(in order earth, water, fire and wind) breaking down with various external and internal signs and going from there to breakdown of mind.
Internally logical since Buddism states we are temporal composition of the 4 elements and mind.
And the process matches actually fairly well with stories of people that have gone through NDE.
2024 painted/bought: 109/109
2016/08/15 17:27:21
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
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.
Ok, fair enough, I can see why you thnk that.
I do however answer the points rather than just dismiss them, or disregard them. Nor do I imply that anyone else is an idiot or mad for not sharing my point of view, which should be forbidden frankly, and probalby is if applied to anyone else.
Good points are not ignored, they are just not dealt with in the same level of detail. Many here have politely held opposed views have been responded to by simply agreeing to disagree, which doesn't take many words.
Also a large percentage of the posts are directed at me specifically, and I cannot answer them all, or someone else answers them first. Which has happened with LordofHats content, which I largely disagreed with but was answered by others.
Anyone ever tell you you'd make a good politician?
I do work in this field, but never as a faceman.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/08/16 12:21:14
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2016/08/15 17:48:05
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
Your "evidence" is also "hand waved" away because it isn't evidence in the first place, or at least not the kind that's accepted (aka unverified anecdotal evidence, which means more or less a story/claim by someone that has no third party/impartial party/independent verification or collaborating evidence to confirm it). Everything you provided pretty much assumes you already believe in it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/16 12:21:44
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
2016/08/15 20:31:04
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
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.
I'd love to, but I don't really speak Greek (Koine, or any other variety for that matter), and my knowledge on that front is kind of at its end XD I'm just repeating what I've read.
"Deliver us from evil/the evil/his evil (etc.)" is interesting because its present in Matthew but completely vacant from the version given in Luke. Having the hypothetical Q Source would help a lot, because without it we can't really know if author(s) of Matthew added it or if the author(s) of Luke left it out, or why either would have made that alteration.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/15 20:31:43
-- I'm not going to address the prophecy regarding Isreal anymore because I remain entirely unconvinced and it appears so have you with regards to it being wrong. We could go in circles, but I personally doubt that many people (relatively speaking) outside Christianity will be particularly convinced.
-- Anecdotal evidence is still anecdotal evidence, regardless of how you define it. It does not stand up to the same standards of evidence used in scientific proof of a concept or object. This is not a Court of Law where testimony stands up on its own. Take, for example, the points on NDE's. I will refer you to what Insaniak said:
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.
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.
I know this is a snippet from the end of this particular sub-discussion, but they highlights a couple of very important points:
-- NDE experiences can be very similar. This may be due to the nature of the experience, the fact that many people commonly associate NDE's with religious experiences, a combination of both and or any other reasons.
-- Common experiences as a result of NDE's are not proof or evidence of a God or set of Gods. Even if we assume that they are, how do you know that it's the Christian God (and the Christian God only) that they're proof/evidence of?
My point is that in this example, you're connecting dots that, from a scientific standpoint, cannot be connected because we have no proof or evidence of said connection even being plausible (i.e. the connection between NDE's and the Christian God). It's anecdotal - it's not proof or evidence of anything and, from my standpoint, it looks like you're connecting dots because of your faith rather than actual proof/evidence.
Ultimately we have a lot of anecdotal evidence as presented by you to prove the existence of a specific God (and thus a religion) in order to support the claim that Daemons and Daemonic Possession exist. I feel that there needs to be a basis that is a lot more solid than that. I'm not in any way going to say that the Christian God, Daemons, and Daemonic Possession are real based on anecdotal evidence.
My point when saying all of this?
I remain entirely unconvinced of the existence of the Christian God as well as Daemons and their ability to possess humans, and I don't think that it's an unreasonable assumption to make that (whether they're vocal about it here or not) many other people share this stance..
By extension of this, I also think that this "Leading Psychiatrist" should no longer be allowed to practice this particular profession. Until the claims of at least Daemons and Daemonic Possession can be proven to be true, making such claims and diagnosing patients with being possessed by a daemon is highly irresponsible to the point where I think it should be criminal. Why is this "Leading Psychiatrist" allowed to take people's money (undoubtedly large amount of money, too) to misdiagnose someone with such a ludicrous condition?
Take for example bi-polar. It's documented many times over that there have been cases of misdiagnosis because periods of a person's life brought on by bi-polar can be akin to other disorders such as depression. So there is a precedent for misdiagnosis with regards to bi-polar. With the precedent of misdiagnosis based on similar symptoms in mind, I cannot think of any condition that is any way akin to daemonic possession whereby someone can be misdiagnosed to be possessed. And even if we assume that there is, it screams irresponsibility to the point of being criminal to diagnose someone with suffering from a daemonic possession (especially when it's a professional psychiatrist making the diagnosis) since Daemons and Daemonic Possession are not proven to exist and nor is Daemonic Possession (to my knowledge) recognised as a psychiatric condition.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/16 12:18:50
2016/08/16 07:42:39
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
Orlanth wrote: Well the prediction was written in the Old Testament.
Except, as I already pointed out, it wasn't predicted then. Nobody in 1940 was saying "on May 14th 1948 Israel will be founded", they waited until after the events of May 14th 1948 to go back and look at the bible and see if there's any way to interpret something to mean "on May 14th 1948 Israel will be founded". And that's how it always works. The prophecies are never specific enough that people are reading them and making predictions that will indisputably be true or false once the event happens or doesn't happen, it's always interpreting something that already happened as somehow matching the prophecy.
So you will be able to show examples then. If its art you can do it, take a biblical prophesy and apply it to Obama. There are fringe cases on YouTube doing just that. But that is completely different.
No, because then you'll dismiss it as a "fringe case" like the examples you just dismissed. But the fact that people are, as you said, applying bible prophecies to Obama demonstrates that it can be done.
Good bit of handwaving. You had to dig through several pages to find them. I made no comment that religious people would not reference Rohl's work.
encountered your blantant denial saying that ALL the support was from
Page after page of search results are all explicitly Christian churches and religious groups.
You didnt just 'make an exagerration' you deliberately handwaved away information you didnt want to agree exists.
Whether you lied or just made the handwave comments unthinkingly is not relevant.
No, what I said is correct. Once you filter out the search results that are either not sources at all (amazon links, etc) or opposed to Rohl and only look at the ones supporting Rohl's work you find that almost all of them are Christian groups. There's exactly one secular source in there, a journal that Rohl himself contributed to. All of the independent sources commenting on Rohl are either Christians or critical of his work. And included in those Christian supporters are Conservapedia and Answers in Genesis, two groups that rather well define "lunatic fringe". The absolute best that you can say is that I exaggerated a bit, but the substance of the comment remains true.
and Rohl himself is not part of any faith or religious group from what we know of him.
That's not the point. I'm not saying that Rohl's work is biased because of Jesus, I'm saying that Rohl's work is only taken seriously by Christian groups who like it for theological reasons. I doubt Rohl intended to appeal to fringe lunatics like Answers in Genesis or Conservapedia (a death sentence for the reputation of a serious scholar), he just proposed a theory that didn't work out very well with mainstream historians.
That wasn't presented to the thread for that purpose.
I don't care what the purpose of it is, all I care about is the content. You claimed personal experience of seeing a demon, I pointed out that this "evidence" is not reliable because you can't provide any confirmation outside of your own fallible memory. Obviously nobody is basing their entire theology on your single event.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/16 07:43:24
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
2016/08/16 10:24:51
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
Orlanth wrote: Well the prediction was written in the Old Testament.
Except, as I already pointed out, it wasn't predicted then. Nobody in 1940 was saying "on May 14th 1948 Israel will be founded", they waited until after the events of May 14th 1948 to go back and look at the bible and see if there's any way to interpret something to mean "on May 14th 1948 Israel will be founded". And that's how it always works.
Again you have this backwards. It is a process of discovery not manufacture.
The prophecies are never specific enough that people are reading them and making predictions that will indisputably be true or false once the event happens or doesn't happen.
The calculations could have been made at any time. Also you ignore the purpose of Biblical prophesy, it isn't a guide to future action, its a revelation of how God is in control. It is always only seen after the event. Now some events are chained together so people can read 'the signs' of the times. Nativity is an example, but those were mostly recognised afterwards, a few scholars excepted.
We do not know how many rabbis quietly read the signs before 1948 and kept it to themselves, maybe none maybe several.
Also Biblical prophesy is often recognised in retrospect because it is enacted by an opposed force. Sometimes the opposed force might know scripture and be blinded to its actions by God. A very good example here is the paying of thirty pieces of silver to Judas.
The last thing the chief priests would want to do at this time is to themselves fulfill messianic prophesy with regards to Jesus, after all they had just had him executed. Pay thirty pieces of silver! No, pay him twenty nine or thirty one. Judas commits suicide, use the funds to buy a potters field! No, buy different real estate elsewhere, or use the funds for a different purpose.
So you will be able to show examples then. If its art you can do it, take a biblical prophesy and apply it to Obama. There are fringe cases on YouTube doing just that. But that is completely different.
No, because then you'll dismiss it as a "fringe case" like the examples you just dismissed. But the fact that people are, as you said, applying bible prophecies to Obama demonstrates that it can be done.
You could apply that level of 'prediction' from a telephone directory. But people apply to to the Bible and make wild guesses because the Bible has a track record of providing the real thing, so fringe believers try their own hand at fitting the Bible. But you can tell the difference. The New Testament even helpfully warns believers that people with try this and that they should not be fooled.
The addition of mimicry doesn't invalidate the genuine works of Biblical numerology
That's not the point. I'm not saying that Rohl's work is biased because of Jesus, I'm saying that Rohl's work is only taken seriously by Christian groups who like it for theological reasons. I doubt Rohl intended to appeal to fringe lunatics like Answers in Genesis or Conservapedia (a death sentence for the reputation of a serious scholar), he just proposed a theory that didn't work out very well with mainstream historians.
Again mainstream historians are often in support. Some will be opposed because it includes the Bible and are there doctrinally rather than scientifically in opposition to it. We will always get that. But Rohl cleared up a lot of mess.
Support amongst academics is no universal and rarely is, even Rohls supporters have questions and most detractors, excepting those with an agenda find a measure of common ground.
There is nothing to say that Rohl's work has been discredited, it has been peer questioned, as it should
Also some of th sites you found while religious are also scholarly, Christians are not exempt from historical study, nor should their contribution be questioned simply because they are also believers. It would be an unfair standard to place on a history of the middle east to be atheists or agnostics only.
ne can even take an example in gaming. Remember Warhammer Ancient Battles?
The supplement chariot Wars covered army lists for the ancient middle east. There is a nice two page coverage of the New Chronology there on pages 5 and 6
You can find the .pdf on scribd but I wont link directly.
That wasn't presented to the thread for that purpose.
I don't care what the purpose of it is, all I care about is the content. You claimed personal experience of seeing a demon, I pointed out that this "evidence" is not reliable because you can't provide any confirmation outside of your own fallible memory. Obviously nobody is basing their entire theology on your single event.
Neither am I, so you should drop that. I responded to your gaming joke about whether demons dropped loot when defeated.
If you want to draw content from what you might as well draw your theology from Blizzard's Diablo.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2016/08/16 10:42:40
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
Orlanth, you seem to be cherry picking what is and is not "fringe" without any criteria. Why is the Israel prediction fine, but not about whatever ishe being applied to Obama?
And prophesy IS a prediction of the future, otherwise it's not much of a prophesy if you have to shoehorn it into fitting (I. E the Israel example).
As to the validity of using the bible to predict anything, I simply point to the countless doomsday prophesies that have all failed to come true.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/16 10:44:13
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
2016/08/16 10:49:05
Subject: Re:Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
Also Biblical prophesy is often recognised in retrospect because it is enacted by an opposed force. Sometimes the opposed force might know scripture and be blinded to its actions by God. A very good example here is the paying of thirty pieces of silver to Judas.
The last thing the chief priests would want to do at this time is to themselves fulfill messianic prophesy with regards to Jesus, after all they had just had him executed. Pay thirty pieces of silver! No, pay him twenty nine or thirty one. Judas commits suicide, use the funds to buy a potters field! No, buy different real estate elsewhere, or use the funds for a different purpose.
Alternatively the people who wrote the Bible put all that in specifically to tie Jesus to earlier prophecies, whether it actually happened or not, like the Roman census which was tweaked in order to put Jesus in Bethlehem at the time of his birth:
1) A Roman census only required the head of the family so why did Joseph drag his pregnant wife along and put her in a stable when she had family near the city? 2) Why would the Romans ask all of the families in the line of David to register in one city, when there had been 42 generations (according to the Bible) between David and Joseph. That would be a ridiculous number of people to be trekking across their land to one single city for no reason other than to get Jesus in the right place at the right time. 3) Why would the Romans care about the line of King David specifically when they already had a Jewish King, Herod? 4) The Bible puts the census during the time of Herod the Great, despite him being dead for 10 years at the time that the most likely census was carried out.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/16 11:00:06
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
2016/08/16 11:35:23
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
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.
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.
Assuming the NDE's are hallucinations, even in cases where there subject is braindead, these 'hallucinations' are often religious in nature. This could make sense if people are dying in bed and are thinking about the afterlife. But dreams don normally follow the mundane experience and this would not account for cases where the NDE followed a sudden accident and loss of consciousness.
Again there is the testimony side of things. Very many NDE experiences result in changed lives, as evidenced by third party witnesses (i.e not hearsay), and a personal assurance of the afterlife. being unafraid of mortality is of itself life changing.
I know this is a snippet from the end of this particular sub-discussion, but they highlights a couple of very important points:
-- NDE experiences can be very similar. This may be due to the nature of the experience, the fact that many people commonly associate NDE's with religious experiences, a combination of both and or any other reasons.
-- Common experiences as a result of NDE's are not proof or evidence of a God or set of Gods. Even if we assume that they are, how do you know that it's the Christian God (and the Christian God only) that they're proof/evidence of?
My point is that in this example, you're connecting dots that, from a scientific standpoint, cannot be connected because we have no proof or evidence of said connection even being plausible (i.e. the connection between NDE's and the Christian God). It's anecdotal - it's not proof or evidence of anything and, from my standpoint, it looks like you're connecting dots because of your faith rather than actual proof/evidence.
I agree, but I dont agree that my presense of faith is based on a lack of evidence.
One of the errors of the atheistic viewpoint is that it sees both a believers mind and their own from the same standpoint.
This is why many atheists are waiting for the time when a believer sees the same evidence the way they do, and therefore not believe.
It isn't the same evidence though. An atheist doesn't know the Holy Spirit, and cannot factor in this. They might have heard about the theology of the Holy Spirit, as a dry study, but they don't know Him. I do, as do many others. Yes I do answer based on my faith, but it is neither a blind faith, nor is it based on a choice from the same instructional set.
Had I no relationship with God, I might have chosen to believe with what evidence the Bible provides, I might be an agnostic, I might even have be persuaded to become an atheist.
I cant teach you the difference.
It is not possible for me to be entirely unbiased, but that is the same fo everyone frankly. But there are a lot of opponents who hate God. They don't believe in Him, fair enough, but for some reason have no problem with being particularly vicious about this. We see some of this on religion threads, we see this lot more in everyday reality.
Yes I connect the dots, as do other believers so does an atheist. We should however stop pretending it is an impartial study with no emotional investment.
I don't try to hide that, it would be futile for me to attempt such. But just look at the thread, the same is true for atheists also.
I should even perhaps stop using the term 'believer' in retrospect to refer to theists, as heartfelt belief oftimes describes both parties to this debate.
Ultimately we have a lot of anecdotal evidence as presented by you to prove the existence of a specific God (and thus a religion) in order to support the claim that Daemons and Daemonic Possession exist. I feel that there needs to be a basis that is a lot more solid than that. I'm not in any way going to say that the Christian God, Daemons, and Daemonic Possession are real based on anecdotal evidence.
I will be cautious before accepting evidence of God to be 'anecdotal', the best evidence should have corroboration, and the New Testament instructs that only corroborated witness is valid. Thus testimony considered valid by the standards of Bible teaching should not be 'anecdotes' but 'evidence'. There is some dishonesty going on in th churches sadly, and corroborated stories still need to be weighed.
That being said the evidence stops short of proof. A Christian can claim this is exactly how God wants it, until the Second Coming.
You are left free to decide, while God can engage the head, it's hearts He is after.
My point when saying all of this? I remain entirely unconvinced of the existence of the Christian God as well as Daemons and their ability to possess humans, and I don't think that it's an unreasonable assumption to make that (whether they're vocal about it here or not) many other people share this stance..
By extension of this, I also think that this "Leading Psychiatrist" should no longer be allowed to practice this particular profession. Until the claims of at least Daemons and Daemonic Possession can be proven to be true, making such claims and diagnosing patients with being possessed by a daemon is highly irresponsible to the point where I think it should be criminal. Why is this "Leading Psychiatrist" allowed to take people's money (undoubtedly large amount of money, too) to misdiagnose someone with such a ludicrous condition?
Point not accepted.
You have every right to choose to believe as you will. So does Dr Gallagher.
When you take that away or threaten to harm his career because he believed in things that you do not you are discriminating against him. You have no excuse or right to condemn him.
This is mentioned even though you have in fact also misjudged Dr Gallagher according to what we see in the OP. I am mentioning this in separation because even if you were right and Dr Gallagher was concluding that some of his patients were possessed, that remains a religious opinion. It is what he does with that info that is important.
From what we see in the OP, dr Gallagher is accompanying Catholic exorcists in their ministry. The Roman Catholic church responds to petitions for delivery from families and patients, it is the only time they respond. With full consent. They are not the Ordo Malleus. Psychiatrists are present by invitation as a safety feature and to reassure the patient families and also the priests as an independent witness in case of something going wrong or an accusation being made. It is easy to see why the exorcists would want an independent professional along.
Most tellingly Dr Gallagher says he dismisses the vast majority of cases as mental iillness. This also makes sense, patients cant really self diagnose, neither can families. Mentally il people could worry that demons are responsible for their illness. Dr Gallagher could see the signs of conventional mental illness and use his diagnostic skills for the benefit of the patient and exorcists both.
Maybe Dr Gallagher excepted to debunk all the patients with way, maybe not, we don't know his motives for accompanying the exorcists in their ministry. What we know is that some patients he couldn't diagnose, and found that for one reason other other possession remained a viable diagnosis. We dont know if those cases were cured or not by the exorcists, that info is not given to us. All else we know is the Dr Gallagher is finding more such cases over time.
Frankly he is doing nothing wrong. First he is an observer, second he (probably) helps weed out cases of diagnosable mental illness to best help the patient and presumably to stop an exorcist wasting his time. Third he has the balls to put his findings up for peer review.
There is no reason to burn his career.
Take for example bi-polar. It's documented many times over that there have been cases of misdiagnosis because periods of a person's life brought on by bi-polar can be akin to other disorders such as depression. So there is a precedent for misdiagnosis with regards to bi-polar. With the precedent of misdiagnosis based on similar symptoms in mind, I cannot think of any condition that is any way akin to daemonic possession whereby someone can be misdiagnosed to be possessed. And even if we assume that there is, it screams irresponsibility to the point of being criminal to diagnose someone with suffering from a daemonic possession (especially when it's a professional psychiatrist making the diagnosis) since Daemons and Daemonic Possession are not proven to exist and nor is Daemonic Possession (to my knowledge) recognised as a psychiatric condition.
Perhaps several bi-polar people asked for help from an exorcist and were diagnosed such by Dr Gallagher and given appropriate treatment.
It reads like the sort of thing he would do according to the article.
Alternatively the people who wrote the Bible put all that in specifically to tie Jesus to earlier prophecies, whether it actually happened or not, like the Roman census which was tweaked in order to put Jesus in Bethlehem at the time of his birth:
If someone wants to claim its just a made up story there is little I can do to argue against them.
But as for the roman census. It was listed that Quirinius was governor. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was listed as governor in Roman records, which can be verified. The records don't add up though. He was formally governor of Sria from 6 AD. However excavations in Syria placed Quirinius as governor twice.
Augustus Caesar did order a census, but unlike a modern census it didn't occur all at the same time. Even the Romans couldn't afford the logistics and some provinces had
1) A Roman census only required the head of the family so why did Joseph drag his pregnant wife along and put her in a stable when she had family near the city?
I don't know, but there are several reasonable reasons. First accompanying persons are proof, Romans would want proof of families, being able to account for them properly in the census, or unaccompanied fathers could make up stories. Judea was one of the more persistently unruly regions, and remained such until after Jerusalem was sacked. Zealots would quite likely want t mess with the census if they could. Perhaps a higher burden of proof for fathers was specific to Jews or others provincials the Romans didn't entirely trust.
An alternative is that with Joseph gone, who would look after Mary. Also we know of no family of Joseph, and Marys family may well not have lived in Bethlehem.
2) Why would the Romans ask all of the families in the line of David to register in one city, when there had been 42 generations (according to the Bible) between David and Joseph. That would be a ridiculous number of people to be trekking across their land to one single city for no reason other than to get Jesus in the right place at the right time.
It appears that Joseph was considered an migrant and not native to Nazareth by the standards of the time.
3) Why would the Romans care about the line of King David specifically when they already had a Jewish King, Herod?
They didn't, and Herod had to be careful or he would be irrelevant also. Its a matter of tribalism, not identity. The Romans did care about that, and allowed provincials to care about it also. To a Roman line of David meant nothing political, it was just a lineage. But it was still a lineage and therefore the census of that tribe must take place.
Also look at it this way. Caesar wanted the census done, local provincial administrators considered how it would be done. Procedures in Palestine probably differenced from procedures in Hispania or Gaul. All would look to local customs on cultural identification. For Hebrews that means the hometown of their tribal ancestors.
4) The Bible puts the census during the time of Herod the Great, despite him being dead for 10 years at the time that the most likely census was carried out.
Covered above.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/08/16 12:17:53
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2016/08/16 12:19:52
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
I've removed off topic posts that were solely commenting on moderation in this thread. In future, do not discuss it in thread. If you have queries or questions, PM them to a moderator instead. Otherwise you're just posting off topic. Thanks
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own...
2016/08/16 12:52:56
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
Wolfblade wrote: Orlanth, you seem to be cherry picking what is and is not "fringe" without any criteria. Why is the Israel prediction fine, but not about whatever is he being applied to Obama?
Obama applications are mostly about how many ways you can total up his name to come to 666. You can try this with just about anyone, and many public figures have been so linked. Also a lot of the Obama (just a name) you can include Trump, Bush etc involve claims the world would end on a particular date. Not only is the working spurious, its repetitive on an annual basis and if by some monkey chance it were true it would be random not prophetic. These claims are also highly unscriptural, which is odd as scripture is the presumed basis. Because 'nobody knows the day or the hour but God the father'. Jesus even included himself when he spoke that. If Jesus doesn't know when God will act, how does a YouTuber.
And prophesy IS a prediction of the future, otherwise it's not much of a prophesy if you have to shoehorn it into fitting (I. E the Israel example).
This is so, its the past predicting the future. However Biblical prophesy is veiled or sealed, and is supposed to be revealed at a future time. It doesn't have to be 'shoehorned' its fits naturally and plainly. Those calculations that need shoehorning are the ones to be sceptical about.
For a start very few events in the bible are listed with a to-the-day accuracy, which notes the relevance of such. The exile being one of them. It is a simple matter of multiplying the duration of the exile by seven to account for the biblical punishment and count the days using the Hebrew calendar. For a conclusion event directly related to the exile. No shoehorning of any kind involved.
As to the validity of using the bible to predict anything, I simply point to the countless doomsday prophesies that have all failed to come true.
There arent many doomsday prophesies in the Bible, most have already come true, the rest regard eschatology.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/08/16 13:20:09
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2016/08/16 13:10:07
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
I know this is a snippet from the end of this particular sub-discussion, but they highlights a couple of very important points:
-- NDE experiences can be very similar. This may be due to the nature of the experience, the fact that many people commonly associate NDE's with religious experiences, a combination of both and or any other reasons.
-- Common experiences as a result of NDE's are not proof or evidence of a God or set of Gods. Even if we assume that they are, how do you know that it's the Christian God (and the Christian God only) that they're proof/evidence of?
My point is that in this example, you're connecting dots that, from a scientific standpoint, cannot be connected because we have no proof or evidence of said connection even being plausible (i.e. the connection between NDE's and the Christian God). It's anecdotal - it's not proof or evidence of anything and, from my standpoint, it looks like you're connecting dots because of your faith rather than actual proof/evidence.
Spoiler:
I agree, but I dont agree that my presense of faith is based on a lack of evidence.
One of the errors of the atheistic viewpoint is that it sees both a believers mind and their own from the same standpoint.
This is why many atheists are waiting for the time when a believer sees the same evidence the way they do, and therefore not believe.
It isn't the same evidence though. An atheist doesn't know the Holy Spirit, and cannot factor in this. They might have heard about the theology of the Holy Spirit, as a dry study, but they don't know Him. I do, as do many others. Yes I do answer based on my faith, but it is neither a blind faith, nor is it based on a choice from the same instructional set.
Had I no relationship with God, I might have chosen to believe with what evidence the Bible provides, I might be an agnostic, I might even have be persuaded to become an atheist.
I cant teach you the difference.
It is not possible for me to be entirely unbiased, but that is the same fo everyone frankly. But there are a lot of opponents who hate God. They don't believe in Him, fair enough, but for some reason have no problem with being particularly vicious about this. We see some of this on religion threads, we see this lot more in everyday reality.
Yes I connect the dots, as do other believers so does an atheist. We should however stop pretending it is an impartial study with no emotional investment.
I don't try to hide that, it would be futile for me to attempt such. But just look at the thread, the same is true for atheists also.
I should even perhaps stop using the term 'believer' in retrospect to refer to theists, as heartfelt belief oftimes describes both parties to this debate.
Fair enough. I guess we (every poster and/or reader involved with this thread) has an emotional and biased philosophical investment in this thread (regardless of whether or not they participate in the thread). I would also like to point out that your faith (and no doubt the faith of many other Christians) help you connect dots that my Agnosticism prevents me from connecting.
I guess my point is that your faith allows you to believe in things that I cannot. Combine that with the fact that I cannot accept that Daemons and their ability to possess people based on my Agnosticism in the same way that your belief system allows you to believe that Daemons and their ability ot possess people exit.
Ultimately we have a lot of anecdotal evidence as presented by you to prove the existence of a specific God (and thus a religion) in order to support the claim that Daemons and Daemonic Possession exist. I feel that there needs to be a basis that is a lot more solid than that. I'm not in any way going to say that the Christian God, Daemons, and Daemonic Possession are real based on anecdotal evidence.
I will be cautious before accepting evidence of God to be 'anecdotal', the best evidence should have corroboration, and the New Testament instructs that only corroborated witness is valid. Thus testimony considered valid by the standards of Bible teaching should not be 'anecdotes' but 'evidence'. There is some dishonesty going on in th churches sadly, and corroborated stories still need to be weighed.
That being said the evidence stops short of proof. A Christian can claim this is exactly how God wants it, until the Second Coming.
You are left free to decide, while God can engage the head, it's hearts He is after.
I have no call to argue on this since I am not Christian, so I will abstain from addressing this further.
By extension of this, I also think that this "Leading Psychiatrist" should no longer be allowed to practice this particular profession. Until the claims of at least Daemons and Daemonic Possession can be proven to be true, making such claims and diagnosing patients with being possessed by a daemon is highly irresponsible to the point where I think it should be criminal. Why is this "Leading Psychiatrist" allowed to take people's money (undoubtedly large amount of money, too) to misdiagnose someone with such a ludicrous condition?
Spoiler:
Point not accepted.
You have every right to choose to believe as you will. So does Dr Gallagher.
When you take that away or threaten to harm his career because he believed in things that you do not you are discriminating against him. You have no excuse or right to condemn him.
This is mentioned even though you have in fact also misjudged Dr Gallagher according to what we see in the OP. I am mentioning this in separation because even if you were right and Dr Gallagher was concluding that some of his patients were possessed, that remains a religious opinion. It is what he does with that info that is important.
From what we see in the OP, dr Gallagher is accompanying Catholic exorcists in their ministry. The Roman Catholic church responds to petitions for delivery from families and patients, it is the only time they respond. With full consent. They are not the Ordo Malleus. Psychiatrists are present by invitation as a safety feature and to reassure the patient families and also the priests as an independent witness in case of something going wrong or an accusation being made. It is easy to see why the exorcists would want an independent professional along.
Most tellingly Dr Gallagher says he dismisses the vast majority of cases as mental iillness. This also makes sense, patients cant really self diagnose, neither can families. Mentally il people could worry that demons are responsible for their illness. Dr Gallagher could see the signs of conventional mental illness and use his diagnostic skills for the benefit of the patient and exorcists both.
Maybe Dr Gallagher excepted to debunk all the patients with way, maybe not, we don't know his motives for accompanying the exorcists in their ministry. What we know is that some patients he couldn't diagnose, and found that for one reason other other possession remained a viable diagnosis. We dont know if those cases were cured or not by the exorcists, that info is not given to us. All else we know is the Dr Gallagher is finding more such cases over time.
Frankly he is doing nothing wrong. First he is an observer, second he (probably) helps weed out cases of diagnosable mental illness to best help the patient and presumably to stop an exorcist wasting his time. Third he has the balls to put his findings up for peer review.
There is no reason to burn his career.
I'm still not buying that Daemonic Possession is a condition that a professional psychiatrist can diagnose somebody with. If somebody wants to go to their local church and be diagnosed with Daemonic Possession there, I have no grounds to disagree with the people seeking the diagnosis nor the people dishing it out. But... if people are going to a psychologist for such a diagnosis... I have no choice but to seriously doubt the legitimacy of not only their diagnosis but their qualification as well.
Take, for example, the idea that American Indian medicine works. Now, as anybody in any society: I will not judge you for believing in it (regardless of whether or not it works). But.. If somebody who has a medical degree (which I feel I should note is taught entirely independent of religion or belief system) believes in American Indian medical remedies without scientific support, I'd be a bit skeptical. For me: The same goes for this case of a Clinical Psychiatrist and Daemonic Possession.
Take for example bi-polar. It's documented many times over that there have been cases of misdiagnosis because periods of a person's life brought on by bi-polar can be akin to other disorders such as depression. So there is a precedent for misdiagnosis with regards to bi-polar. With the precedent of misdiagnosis based on similar symptoms in mind, I cannot think of any condition that is any way akin to daemonic possession whereby someone can be misdiagnosed to be possessed. And even if we assume that there is, it screams irresponsibility to the point of being criminal to diagnose someone with suffering from a daemonic possession (especially when it's a professional psychiatrist making the diagnosis) since Daemons and Daemonic Possession are not proven to exist and nor is Daemonic Possession (to my knowledge) recognised as a psychiatric condition.
Perhaps several bi-polar people asked for help from an exorcist and were diagnosed such by Dr Gallagher and given appropriate treatment.
It reads like the sort of thing he would do according to the article.
Based on what I know about psychiatric conditions, I seriously doubt that Daemonic Possession is one of these conditions that is recognised and taught within the medical profession. Therefore, (as an Agnostic) I can only conclude that this particular "Professional Psychiatrist" is bringing his personal belief system into an otherwise scientific line of work. Now, regardless of whether or not his beliefs are true: This is deeply irresponsible. Consider this (albeit extreme) example:
A man has a Heart Attack on the side of the street. A doctor is present and even looking over the man, but he is a Christian who believes that 'God will save him' and thus lets God Save Him. In that situation, the doctor let his belief system get in the way of his professional obligation to a dying man. I see the case of this psychiatrist and daemonic possession no differently.
Now... If somebody wit Bipolar Disorder chooses to turn to the Christian God rather than modern medicine, I am nobody to judge. But... I'm not buying that any existing condition (not to mention medically accepted condition) is anywhere close to Daemonic Possession.
2016/08/16 14:13:56
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
I'm still not buying that Daemonic Possession is a condition that a professional psychiatrist can diagnose somebody with. If somebody wants to go to their local church and be diagnosed with Daemonic Possession there, I have no grounds to disagree with the people seeking the diagnosis nor the people dishing it out. But... if people are going to a psychologist for such a diagnosis... I have no choice but to seriously doubt the legitimacy of not only their diagnosis but their qualification as well.
From the OP it doesn't appear that Dr Gallagher is doing this. People call an exorcist, Gallagher accompanies the exorcists and weeds out patients who are diagnosable as mentally ill.
Lets look at the OP.
"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.
It appears to be a negative vetting process, removing those that secular medicine can identify, for the benefit of all concerned. As the mentally ill compose the 'overwhelming majority of cases' it reduces the casework of the exorcists, and deliverance ministries, and protects everyone.
It is not implied that Gallagher positively identifies possession, though it is evident that he now regards the phenomena as real. It would make sense for him to just stick with his expertise, filter out those he can prescribe treatment for and see their carers get the information they need.
Gallagher is from what we can see practicing secular medicine, he accompanies exorcists, he isnt one, but has seen enough of the works of exorcism to say he now believes they are doing a genuine holy work.
Take, for example, the idea that American Indian medicine works. Now, as anybody in any society: I will not judge you for believing in it (regardless of whether or not it works). But.. If somebody who has a medical degree (which I feel I should note is taught entirely independent of religion or belief system) believes in American Indian medical remedies without scientific support, I'd be a bit skeptical. For me: The same goes for this case of a Clinical Psychiatrist and Daemonic Possession.
I wouldn't be too sure. Some of the things being smoked by tribes have been of interest to pharmaceutical companies. Monsanto did a lot of work following meso-american tribes and their medicines as thirty thousand odd years in the jungle might tell a tribe a lot about plants that a pharmaceutical company can take home, work on, patent and claim as theirs.
It would be fairly smart not to be sceptical frankly, it might shave off decades of development time to ask primitive peoples what plant does what according to their medicine men.
Based on what I know about psychiatric conditions, I seriously doubt that Daemonic Possession is one of these conditions that is recognised and taught within the medical profession.
We all know it isnt. But the absence of an open minded look at Dr Gallaghers work could hurt him unfairly. People are expecting him to say that he has followed exorcists for two and a half decades and its all bunkum. That would raise some smiles, and people will nod. He said something else though, so they aren't happy.
Therefore, (as an Agnostic) I can only conclude that this particular "Professional Psychiatrist" is bringing his personal belief system into an otherwise scientific line of work. Now, regardless of whether or not his beliefs are true: This is deeply irresponsible.
Please take a re-read of what Dr Gallagher said in the OP. it appears he believed it more and more as he was exposed to it.
I don't think he took his religion to work, he might have got his religion from his work.
Again there is an expectation that a man of modern medicine will if following exorcists laugh behind their backs to some extent. After all science knows better. Perhaps he saw thinks that challenged the secular viewpoint.
What does have have to lose. He is an accredited member of his field of medicine, a man of science and reason. Surely his peers will look at his work dispassionately and without ridicule in honest peer review. Because that is what science always does, yes? It is not surprising to me it took over two decades for him to come forward fully.
Note that the author himself considers most claims of possession bogus. It appears that this is the first thing he looks for in a new case, and isn't afraid to dismiss claims if he has reason to.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2016/08/16 14:53:35
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
And prophesy IS a prediction of the future, otherwise it's not much of a prophesy if you have to shoehorn it into fitting (I. E the Israel example).
This is so, its the past predicting the future. However Biblical prophesy is veiled or sealed, and is supposed to be revealed at a future time.
It doesn't have to be 'shoehorned' its fits naturally and plainly. Those calculations that need shoehorning are the ones to be sceptical about.
So, more or less, the "prophecies" are "hidden" so they can be cherry picked/shoehorned to fit whatever they need to later then, yeah?
As to the validity of using the bible to predict anything, I simply point to the countless doomsday prophesies that have all failed to come true.
There arent many doomsday prophesies in the Bible, most have already come true, the rest regard eschatology.
So, aside from the Israel prophecy, what else is there that's "true"? Also, could you give the passage that states the time Israel would be recreated? (Or the passage(s) where it talks about it)
Either way, it seems fairly self fulfilling. Religious group naming their new land after something important in their holy book? Go figure.
So, more or less, the "prophecies" are "hidden" so they can be cherry picked/shoehorned to fit whatever they need to later then, yeah?
Fairly twisted point of view there. I explained why they are not cherry picked.
Also prophesy is sealed for different reasons than this, and that specifically refers to eschatological prophesy anyway.
Let us take the 1948 events, sure nobody noticed at the time. They were too busy getting over the Holocaust, wondering if theUn would agee to Israeli statehood and worndering how to defend themselves against all their neighbours.
It was understood later.
If you wat to say the prophesy was cherry picked, How, its pretty much the only cherry of its type. We know then Jerusalem fell to the day, we know when some Jews returned to rebuild the temple to the day. We dont know when David was born, or Moses, or when the Israelites entered th Holy land. We do know that the multiplier for Biblical disobedience is a sevenfold, there s no other multiplier, andwe now know that if you use the sevenfold curse to the tally of days you get to the exact day in 1948 that Israel was founded.
There is NO CHERRY PICKING. If you insist there is try and explain why, and give counter examples.
So, aside from the Israel prophecy, what else is there that's "true"?
Sure plenty of it. But mostly in he Old Testament and fulfilled in the Old Testament times. There are prophesies in Daniel and Ezekiel that as eschatological, those are yet to come. Though some scholars argue that some are being set up now.
Either way, it seems fairly self fulfilling. Religious group naming their new land after something important in their holy book? Go figure.
I don't use that as an inclusion.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
2016/08/16 19:02:36
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
Orlanth you never fail to be thoroughly entertaining.
Dakka Bingo! By Ouze "You are the best at flying things"-Kanluwen
"Further proof that Purple is a fething brilliant super villain " -KingCracker
"Purp.. Im pretty sure I have a gun than can reach you...."-Nicorex
"That's not really an apocalypse. That's just Europe."-Grakmar
"almost as good as winning free cake at the tea drinking contest for an Englishman." -Reds8n
Seal up your lips and give no words but mum.
Equip, Reload. Do violence.
Watch for Gerry.
2016/08/16 19:04:25
Subject: Leading Psychiatrist: Demonic Possession is Real and Possibly on the Rise
So, more or less, the "prophecies" are "hidden" so they can be cherry picked/shoehorned to fit whatever they need to later then, yeah?
Fairly twisted point of view there. I explained why they are not cherry picked.
Also prophesy is sealed for different reasons than this, and that specifically refers to eschatological prophesy anyway.
Let us take the 1948 events, sure nobody noticed at the time. They were too busy getting over the Holocaust, wondering if theUn would agee to Israeli statehood and worndering how to defend themselves against all their neighbours.
It was understood later.
If you wat to say the prophesy was cherry picked, How, its pretty much the only cherry of its type. We know then Jerusalem fell to the day, we know when some Jews returned to rebuild the temple to the day. We dont know when David was born, or Moses, or when the Israelites entered th Holy land. We do know that the multiplier for Biblical disobedience is a sevenfold, there s no other multiplier, andwe now know that if you use the sevenfold curse to the tally of days you get to the exact day in 1948 that Israel was founded.
There is NO CHERRY PICKING. If you insist there is try and explain why, and give counter examples.
From your source below "Although July 15, 537 B.C. can not be verified by outside sources as the exact day of Cyrus's proclamation..." Not to mention it doesn't exactly cover ALL the land they were supposedly given by "god"
Again, if the prophecies are "veiled" then it's possible to twist them to fit afterwards, or people trying to force them (i.e. the birth of a red cow and people trying to breed one)
So, aside from the Israel prophecy, what else is there that's "true"?
Sure plenty of it. But mostly in he Old Testament and fulfilled in the Old Testament times. There are prophesies in Daniel and Ezekiel that as eschatological, those are yet to come. Though some scholars argue that some are being set up now.
Such as....? Anything verifiable, that happened in recent/well recorded human history. Otherwise saying "the book said something came true, then later in the story it did!" is not proof.
ing Genesis
