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.

The definition of "Prophecy" is "a prediction of what will happen in the future"

If they're trying to figure out what's happening currently, a better word would be "guessing" or "speculating".

Prophecy

noun, plural prophecies.
1.
the foretelling or prediction of what is to come.
2.
something that is declared by a prophet, especially a divinely inspired prediction, instruction, or exhortation.
3.
a divinely inspired utterance or revelation:
oracular prophecies.
4.
the action, function, or faculty of a prophet.

 Wolfblade wrote:
The definition of "Prophecy" is "a prediction of what will happen in the future"

This is a secular definition, and not often used anyway. Weather prediction could be listed poetically as prophecy. The google definition you used has a weather prediction as its example.

Biblical/spirtual prophecy is different, See definitions above.

 Wolfblade wrote:

If they're trying to figure out what's happening currently, a better word would be "guessing" or "speculating".

A prophecy about the current times is not 'trying to figure anything out', it bypasses this entirely, a prophecy is a message from God, the messenger could but need not understand the message. It is also not a guess, for the same reason.

 Orlanth wrote:

A prophecy is a prediction if it is recorded prior to revelation as truth. The date of revelation is irrelevant to this.

So the date of revelation is relevant? You're mixing messages.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:
The definition of "Prophecy" is "a prediction of what will happen in the future"

This is a secular definition, and not often used anyway.

It is used all the time. If you Google "prophecy" the first return is "a prediction". You're the outlier here.

I don't think I've literally ever heard anyone before now use the word "prophecy" to mean anything other than "a prediction of what will happen in the future."

 Orlanth wrote:

Biblical/spirtual prophecy is different, See definitions above.

Why is it different? Because all I'm seeing is "Because God."

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Biblical/spirtual prophecy is different, See definitions above.

Why is it different? Because all I'm seeing is "Because God."

Because dictionaries should never be used for anything other than a general sense of how words are used in common discourse. Most would define Sin like;

an offense against religious or moral law
an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food>
an often serious shortcoming
a transgression of the law of God
a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

Of these five, only the last two are actually theologically relevant, even though most Christians are likely to use the word in all five ways. The fifth is probably the most relevant in Christian theology, which generally posits that sin is the state of being separated from God's grace, and anything that puts you in that position or encourages it = badness. Prophecy can be in a similar position depending on how one reads it. Most people would indeed use prophecy to mean "prediction of the future," while the Bible often uses it in another sense; "the revelation of God's grace" which isn't really future, present, or past specific. Many of the Prophets did little future prediction. What they did do is reveal an inspiration of God's divinity or will. The actual ancient Hebrew word is "nebuah" (it is derived from Nabi, which just means "speaker" which basically just means "function of a prophet." <- EDIT: As an expansion, this is also generally how Islam defines the term Prophet. In Islamic faith, Prophets are people who carried the will of God to the people (Moses, Jesus, and of course Mohammed), not someone who predicted future events.

The reason that we end up with "future prediction" as a definition isn't about the Bible, but rather brings us back to good ol Greek. The Greek translation of the Old Testament used the word προφημι (prophemi, from which the word "Prophet" derives). In Greek this word means "say beforehand/to foretell." Many early Christians had a stronger understanding of the original sense of the Bible's use of these term, but it seems to have generally fallen off in favor of the Greek definition around the 13th century (at least in English this is when the word "Prophecy" ceased to mean "the function of a prophet" and became "prediction of future events"

 Wolfblade wrote:
I don't think I've literally ever heard anyone before now use the word "prophecy" to mean anything other than "a prediction of what will happen in the future."

And now you have. It is scriptural to widen the definition to include the immediate.
A proper singular definition of spiritual prophesy is 'a message from a God to be shared'. A message from God for oneself is not normally considered a 'prophesy', though it could still be called prophetic.
Prophesy is a common gift of the charismata.

A secular prediction can poetically be called prophetic, normally after the event predicted and if close enough. You could argue that future prediction is the only secular use of the term. I wouldnt oppose that line of reasoning.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Biblical/spirtual prophecy is different, See definitions above.

Why is it different? Because all I'm seeing is "Because God."

That s all there is to see, Biblical prophesy is understood in the context of obedience to and belief in God. It is inseparable from this. It is also an act of faith within obedience, so 'because God', makes sense as an explanation. It is the only explanation a prophet might get, or need. you cant have prophesy without faith and obedience to God. Understanding a prophesy from the point f view of the speaker is not aways a requirement.

 Orlanth wrote:
You are assuming that there is only a narrow use of prophesy. This is not so. Prophesy has several uses, retroactive discovery prophesy is still prophetic as it was predicted a priori, but its purose is not to publically predict but to give reassurance after the event.

You have used an interesting religious ideas to claim prophecy isn't just about predicting the future, and that's fine. But beyond the religious element, prophecy, otherwise known as predictive power, is extremely valuable in testing whether a concept has actual value, or just appears to have value.

It is actually very common for people to see patterns where there are none. Once data gets sufficiently complex and varied then you will always be able to find patterns to other complex and varied data, especially if one or both sets of data allow for significant interpretation. I'm familiar with this as the sharpshooter fallacy, but the error is described in a lot of different ways.

A classic example is that each election you will see a bunch of university types, economists, historians, political scientists, all come up with data models that can predict the election. They will all have gone and collected endless economic and non-economic data, and let a data algorithm go and find the patterns that can 'explain' past election results. They will all come back with models that can perfectly 'explain' past elections... but every single one of them turns out to be utterly useless in predicting this election.

This is because it is easy to go and find matching patterns in old data, and ignore all the old data that doesn't fit. You will always find a pattern or a match, no matter how unrelated or random two sets of data are. The only way to test if there is actually any kind of real connection in the data is to use the patterns you've found to make predictions about future events.

Simply put - there's no shortage of people, religious or otherwise, who will appear after an event to 'explain' why and how that event can be explained by whatever belief they have. But people who can say ahead of time what will happen and regularly get it right are extremely rare. People have learned to ignore the former and embrace the latter. If you want people to believe the bible has future knowledge of world events, then deliver some predictions and if they come true people will start to believe you.

 Orlanth wrote:

Allow me to explain. Daniel approached the Persian emperor Cyrus with notes of a specific prophesy saying that the Temple would be rebuilt after seventy years. (While this is a prophesy I dont use this as a secular example as it was, unveiled and most importantly fulfilled by human effort.) Nevertheless Daniel was obedient to God and approached Cyrus and a proclamation was made by Cyrus permitting this. Daniel obeyed God, with reference the seventy year exile, and a portion returned to fulfill God's command. Thus those seventy years, which are specified in a separate concurrent prophesy were deducted without multiplication.
The remainder was multiplied by seven.
Multiplying the whole lot would be against Levitical law, as Daniel had obeyed God and the seventy year exile was ended in fulfilment by the commencement of building of the second temple.

Which is an explanation of sorts, at least on the surface.

Although a very small amount of digging turns up that it's not actually this cut-and-dry, since there seems to be some disagreement about exactly which year the punishment started, which year the people were called back to the new temple, and the actual length of the punishment (early translations directly from the Hebrew apparently had it at 150 years rather than the 300-odd, which came later from translated Greek documents...)


So the more I read up on this, the more it seems that this spectacularly clear prophecy about the formation of Israel is only actually spectacularly clear if you choose to accept one specific set of numbers out of a whole bunch of potential candidates. And even amongst Christian scholars there is considerable disagreement about which of those numbers should apply, and whether or not the 1948 formation of Israel was anything to do with Biblical prophecy.


Of course, the clincher probably should be that if it was the prophesied event, apparently the world was supposed to have ended by 1986 or so, which doesn't appear to have been the case.

 insaniak wrote:

Of course, the clincher probably should be that if it was the prophesied event, apparently the world was supposed to have ended by 1986 or so, which doesn't appear to have been the case.

That's...

That's the last year we had a good Alien movie.

I think we might be on to something here.

Clearly it just means that everyone is dead and you're all figments of my imagination

 Orlanth wrote:
This doesn't make sense only if you approach this from the prior assumption that God doesn't exist, or is impotent.

And here's the fatal problem with what you're saying. You're attempting to provide evidence for god by making an argument that assumes that god exists. It's like I said before, "evidence" like this is the kind of thing that is only persuasive if you already believe in your particular brand of Christianity and want to reassure yourself that there are good reasons to continue believing. It's not convincing at all to someone who doesn't already share your religion when you dismiss criticism of your evidence for god with "it all makes sense if you just assume that god exists".

You're also creating a rather significant problem with making your beliefs immune to disproof. By arguing that god "seals" any prophecy that hasn't occurred yet you create a situation where it is impossible for anything to ever be evidence that god and biblical prophecy are false. If you can find real-world events to match a prophecy then you treat it as proof that god exists. If you can't find real-world events to match a prophecy then you claim that god is keeping you from understanding it properly, so the prediction hasn't failed. That should be a giant red flag!

Ok, I understand your point better now. God likely has intervened numerous times on this issue, after all the point of such a prophesy is to show that God is watchful.

Events occurring over X years don't get shifted to Y or Z, because Y or Z is not the proper Biblical timeframe. Instead human decisions are steered to ensure X occurs. God is not Eldrad, He isnt just interested in the result, He is interested in the result at the proper time.
I would be perfectly happy if God just arranged things in order and allowed them to come to pass, but God likes to do things different. God allows fixed passes of over events over time, which occur in patterns, the Prophesies of Daniel heavily feature this theology. Why He wants to do this is not for me to say, and I honestly don't know. God is God.

But your argument was that god has to keep prophecy "sealed" because otherwise people would try to act on it. And you haven't addressed this at all. Why should god care if people try to act on a prophecy before it is time? God has already foreseen their attempts to act on the prophecy and accounted for them. Your beliefs don't even make sense internally.

Answers in Genesis probably get more traffic than studies into Rohl's work at a top university, link priority is no an indication of style of content.

Nope. In fact, it's pretty easy to prove that this theory is wrong. If you search for "evolution" (you know, the primary subject of Answers in Genesis) you won't even find AiG on the first 10 pages of search results. And in the first search results you'll find plenty of mainstream sources supporting the theory of evolution. If garbage sites like Conservapedia and Answers in Genesis are getting more links than any mainstream sources then it's a pretty strong hint that you're looking at a fringe theory with little support or discussion outside of the fringe.

But, in any case, you're free to provide those sources I asked for: articles supporting Rohl's work in peer-reviewed academic journals not affiliated with Rohl.

Rohl's work is certainly relevant, because prior to Rohl and some scholars like him the Bible was excluded from the canon of historical sources for ancient history. Motives for doing so varied.

This is not true at all. The bible hasn't been excluded as a source of historical information, that's simply an absurd claim to make. Historians have treated the bible as an unreliable source (because it is), but that's not at all the same as rejecting it entirely. And Rohl didn't change anything. The rejection of his work has nothing to do with his use of biblical sources, it's about factual errors that people have found in his work.

Taken from recovered sources , this would be the case, and even a prediction to a season or a year would be impressive. However Jeffrey notes that events of this time, then ordained by God usually occur at Passover, as that is the time for beginnings. It was why Jesus was crucified on passover. If passover theology is applied, and we can calculate passover for any year we wish because we have an accurate lunar calender model, then a candidate day can be given. Given the candidate day, the prophesy was found to be day precise.

And this is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. The prophecy didn't say "on May 14th", people saw that the actual date was May 14th and came up with the "important stuff happens on Passover" theory to make it fit with the prophecy. This is not impressive when it happens after you already know what date you need to make the prophecy "predict". And, while I know you'll just make the same "it was sealed" handwaving excuse, nobody prior to 1948 was claiming the May 14th date for the return of Israel.

 Peregrine wrote:


This is not true at all. The bible hasn't been excluded as a source of historical information, that's simply an absurd claim to make.

It also flies in the face of the fact Kenneth Kitchen exists; Kitchen is the father of the currently accepted Chronology of Egypt, and at the same time an ardent advocate for the Bible as a historical source. EDIT: And he's been around since the 50s.

 Orlanth wrote:

That s all there is to see, Biblical prophesy is understood in the context of obedience to and belief in God. It is inseparable from this. It is also an act of faith within obedience, so 'because God', makes sense as an explanation. It is the only explanation a prophet might get, or need.

No, that's lazy. Just as "I have faith." is lazy.

 Orlanth wrote:

you cant have prophesy without faith and obedience to God. Understanding a prophesy from the point f view of the speaker is not aways a requirement.

Evidently you haven't been exposed to non-Christian religions.

I love the irony of seeing dogma argue against- dogma.

That sort of unquestioning faith is downright terrifying to me. It is the stuff that is so rampant in the middle east, and can empower the worst aspects of humanity when used by any religion. Once it's there, whether the religion wants something to happen or not, the fanatically devout will do it.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

That s all there is to see, Biblical prophesy is understood in the context of obedience to and belief in God. It is inseparable from this. It is also an act of faith within obedience, so 'because God', makes sense as an explanation. It is the only explanation a prophet might get, or need.

No, that's lazy. Just as "I have faith." is lazy.

Laziness has nothing to do with it, unless you get to include my unpainted miniature collection.
Prophecy is a message from a being much bigger than I could ever be. It would be the height of arrogance to assume I knew the mind of God.
However I can know the 'still small voice'.
One can have a solid grasp on theology and an active relationship with God, and not claim to know the purpose of all He does.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

you cant have prophesy without faith and obedience to God. Understanding a prophesy from the point f view of the speaker is not aways a requirement.

Evidently you haven't been exposed to non-Christian religions.

I have been answering mostly from one perspective for simplicity. You may have noticed that the entire thread is basically about Christian theology. Though exorcists of other faiths do exist.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
I love the irony of seeing dogma argue against- dogma. .

Back at you there.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

That sort of unquestioning faith is downright terrifying to me. It is the stuff that is so rampant in the middle east, and can empower the worst aspects of humanity when used by any religion. Once it's there, whether the religion wants something to happen or not, the fanatically devout will do it.

This is aimed at me so.
Where has the faith comments ever been 'unquestioning'? I have answered every question set to me, and evidently think through what I say. That you disagree with me is not indicative of anything other than that we disagree.
You seem to have it in your head that religious belief must somehow be the consequence of not thinking the subject matter through. It is a commonly held dogma. Basically a false logic chain along the lines of: religion is not science, science is reason, therefore religion is not reason.

Frankly you are more dogmatic than I could possibly ever be. I don't label and include you as having common ground alongside the extremists who will murder and commit atrocity based on their belief. Especially as there has been no evidence to suggest we share any doctrinal common ground. Why fear faith? Ignorance. Ignorance and fear go hand in hand.

 Orlanth wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gitzbitah wrote:
I love the irony of seeing dogma argue against- dogma. .

Back at you there.

(before you edited this part) People are not saying he should lose his job because he's religious, but rather because he lets his religion interfere with his job and judgement.

 Orlanth wrote:

Frankly you are more dogmatic than I could possibly ever be. I don't label and include you as having common ground alongside the extremists who will murder and commit atrocity based on their belief. Especially as there has been no evidence to suggest we share any doctrinal common ground. Why fear faith? Ignorance. Ignorance and fear go hand in hand.

Faith promotes ignorance. Instead of questioning why something exists as is/came to be/etc, it can simply fall under the claim "god did it", and people are satisfied with that answer. Faith has held science back despite the massive amount of evidence for some of the things people argue from it (i.e. creationism, ID, etc) worsened life in some areas (i.e. the abstinence only states/schools which is driven largely by faith/religious reasons). It even turns otherwise normal people against each other simply because they believe in a different religion (all the way from simply disliking that person all the way up to murder/war).

I'm not saying that's ALL people with faith, but without faith there wouldn't be some of those problems (or at least lessened). I don't fear faith, I just think it's a stupid notion to accept things without any evidence.

 Wolfblade wrote:


(before you edited this part) People are not saying he should lose his job because he's religious, but rather because he lets his religion interfere with his job and judgement.

I removed the line in case it was mistaken as personally directed at Gitzbitah.

No evidence that Dr Gallagher cannot perform his job adequately have been provided. However some assume such simply because he has forwarded religious opinions they don't like, they haven't even waited for evidence to support any notion that his judgement is impaired, they just assumed so because he has religious opinions related to his work.
The calls also ignore evidence from th OP which strongly suggests that his main role is in weeding out cases of known mental illness.
Despite all that some forum members still think he should have no career.

 Wolfblade wrote:

Faith promotes ignorance. Instead of questioning why something exists as is/came to be/etc, it can simply fall under the claim "god did it", and people are satisfied with that answer.

One can have that form of faith in anything. Faith in the party is a goal of the socialist state. It has ideticle characteristics but doesnt rely on God.

 Wolfblade wrote:

Faith has held science back despite the massive amount of evidence for some of the things people argue from it (i.e. creationism, ID, etc) worsened life in some areas (i.e. the abstinence only states/schools which is driven largely by faith/religious reasons). It even turns otherwise normal people against each other simply because they believe in a different religion (all the way from simply disliking that person all the way up to murder/war).

You as mistaking dogma for faith, and hat form of dogma can have many sources. Not just religion.

 Wolfblade wrote:

I'm not saying that's ALL people with faith, but without faith there wouldn't be some of those problems (or at least lessened).

Again the atheist state is playing catchup fast with regards to causing human misery. The problem is in application, not in having a belief system, and immoral leaders will always exploit the power base of the community of believers in any belief system. What you should be looking to be rid of is politics, then when you will know that is not possible you will be more at peace with the way the world works.

 Wolfblade wrote:

I don't fear faith, I just think it's a stupid notion to accept things without any evidence.

But you just cant let go. Religious belief, including atheism, has always been an emotive issue, and always will be.

Again there is plenty of evidence to support religion. Those who don't like the evidence therefore manufacture excuses to claim it is not evidence. It has been a running theme. It is just a mental cushion that enables you to pretend you are purely scientifically open minded and look at both sides of an argument impartially. People aren't like that in real life and religion is a real life issue, not a theoretical one.

Besides you claim you don't fear faith, but are alarmed the Dr Gallagher might still be allowed to practice psychiatry, and defend calls of those would rather his career ended because, "he lets his religion interfere with his job and judgement." Even when you have no evidence this is so beyond a statement of faith, and one made after years of observation of exorcists at work.

The trouble is it is UNTHINKABLE to some that Dr Gallagher could be anything other than a quack. Literally UNTHINKABLE, because their conditioning doesn't permit the subject matter to be thought through, even though it is a mainstream theology of the the worlds largest religion. Defend it, and others turn up on Dakka and surprise, surprise, it is UNTHINKABLE to them too.
Self confirmed people of reason and science, those assumption doesn't permit it to be possible for an opposed opinion to have merit, so it must be faced with ridicule. The numerous calls for Dr Gallagher to no longer be allowed to practice due to a conflict with you belief systems should be a warning that perhaps the atheist zeitgeist is no as open minded and inquisitive as it thinks it is. I however am not surprised you haven't noticed yet.

 Orlanth wrote:

Laziness has nothing to do with it, unless you get to include my unpainted miniature collection.

Sounds like a lazy person.

A person who uses "God" when they cannot otherwise explain.

 Orlanth wrote:

Prophecy is a message from a being much bigger than I could ever be. It would be the height of arrogance to assume I knew the mind of God.

You're already assuming arrogance by way of your definition of prophecy.

 Orlanth wrote:

You may have noticed that the entire thread is basically about Christian theology. Though exorcists of other faiths do exist.

Demonology is necessarily grounded in Christian theology? I mean, you explicitly allow for other means in you statement.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:


(before you edited this part) People are not saying he should lose his job because he's religious, but rather because he lets his religion interfere with his job and judgement.

I removed the line in case it was mistaken as personally directed at Gitzbitah.

No evidence that Dr Gallagher cannot perform his job adequately have been provided. However some assume such simply because he has forwarded religious opinions they don't like, they haven't even waited for evidence to support any notion that his judgement is impaired, they just assumed so because he has religious opinions related to his work.
The calls also ignore evidence from th OP which strongly suggests that his main role is in weeding out cases of known mental illness.
Despite all that some forum members still think he should have no career.

There's also been no evidence provided it's real and not him simply being unable to diagnose them. Effectively, he's enabling superstitions in cases that he can't solve by himself. He can't provide any either (I'm not counting anecdotal evidence for obvious reasons)

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Faith promotes ignorance. Instead of questioning why something exists as is/came to be/etc, it can simply fall under the claim "god did it", and people are satisfied with that answer.

One can have that form of faith in anything. Faith in the party is a goal of the socialist state. It has ideticle characteristics but doesnt rely on God.

Sure, but it exists in religion. It COULD exist in the belief that there's a teacup that orbits the sun, but it doesn't.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Faith has held science back despite the massive amount of evidence for some of the things people argue from it (i.e. creationism, ID, etc) worsened life in some areas (i.e. the abstinence only states/schools which is driven largely by faith/religious reasons). It even turns otherwise normal people against each other simply because they believe in a different religion (all the way from simply disliking that person all the way up to murder/war).

You as mistaking dogma for faith, and hat form of dogma can have many sources. Not just religion.

Sure, but religion is a pretty big source. Just because there are other sources doesn't make this one OK, or make it less of a problem.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

I'm not saying that's ALL people with faith, but without faith there wouldn't be some of those problems (or at least lessened).

Again the atheist state is playing catchup fast with regards to causing human misery. The problem is in application, not in having a belief system, and immoral leaders will always exploit the power base of the community of believers in any belief system. What you should be looking to be rid of is politics, then when you will know that is not possible you will be more at peace with the way the world works.

It's really not compared to the atrocities committed by religious people for religious reasons today still. bad leaders simply exacerbate any problem, and are not always the root cause.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

I don't fear faith, I just think it's a stupid notion to accept things without any evidence.

But you just cant let go. Religious belief, including atheism, has always been an emotive issue, and always will be.

Again, you're wrong on this point, atheism is not a belief of any kind, simply an absence/lack of belief in the claim that there's a god. There's nothing to let go there.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

I don't fear faith, I just think it's a stupid notion to accept things without any evidence.

Again there is plenty of evidence to support religion. Those who don't like the evidence therefore manufacture excuses to claim it is not evidence. It has been a running theme. It is just a mental cushion that enables you to pretend you are purely scientifically open minded and look at both sides of an argument impartially. People aren't like that in real life and religion is a real life issue, not a theoretical one.

Actually, outside of anecdotal evidence and events twisted to support various religions, there is none. There is no scientifically accepted proof that there is a god, deity, or anything after death. That's why you fall back on faith, not evidence to support your claim that your religion is the true one.

 Orlanth wrote:


Besides you claim you don't fear faith, but are alarmed the Dr Gallagher might still be allowed to practice psychiatry, and defend calls of those would rather his career ended because, "he lets his religion interfere with his job and judgement." Even when you have no evidence this is so beyond a statement of faith, and one made after years of observation of exorcists at work.

I'm alarmed because I don't know how else his work might be affected if he allows his beliefs to interfere with his work. It's the same thing as if a doctor wanted to simply pray I got better instead of actually doing his job when he can't tell me what's wrong with me, instead of referring me to a more experienced doctor or specialists. And again, he also has no evidence to support his claims, nothing to say he simply isn't a good enough doctor. He's relying on his position of authority/knowledge to convince people he's not a hack. If I made these same claims, I'd be dismissed as a nut job, and rightly so.

 Orlanth wrote:


The trouble is it is UNTHINKABLE to some that Dr Gallagher could be anything other than a quack. Literally UNTHINKABLE, because their conditioning doesn't permit the subject matter to be thought through, even though it is a mainstream theology of the the worlds largest religion. Defend it, and others turn up on Dakka and surprise, surprise, it is UNTHINKABLE to them too.
Self confirmed people of reason and science, those assumption doesn't permit it to be possible for an opposed opinion to have merit, so it must be faced with ridicule. The numerous calls for Dr Gallagher to no longer be allowed to practice due to a conflict with you belief systems should be a warning that perhaps the atheist zeitgeist is no as open minded and inquisitive as it thinks it is. I however am not surprised you haven't noticed yet.

The exact same could be said of you then, it's UNTHINKABLE that you could be wrong and there is nothing supernatural in the world whatsoever. But that's where faith comes in, to reassure you that you're RIGHT, and you couldn't be wrong.

Also, please don't paint all atheists with the same brush, because atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief, people from all walks of life are atheists with no other connection than they don't believe in your magical, invisible, all powerful man in the sky. But, as you've said, I'm not surprised you haven't noticed because theists in a given religion generally all believe the same thing.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Laziness has nothing to do with it, unless you get to include my unpainted miniature collection.

Sounds like a lazy person.
A person who uses "God" when they cannot otherwise explain.

You crop the quote so you can avoid the argument. Try again.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Prophecy is a message from a being much bigger than I could ever be. It would be the height of arrogance to assume I knew the mind of God.

You're already assuming arrogance by way of your definition of prophecy.

Explain why.
Nothing is assumed. Prophesy has to be weighed.

 dogma wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

You may have noticed that the entire thread is basically about Christian theology. Though exorcists of other faiths do exist.

Demonology is necessarily grounded in Christian theology? I mean, you explicitly allow for other means in you statement.

The thread was about following Christian exorcists, Christian thology is what is most relevant. Rom emains for followers of other faiths to comment.

 Wolfblade wrote:

There's also been no evidence provided it's real and not him simply being unable to diagnose them.

How do you know. Did you follow the exorcists in their ministry for twenty years? Dr Gallagher has.

 Wolfblade wrote:

Effectively, he's enabling superstitions in cases that he can't solve by himself. He can't provide any either (I'm not counting anecdotal evidence for obvious reasons)

Consistent observation is not anecdotal evidence. If it was you could kiss goodbye to most fields of behavioural sciences. You need to be fair.
Dr Gallagher is not writing off a conclusion to known observations that fits an explanation. Just because that explanation has little standing in mainstream psychiatry.
Dr Gallagher sat and observed a long time before he started presenting exorcisms as case studies. He didnt rush into this.

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Faith promotes ignorance. Instead of questioning why something exists as is/came to be/etc, it can simply fall under the claim "god did it", and people are satisfied with that answer.

One can have that form of faith in anything. Faith in the party is a goal of the socialist state. It has identical characteristics but doesn't rely on God.

Sure, but it exists in religion. It COULD exist in the belief that there's a teacup that orbits the sun, but it doesn't.

However it does in Maoism.

 Wolfblade wrote:

Sure, but religion is a pretty big source. Just because there are other sources doesn't make this one OK, or make it less of a problem.

Actually you have to find subsets within religion rather than just blame religion as a whole.

 Wolfblade wrote:

It's really not compared to the atrocities committed by religious people for religious reasons today still. bad leaders simply exacerbate any problem, and are not always the root cause.

Its very clearly comperable. If you look at the excesses of the atheist socialist state. Maosism, and Year Zero are good but non exhaustive examples.

 Wolfblade wrote:

Again, you're wrong on this point, atheism is not a belief of any kind, simply an absence/lack of belief in the claim that there's a god. There's nothing to let go there.

Just repeat the mantra 'its not a belief in lack its a lack of belief'.
Troubles, it is a spoonfed mantra. A lack of belief cannot of itself be fervent, a belief in lack can be fervent, and often is. As atheist fervour is demonstrable, not just in society but on this thread you cannot logically claim the detachment which a lack of belief entails.
This is why atheism is not a religion but it is a religious prefernce, a faith choice. And it contains all the hallmarks of religion including the presense of fundamentalist elements.

If someone were to say the Dr Gallagher should not be allowed to continue practice because his ways do not conform with Islamic teaching you would see th Islamic fundamentalism.
You are happy to defend those who claim Dr Gallagher should not be allowed to continue practice because his ways do not conform with atheist teaching, but do not see he atheist fundamentalsm that is behind this,
Sorry, but you are too close to the problem.

 Wolfblade wrote:

Actually, outside of anecdotal evidence and events twisted to support various religions, there is none. There is no scientifically accepted proof that there is a god, deity, or anything after death. That's why you fall back on faith, not evidence to support your claim that your religion is the true one..

And this is not true. For a start Biblical testimony most be double sourced and is therefore not anecdotal by definition. This is in order to conform to scriptural standards on testimony.
As explained earlier a direct calculation was made using Biblical law and face up data to make predictions unique in human history. No twisting of events occurred, but the accusation remains as it is the only excuse remaining to denial that the process occurred.

As for falling back on faith, you have that backwards. "Seek and you will find" as Jesus said. Those who are willing to find God honestly will find Him, those whose heats are against him will not. But the dataset for each is not the same. If you heard God, you would not think as you do now. I don't rely on faith. Yes I did, but once I knew the Holy Spirit faith doesn't really come into it, because the reality has changed.

 Wolfblade wrote:

I'm alarmed because I don't know how else his work might be affected if he allows his beliefs to interfere with his work.

Why do you even make the suggestion his beliefs will interfere in his work. You are just assuming that because he believe in Biblical theologies that you reject he cannot perform medicine impartially.

 Wolfblade wrote:

It's the same thing as if a doctor wanted to simply pray I got better instead of actually doing his job when he can't tell me what's wrong with me, instead of referring me to a more experienced doctor or specialists.

Again you are are happy to make assumptions as to how this person works, which are not in agreement with the experiences listed in the OP.

 Wolfblade wrote:

And again, he also has no evidence to support his claims,

Says you. You haven't bothered to rad any articles he has written, or to look at his work, You just parrot the mantra 'no evidence' because it is your default standpoint, and as with other on this thread you say that before even looking to find if there is any evidence. It is a default closed minded assumption, and very likely one that would remain even if evidence was presented. No change there.

 Wolfblade wrote:

nothing to say he simply isn't a good enough doctor. He's relying on his position of authority/knowledge to convince people he's not a hack. If I made these same claims, I'd be dismissed as a nut job, and rightly so.

Maybe, but then are you a psychiatrist with twenty years experience in this field? Likely not.

 Wolfblade wrote:

The exact same could be said of you then, it's UNTHINKABLE that you could be wrong and there is nothing supernatural in the world whatsoever.

I do have an advantage there. I know God.
However I cannot present his as argument as and of itself because it is almost entirely internal.
I have mentioned in the past on other threads how this works though, and why the Bible tells us that by two or three witnesses a matter is established. The corporate gift of prophesy is so common, as are a number of the charismata. Having three or more people arrive at a meeting believing the God has implanted the same thoughts into each of them, even when the topic matter was not related to any that was highlighted is so commonplace that it is more unusual when it doesn't happen.
One often repeated example I remember when my pastor would prepare a topic, then while in the car on the way would fee led to preach on something else, only two find that one the was several more people believed God was asking the topic to change. This would be normal, and a prepared study was just a fallback in case.
You could try claim coincidence, but these 'coincidences occur week after week. You could try claim group hypnosis, but it occurs before the group meets as much as during, you could try claim auto-suggestion, but if so it would happen with any type of public meeting. th living God is not a preferred answer to you maybe. But to me it fits the experience the revelation and the God behind both.

Besides one doesn't start this way. Doubts exists and it is certainly not unthinkable that my faith could be wrong. This is what a crisis of faith is all about. But those rarely shake the core belief of someone once that have been baptised in the Holy Spirit, for good reason.
I am unlikely to ever disbelieve in God, not because it goes against what I prefer to believe, but because it goes against what I know from experience.

 Wolfblade wrote:

But that's where faith comes in, to reassure you that you're RIGHT, and you couldn't be wrong.

This isn't true. I don't know everything to do with God, not by a longshot. Never claimed otherwise.

 Wolfblade wrote:

Also, please don't paint all atheists with the same brush, because atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief, people from all walks of life are atheists with no other connection than they don't believe in your magical, invisible, all powerful man in the sky.

I don't paint all atheists with the same brush. I highlight those atheists who have a vested heartfelt interest in bashing religion. Those who parrot the mantra 'no evidence' without looking for any, those who want to discriminate against honest believers in theologies they do no share without any fair cause. The average joe who doesn't believe in God doesn't say those things, the fanatic does.

 Wolfblade wrote:

But, as you've said, I'm not surprised you haven't noticed because theists in a given religion generally all believe the same thing.

How monumentally off the reservation that comment is. We all believe the same thing? No! That is the sort of gak Donald Trump comes up with. aka All Moslems are in agreement with ISIS.
And yes have have noticed the differences, this is why you have denominations to begin with, and differences within denominations etc etc.
Also even if the denomination is broadly similar there are wide bounds of application. Most Christians will not share common ground with the Westboro Baptists, and are quick to say so.

I have a question for you, Orlanth.

What proof would you accept that would cause you to believe that God (of classical theism) does not exist?

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

There's also been no evidence provided it's real and not him simply being unable to diagnose them.

How do you know. Did you follow the exorcists in their ministry or twenty years? Dr Gallagher has.

And yet, he has yet to provide ANY actual evidence. Weird, it's almost like he doesn't have any valid evidence...

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Effectively, he's enabling superstitions in cases that he can't solve by himself. He can't provide any either (I'm not counting anecdotal evidence for obvious reasons)

Consistent observation is not anecdotal evidence.
Dr Gallagher is not writing off a conclusion to a known observation that has an explanation.

Actually, it is because he has nothing to collaborate and verify his otherwise anecdotal evidence. Again, he has not provided any evidence to support his claims other than "But I saw it!" He hasn't consulted other doctors. Has he run any tests on them, actual tests, using medical equipment and technology to ensure it isn't just some defect in the brain? No.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Faith promotes ignorance. Instead of questioning why something exists as is/came to be/etc, it can simply fall under the claim "god did it", and people are satisfied with that answer.

One can have that form of faith in anything. Faith in the party is a goal of the socialist state. It has identicle characteristics but doesnt rely on God.

Sure, but it exists in religion. It COULD exist in the belief that there's a teacup that orbits the sun, but it doesn't.

However it does in Maoism.

Maoism also pretty much only exists in china iirc, and has been incredibly perverted by corrupt leaders, which while that makes it no better than religion, is also something to despise, but again, you seem to paint atheists as all being maoists. As I said later on in that same section of my post, not ALL of religion is to blame, not ALL of theists are evil/awful people.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Sure, but religion is a pretty big source. Just because there are other sources doesn't make this one OK, or make it less of a problem.

Actually you have to find subsets within religion rather than just blame religion as a whole.

Which again you seemed to completely ignore when I DID say that.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

It's really not compared to the atrocities committed by religious people for religious reasons today still. bad leaders simply exacerbate any problem, and are not always the root cause.

Its very clearly comperable. If you look at the excesses of the atheist socialist state. Maosism, and Year Zero are good but non exhaustive examples.

Oh yeah, all those decades/centuries of oppression, brainwashing, and crusades/religious wars/killing (even today) are TOTALLY comparable.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Again, you're wrong on this point, atheism is not a belief of any kind, simply an absence/lack of belief in the claim that there's a god. There's nothing to let go there.

that is the way the brain is washed. Just repeat the mantra 'its not a belief in lack its a lack of belief'.
Troubles, it is a spoonfed mantra. A lack of belief cannot of itself be fervent, a belief in lack can be fervent, and often is. As atheist fervour is demonstrable, not just in society but on this thread you cannot logically claim the detachment which a lack of belief entails.
This is why atheism is not a religion but it is a religious prefernce, a faith choice. And it contains all the hallmarks of religion including the presense of fundamentalist elements.

If someone were to say the Dr Gallagher should not be allowed to continue practice because his ways do not conform with Islamic teaching you would see th Islamic fundamentalism.
You are happy to defend those who claim Dr Gallagher should not be allowed to continue practice because his ways do not conform with atheist teaching, but do not see he atheist fundamentalsm that is behind this,
Sorry, but you are too close to the problem.

Again, I don't know why I try, but atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in one or more gods. Nothing else ties atheists together. There aren't any prayer equivalents. No weekly meeting of atheists, or anything. In fact, it's only been fairly recently that there was even an annual convention/gathering. I also find it hilarious you apply brainwashing to atheism, but ignore the fact religion in general does it en masse on a scale far larger than any group of atheists could do it if they even were. I don't attack Dr. Gallagher because he doesn't subscribe to my lack of belief, but because he lets his beliefs interfere with his work. When he comes up empty handed on a diagnoses, he doesn't look to others for a consult, he starts down the path of "well maybe this IS demonic possession". This is not an "Us or them" argument that you think it is.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Actually, outside of anecdotal evidence and events twisted to support various religions, there is none. There is no scientifically accepted proof that there is a god, deity, or anything after death. That's why you fall back on faith, not evidence to support your claim that your religion is the true one..

And this is not true. For a start Biblical testimony most be double sourced and is therefore not anecdotal by definition. This is in order to conform to scriptural standards on testimony.
As explained earlier a direct calculation was made using Biblical law and face up data to make predictions unique in human history. No twisting of events occurred, but the accusation remains as it is the only excuse remaining to denial that the process occurred.

As for falling back on faith, you have that backwards. "Seek and you will find" as Jesus said. Those who are willing to find God honestly will find Him, those whose heats are against him will not. But the dataset for each is not the same. If you heard God, you would not think as you do now. I don't rely on faith. Yes I did, but once I knew the Holy Spirit faith doesn't really come into it, because the reality has changed.

And again, people explained why those predictions were crap, and you ignored it. And that belief in the "Holy Spirit" IS faith. Faith is the belief in something with no proof. How do you know it wasn't a hindu god instead? Weird how it always seems to be each person's own religion's god(s) that appear/talk to them.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

I'm alarmed because I don't know how else his work might be affected if he allows his beliefs to interfere with his work.

Why do you even make the suggestion his beliefs will interfere in his work. You are just assuming that because he believe in Biblical theologies that you reject he cannot perform medicine impartially.

Because he's diagnosed people as being possessed instead of getting actual help for people who need it!

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

And again, he also has no evidence to support his claims,

Says you. You haven't bothered to rad any articles he has written, or to look at his work, You just parrot the mantra 'no evidence' because it is your default standpoint, and as with other on this thread you say that before even looking to find if there is any evidence. It is a default closed minded assumption, and very likely one that would remain even if evidence was presented. No change there.

Then you won't mind providing some of that evidence he has then. Unless of course, he doesn't have any other than some anecdotal evidence.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

nothing to say he simply isn't a good enough doctor. He's relying on his position of authority/knowledge to convince people he's not a hack. If I made these same claims, I'd be dismissed as a nut job, and rightly so.

Maybe, but then are you a psychiatrist with twenty years experience in this field? Likely not.

I don't need to be to dismiss demonic possession that has no evidence backing it up. Again, he's trying to use his position of authority/knowledge as proof of his reliability/evidence that demonic possession is real. If he was just some Joe Schmoe talking about demonic possession, he'd be dismissed as a nutjob. Also, are you a psychiatrist of 20 years? No? Then how can you know he's telling the truth? Because he happens to subscribe to some of the same unproven ideas you do?

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

The exact same could be said of you then, it's UNTHINKABLE that you could be wrong and there is nothing supernatural in the world whatsoever.

I do have an advantage there. I know God.
However I cannot present his as argument as and of itself because it is almost entirely internal.
I have mentioned in the past on other threads how this works though, and why the Bible tells us that by two or three witnesses a matter is established. The corporate gift of prophesy is so common, as are a number of the charismata. Having three or more people arrive at a meeting believing the God has implanted the same thoughts into each of them, even when the topic matter was not related to any that was highlighted is so commonplace that it is more unusual when it doesn't happen.
One often repeated example I remember when my pastor would prepare a topic, then while in the car on the way would fee led to preach on something else, only two find that one the was several more people believed God was asking the topic to change. This would be normal, and a prepared study was just a fallback in case.
You could try claim coincidence, but these 'coincidences occur week after week. You could try claim group hypnosis, but it occurs before the group meets as much as during, you could try claim auto-suggestion, but if so it would happen with any type of public meeting. th living God is not a preferred answer to you maybe. But to me it fits the experience the revelation and the God behind both.

Besides one doesn't start this way. Doubts exists and it is certainly not unthinkable that my faith could be wrong. This is what a crisis of faith is all about. But those rarely shake the core belief of someone once that have been baptised in the Holy Spirit, for good reason.
I am unlikely to ever disbelieve in God, not because it goes against what I prefer to believe, but because it goes against what I know from experience.

IOW, an explanation on why believing hard enough means it must be true, and because YOU can't explain it any other way, it must be god. Does the pastor listen to the radio? Does he talk with his friends about current events before going to preach? Does he read the news? Does he talk to people about their troubles? All of those can stick some little tidbit or nugget in a person's subconscious and influence them. I don't care if he actually does or doesn't do any of those, I'm just trying to show examples of the subconscious (for example) could influence a person's thoughts for the day and them not realize it.

Again, if you can provide real, hard proof that god or any divine being exists, I'd change my mind. Until then, my position is firm, just as yours is unless there was some magical evidence you found proving you wrong.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Also, please don't paint all atheists with the same brush, because atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief, people from all walks of life are atheists with no other connection than they don't believe in your magical, invisible, all powerful man in the sky.

I don't paint all atheists with the same brush. I highlight those atheists who have a vested heartfelt interest in bashing religion. Those who parrot the mantra 'no evidence' without looking for any, those who want to discriminate against honest believers in theologies they do no share without any fair cause. The average joe who doesn't believe in God doesn't say those things, the fanatic does.

And yet, when I do the same, you get offended and claim those are just subsets, not all religions (even though I basically said as much). Not to mention the burden of proof is on YOU for proving god. That doesn't mean I don't look, I just don't spend all my free time (or even a large portion of it) searching for something I've dismissed as non existent. Otherwise I'd be hunting the easter bunny, santa claus, and the tooth fairy too.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

But, as you've said, I'm not surprised you haven't noticed because theists in a given religion generally all believe the same thing.

How monumentally off the reservation that comment is. We all believe the same thing? No! That is the sort of gak Donald Trump comes up with. aka All Moslems are in agreement with ISIS.
And yes have have noticed the differences, this is why you have denominations to begin with, and differences within denominations etc etc.
Also even if the denomination is broadly similar there are wide bounds of application. Most Christians will not share common ground with the Westboro Baptists, and are quick to say so.

I thought I made it obvious, by " theists in a given religion" I meant each of their little tiny subsects (i.e. the group on 1st street vs the group on main street), not as in Christianity as whole, I suppose that's my bad for not being 100% clear on that.

 Orlanth wrote:
But you just cant let go. Religious belief, including atheism, has always been an emotive issue, and always will be.

That's not how it works. Atheism isn't an "emotive issue" just because people care about it, just like no amount of arguing with someone about the fact that 1+1=2 will make basic math an "emotive issue". Don't confuse caring enough about a subject to argue about it with a lack of clear evidence-based reasons to hold a particular belief about it.

Again there is plenty of evidence to support religion. Those who don't like the evidence therefore manufacture excuses to claim it is not evidence. It has been a running theme. It is just a mental cushion that enables you to pretend you are purely scientifically open minded and look at both sides of an argument impartially. People aren't like that in real life and religion is a real life issue, not a theoretical one.

No, people dismiss your so-called evidence because it is absolute garbage. We've been over this before, none of the things you've posted are at all convincing to anyone who isn't already Christian and looking for excuses to continue believing. It's not that we hate god and refuse to listen, it's that we've listened to the best you can provide and found it severely lacking.

The trouble is it is UNTHINKABLE to some that Dr Gallagher could be anything other than a quack. Literally UNTHINKABLE, because their conditioning doesn't permit the subject matter to be thought through, even though it is a mainstream theology of the the worlds largest religion. Defend it, and others turn up on Dakka and surprise, surprise, it is UNTHINKABLE to them too.

There you go again, insisting that anyone who disagrees with you must be incapable of THINKING because of their "conditioning". We don't disagree with Dr. Gallagher because it's UNTHINKABLE and we can't even conceive of him being right, we disagree with him because we don't see any credible evidence that he's right.

The numerous calls for Dr Gallagher to no longer be allowed to practice due to a conflict with you belief systems should be a warning that perhaps the atheist zeitgeist is no as open minded and inquisitive as it thinks it is.

Being open-minded does not mean allowing any random fraud to sell whatever "treatment" they want. We have standards for this kind of thing for very good reasons. We'd say the same things about a doctor selling fraudulent "cancer treatments" on the side, even if there were no confirmed reports of their scam interfering with their other work.

 Peregrine wrote:

That's not how it works. Atheism isn't an "emotive issue" just because people care about it, just like no amount of arguing with someone about the fact that 1+1=2 will make basic math an "emotive issue".

You false flagging this. Mistaking atheism as a factual point rather than an opinion. 1+1=2 is a flat fact, atheist belief is faith choice.

 Peregrine wrote:

Don't confuse caring enough about a subject to argue about it with a lack of clear evidence-based reasons to hold a particular belief about it.

 Peregrine wrote:

No, people dismiss your so-called evidence because it is absolute garbage.

Some people, don't try the appeal to popularity fallacy.
Also you made the claim the evidence was absolute garbage very early one, before looking at any of it.

 Peregrine wrote:

We've been over this before, none of the things you've posted are at all convincing to anyone who isn't already Christian and looking for excuses to continue believing.

Again you are incorrect. You assume that because you don't believe in it only a Christian would. Were this true nobody would become a Christian because they found the evidence convincing, yet many do. Also why would Christians need to look for excuses to believe? Once you know the Holy Spirit, you know God is real.

 Peregrine wrote:

It's not that we hate god and refuse to listen, it's that we've listened to the best you can provide and found it severely lacking.

If this were the case you would approach religion differently. Some have done so. Yet thread after thread you post a lot of bile, its normally the first thing you do.
Also drop the 'we' most people who turn up done pile on the hate like you do.

 Peregrine wrote:

There you go again, insisting that anyone who disagrees with you must be incapable of THINKING because of their "conditioning". We don't disagree with Dr. Gallagher because it's UNTHINKABLE and we can't even conceive of him being right, we disagree with him because we don't see any credible evidence that he's right.

No I am making a distinction between those who just have a contrary opinion and do not believe in God, and fanatical atheists.

 Peregrine wrote:

The numerous calls for Dr Gallagher to no longer be allowed to practice due to a conflict with you belief systems should be a warning that perhaps the atheist zeitgeist is no as open minded and inquisitive as it thinks it is.

Being open-minded does not mean allowing any random fraud to sell whatever "treatment" they want.

Normally if you want to accuse someone of fraud you have to provide evidence. To an atheist fanatic, just being religious is excuse enough.
Where is your evidence that Dr Gallagher is a fraud?

 Peregrine wrote:

We have standards for this kind of thing for very good reasons.

Sorry, you are not showing 'standards'.

 Peregrine wrote:

We'd say the same things about a doctor selling fraudulent "cancer treatments" on the side, even if there were no confirmed reports of their scam interfering with their other work.

Again you are false flagging this. There is no correlation. Dr Gallagher is not selling anything that we are aware of, and an exorcism is never prescribed, but only available on patients request.

Well I can see this thread is well on its way to being locked.

Orlanth, I can only speak for myself but a lot of this is just insane. I would never ever trust a doctor who said my condition was caused by an invisible entity sent to do me harm because said doctor believes this is the case. This is a pure example of faith causng harm, period.

We don't develop OCD or depression because fallen angels have targeted us for damnation. The chemichals in your brain unbalancing do that. Thats science, thats real. Believing otherwise is dangerous to a persons health. In some cases it may make them worse.

Telling a schizophrenic that the voices are actually demons living in his skull is not going to net a positive reaction.

And thats why faith, while a comfort and a boon to some, can be dangerous enough it makes people angry.

It can have a place in medicine but faith should NEVER replace medicine.

This doctor is actively hurting people by suggestng an excorsism. There are cases around the world where people convinced of demonic possesion have murdered friends and family trying to save their soul.

This is dangerous and that is why its so upsetting and why Im weighing in. In the vain hope you may see that this isn't just about attacking god. This more along the lines of being angry at an anti vaxxer.

Wether you take any of this with a grain of salt or ignore it is up to you ultimately up to you. But understand Im not attacking your faith, Im attacking the harm.

 Orlanth wrote:
Dr Gallagher is not selling anything that we are aware of, and an exorcism is never prescribed, but only available on patients request.

Presumably he's being paid.

An exorcism being requested by the patient doesn't make it an appropriate treatment for a medical professional to be involved in. Acceding to that request in lieu of providing actual medical care would seem like the textbook definition of malpractice, frankly.

lonestarr777 wrote:
Well I can see this thread is well on its way to being locked.

Orlanth, I can only speak for myself but a lot of this is just insane. I would never ever trust a doctor who said my condition was caused by an invisible entity sent to do me harm because said doctor believes this is the case. This is a pure example of faith causng harm, period.

Ok. You have this backwards. People go to exorcists thinking they are demonised. Dr Gallagher accompanies the exorcists and in many cases has been able to diagnose mental health problems instead. When he cannot he just shuts up and observes because he is not the exorcist, he just accompanies the exorcist on his job.

lonestarr777 wrote:

We don't develop OCD or depression because fallen angels have targeted us for damnation.
Telling a schizophrenic that the voices are actually demons living in his skull is not going to net a positive reaction.

According to Dr Gallagher the majority of cases are dignosable as mentally ill. If the patient had OCD, or depression or was a schizophrenic, presumably Dr Gallagher would inform the exorcists that they are wasting their time. Presumably the patient or their carer would be told that a mental illness was diagnosed.

lonestarr777 wrote:

The chemichals in your brain unbalancing do that. Thats science, thats real. Believing otherwise is dangerous to a persons health. In some cases it may make them worse.

Look carefully at Dr Gallagher's comments in the OP and link. Find out where you think he doesnt understand this.

lonestarr777 wrote:

And thats why faith, while a comfort and a boon to some, can be dangerous enough it makes people angry.

You are angry based on a misconception and assumptions on a subject matter you have not bothered to read up about. Sorry that is not good enough.

lonestarr777 wrote:

It can have a place in medicine but faith should NEVER replace medicine.

Exorcism evidently doesnt, or a psychitrist would not be a welcome companion. Neither would St Luke.

lonestarr777 wrote:

This doctor is actively hurting people by suggesting an excorsism. There are cases around the world where people convinced of demonic possesion have murdered friends and family trying to save their soul.

Perhaps they were indeed possessed, we dont know except on a case by case basis.

lonestarr777 wrote:

This is dangerous and that is why its so upsetting and why Im weighing in. In the vain hope you may see that this isn't just about attacking god. This more along the lines of being angry at an anti vaxxer.

God as in Jsus, believes in possession and deliverance from same. It isn't a fringe doctrine, its a core element of Christianity.
Dr Gallagher followed exorcists for twenty years, saw a lot of people who he was able to diagnosed as mentally ill, but a few cases he thinks otherwise. Surely he has evidence to convince himself of that, after all it is not like he is expecting possession if by his own quotes he finds tat the majority of people who ask for an exorcist are mentally ill and require mendane medical treatment.

lonestarr777 wrote:

Wether you take any of this with a grain of salt or ignore it is up to you ultimately up to you. But understand I'm not attacking your faith, Im attacking the harm.

I see you are well intentioned, so I add no weighting to what you say. Please read Dr Gallagher's article.

 Orlanth wrote:

You false flagging this. Mistaking atheism as a factual point rather than an opinion. 1+1=2 is a flat fact, atheist belief is faith choice.

Yes, 1 + 1 = 2. I'm not sure why that has any relevance to the divine, though.