Well, that’s just it. The “evidence” of demons comes directly from the Bible, which is the cornerstone of Christian belief. In fact, I fail to see how somebody can claim to be a good Christian and NOT believe in the reality of demonic possession.
Once you acknowledge that some parts of the Bible are wrong, you pretty much have to scrap the whole thing, I would imagine. I mean, on what basis can somebody claim that, say, Christ really did turn water into wine, and he really did heal the sick, and he really did rise from the grave, but the bit about casting out demons? Never happened.
Sure, maybe the whole “demon” thing was just a metaphor for mental illness, described in terms that the people at the time could understand. But what about the accounts where Jesus actually spoke with the demons (“My name is Legion…”)?
I dunno. I think you either have to accept the Bible as valid evidence for the existence of demonic possession, or else you acknowledge that the Bible is just folklore and fairytale.
I think it’s fallacious to say that the Bible must either be accepted as 100% literal or “scrapped.” It is possible to read it as allegorical or as containing moral truths wrapped in fictionalized history. I daresay that most Christians (and Jews) no longer believe in the literal creation story of Genesis or in Noah’s flood but that doesn’t mean they reject those stories as worthless.
Obviously, people in ancient times thought that conditions like schizophrenia and autism were caused by demons. They also thought that physical ailments had supernatural causes and they performed religious rituals to drive out evil spirits or demons or whatever. Jesus might have performed those rituals too but that doesn’t mean that he was actually driving out demons or speaking to them. Those stories can also be read as conveying symbolic information rather than literal.
I know that many people still base a literal belief in demons in the Bible but we know better than that now, don’t we? Do we really have to humor such beliefs as having any credibility?
“You know, medicine is not an exact science, but we are learning all the time. Why, just fifty years ago they thought a disease like your daughter’s was caused by demonic possession or witchcraft. But nowadays, we know that Isabelle is suffereing from an imbalance of bodily humors, perhaps caused by a toad or a small dwarf living in her stomach.”
– Theodoric of York, medieval barber
"To the rational mind, nothing is inexplicable; only unexplained. "–Doctor Who. There are tons of things which science has not yet got a handle on; how many other stars have planets; does convection permeate the mantle and the core of the earth; what is the maximum life span of human beings; what is the nature and origin and consciousness.
The vital difference between the rational and the credulous is that the latter immediately invoke supernatural agencies for unexplained phenomena whereas the rational folks seek to understand and ultimately explain the heretofore unexplained.
The sad thing is that the supernaturally inclined suffer from a lack of imagnination and curiousity. They are content to have the thunder explained as Thor shaking his hammer or Yahweh speaking from the clouds and let it go at that. The beauty of rational thinking is that it leads to vastly more intricate and complex understanding of the universe than does the dull acceptance of the religious and the gullible.
What a load. You think every Christian sees someone sneeze and thinks they have a demon? If he’s got a cold, he’s got a cold. Do you believe science has an answer for everything? Usually what science can’t answer, is usually written off to ‘the mind works in mysterious ways’. And yes, it’s all or nothing with the Bible. If I was 99% faithful to my wife, I’m unfaithful.
As for speaking in tongues, I’ve heard a lot of stories. I don’t believe it’s needed to be saved, but I don’t think any gift of the Holy Spirit is needed for salvation, apart from faith.
I do believe in demonic possession, but I think it’s a fairly rare phenomenon. Most mental illness is just that- mental illness, treatable with psychotherapy and/or medication. However, there are those rare cases in which psychiatrists/psychologists finally have to throw up their hands and say, “I dunno, man.” In such cases, I think one would have to at least examine the possibility that the person might, just might be possessed by one or more demons.
Incidentally, in modern exorcisms, the exorcism can last from just a few minutes to, well, months. In the Bible (heck, it was last week’s Gospel reading) there is a story of parents coming to Jesus asking Him to cast a devil out of their son. Seems the apostles couldn’t get the job done. Jesus reprimanded them for their lack of faith, and told the demon to get lost. Demon split. Jesus added that “this kind only comes out by prayer and fasting”, implying that some demons are just plain tough old buzzards and it’s going to require a lot of work to get rid of them. Unless, of course, you’re God Incarnate.
I do not hold to the idea that all illness, physical or mental, is caused by demonic possession, and can be cured by exorcism. I think Bob Larson and his ilk are charlatans, putting on a show in order to persuade the ignorant and too-credulous faithful to buy a lot of books and tapes on spiritual warfare, or just flat out send a check, in order to fatten their own wallets.
That’s like saying that you do believe in leprechauns but you think they’re exceedingly rare. It’s no less ridicuolous to believe in rare demonic possession than it is to believe in commonplace demonic possession. There is no such thing as demons. Join the 21st century.
Now, I don’t want to imply too much by any of this, I have reputation for clarity and brilliance I am anxious to maintain, but…
We have the relentlessly rational view given by friends Dio and Gobear: don’t exist, no such, zero phenomenon, cannot impact the material world due to fundamental non-existence. Period.
Things that don’t exist have no effect. They are not observed, nor are thier effects observed, because they don’t exist.
Yet every human culture, I daresay without exception, has traditions of ghosts, spirits, souls, etc. Without, of course, an observation of common phenomena because, by definition, they never happen. Doesn’t that strike you as rather odd? Why would humanity so commonly share a perception without a cause? If there is no basis for a sense of a “spirit world”, why would it be universal?
Note also that the concept of “possession” is also very common. In my ignorance, I hesitate to declare it equally “universal”, but I wouldn’t bet against it. Many cultures actually invite “possession” on a short term basis in order to gain some special insight. (To my mind, that seems rather like giving the front door key to your home to hobos and vagrants, but what do I know…)
Surely you’ve been around here long enough to recognize that ad populum arguments are fallacious.
At one time the ancient world had a virtually universal belief that the sun and the moon were gods. They also had a pretty common belief that lightning was flung from the sky by thunder gods. The beliefs are universal because they are attempts to understand natural phenomena which is universal. Mental illness is universal and is often quite baffling. Sometimes it even seems like some whole other person climbed inside of Aunt Matilda. Must be evil spirits.
People like to believe in souls and ghosts because it is not exactly inspiring to think that once you die, you rot. The lights go out and that’s that. People also have overpowering desires to reconnect with loved ones who have passed. Sometimes they have vivid dreams, or see a shadow or interpret some natural phenomenon in a way that lets them think they have seen a spirit. (BTW, not all cultures do believe in souls, although most of them do).
Also lots and lots of people, maybe most of them, are just garden variety liars. Anecdotal evidence is disregarded by scientists for a reason you know.
The fact is that no real evidence, that is, scientifically verifiable evidence, has ever been observed that would confirm the notion of spirits, ghosts, demons, angels, souls, devils or gods.
I’m willing to reserve a speck (just a speck) of credulity to the idea that the universe is the product of some transcendent consciousness or meta-reality that I am not aware of.
The notion of demonic possession, on the other hand, is just fucking retarded.
Yes, isn’t it strange when we translate one language to another we attribute their legends in another language to legends in our language.
We expect and look for explinatons for stuff, and when we don’t see what could be causing something we invent a cause so we don’t go mad not knowing. That this is evidenced by many cultures says nothing about how accurate it is.
Many cultures think they are the only important cultures too, does this suggest that the US must be superior because many other cultures also felt that way?
Thanks for that one pravnik! I haven’t thought of those Theodoric of York sketches in ages!
As to the OP, these people were absolutely ignorant fuckwads that deserve whatever spanking the law can hand them. I will not enter into the superstition vs science debate here except to note that there is a fairly conclusive track record regarding which one works better.
I know very little about what Pat Robertson does, and I know nothing about Benny Hill at all. But it is unfair of you to call me or what I believe ignorant based on what they say or do. You can’t criticize a belief for the people who hold it.
So I think of myself as reasonably intelligent, yet I have spent time in spiritual pursuits - not religious, spiritual, and of a bent that I’d expect not many people practice. Should I cease this immediately, on pain of being regarded as irrational? Should I drop the friends who introduced me to this, because they’re leading me astray (and for that reason alone), and tell 'em to go to hell?
So what? Invisible does not equal supernatural. Those things are detectable in other ways. They have materiality. “Spirits” do not. There is nothing to distinguish “spirit” from simple non-existence, and there is still no reason at all to posit demons or spirits describe any phenomenon which has ever been perceived by humans.
I hear this a lot from religious people. They say “I’m not religious, I’m spirtual.” When I ask them what they mean by “spiritual” they start describing religious beliefs. What do you think is the difference between a religious belief and a spiritual belief?
