possession and exorcism

[Caid Ivik]

People don't like any God over them so they created Satan and his dread legions to put their anger on.

[Egeides]

It seems to me that this passage to "demon/bad entities control the world" has the issue of getting the "dark" controlling the place (just as demons/angels-worshipping societies). Basically, since ever, ANYTHING happens and it is possible to put it on the back of some animist spirits, pagan divinities, demon, you name it. Thus, it is then true that to dwell in such a world (to the extreme: get into incantations and trying to believe them to empower them, etc.) actually brings un-truth, destruction, and ultimately some evil. It "obscures" certain things and renders tools to get out of mud inefficient (by Manichean elements not based on un-shifty mecanisms we can structurally act on).

It brings a serious vagueness to any evaluation of the world. This is like a plus/minus 10 mL instrument imprecision in chemistry, where you got to take 30 mL... I propose to get better measurement tool.

This is one aspect of what I mean by "booby-traped" area, as if not looked with good understanding of tools, it can affect one's capacities. As a thinking mode, it's risky... A bit like basing our evaluations on "future divination" and such. It is leading to worst, the only way out that I see being reliable tools to look at this.

Notice that it would be a sophism to say that what I brought shows the non-existence of demons. But what it does show is that it's not just about if evil propagates naturally or by personalized intermediates. Simply mixing things can obscure human minds and limit capacities. When some Chrtistians/else start doing incantation-magic and believe in it, this isn't part of the Christian message.

This is to let devils and their study take over. Such topics are "devil-ish" by nature (as spying for conspiracy theorists). There's a serious need to bring the opposite of such compass-distorting areas, barem of truthness and Truth seeking (best reliability possible, minimal error, etc.), which Christianity is about (not lying, etc.). Diminishing the shades by "good measures".

Above each shade is the sun. It'll be a world of shadows as more and more of what is looked is the shadows themselves, rather than considering a wider intelligible "shadows-light hitting obstacles" relation.

[TMA_1]

Well Acriku, billions have the same "extreme" faith as I do in this world, its just that the centralization of secular ideas dwells in the west and far east. To those who believe though, your notions of a world bound only to itself without spiritual rules and laws, and spiritual history are silly.

[Caid Ivik]

Perhaps we do so in such numbers, but you can't say these billions have no critical thinking.

[Dude_Doc]

If you cant think of any positive things that religion has done for the world then i am gonna assume you are a poor thinker.

Well, give me a great example (except charity organizations).

Secondly, what will science do for you if an afterlife exists? Absolutely nothing....

Yes, but that is if we are 100% sure of an afterlife in the first place. Besides, if an afterlife does exist, it would also depend on what kind of afterlife that is. A better world, or heaven, or reincarnation. And what would we want of science if a better place existed after life?

whereas faith can have both a positive effect on both the material world and the afterlife.

Not necessarily (in the material world). 

Meaning if God exists then anything we do scientifically for good purposes was only possible because he provided the raw materials in the first place...all reason, intelligence, materials, everything would technically flow downward from God so patting yourself on the back for being smart and creating a mechanical arm or vaccine is pretty silly.

Well, in fact I am pretty disgraced towards humanity since most of the time we so behave in selfish, disgusting and twisted ways. Of course I aknowledge the good things we have done, but right now I don't see a very free and uniting future for man (but this may be just a way of looking at the glass half-full or half-empty).

But once again, since we have no definite proof of God, we can't really say "thanks" to somebody, and of course it ends up with "us patting ourselves". I'm sorry, but we are living in a very materialistic world today - we need proof in a way that we can toutch, taste, smell and feel in any possible way known to man. May it even be the apocalypse. That's the way we are created.

Diseases.

I'm going to tease you with "decease" for the rest of your life.  ;D

[Egeides]

Otherman:

Religion brought many to do everything they could for betterment. As for how selfish the world is, well religion is exactly about trying to do the best on this aspect. When a stranger welcomes me and helps me because of what he thinks is the best for him to do, and that this "best" comes from religion, I see that he isn't acting selfish (whattever the others).

About being sure of something, well you do trust your wife/girlfriend or that she loves you. Personally, I can't be sure in the absolute that you exist, and it's not so much of an issue. Science is good to verify empirically, but as any set of instruments its very nature form its capacities and limits.

Now back on topic:

For some, demons are a way to fill the gap of "know that you don't know". When the rest fails, this is still more reliable than what is left of a very dim presence of verified/pragmatic cause-effect reasons. This is the issue, and what this kind of "dwelling in the dark" can bring of darkness/blindness. There is a need to understand how "to not know" works, to see that not knowing doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There's a need to deal with unreliable fields of knowledge correctly. Otherwise, demons in whattever way or forms can take over.

[Dude_Doc]

Religion brought many to do everything they could for betterment. As for how selfish the world is, well religion is exactly about trying to do the best on this aspect.

Indeed the teachings of religion do motivate people to do better, I can't argue about that, but if we see it historically: even religion has been corrupted into a system only profitable to the highest brass. It was only recently been "liberalized" (and even that is very restricted to Europe), we can still see some very conservative and restraining courses being taken in every part of the world.

Anyways, wether religion is good or bad can be discussed in another topic. My point in this discussion is that science has helped people "in reality", that is, they have provided direct treatment to any problems. Religion don't do this. Religion can consult, yes, but not cure a cancer or AIDs, or create robotic/biological replacement for a physical part in the body.

For example, let's imagine that the year is 2105. Robotics have developed on a grand scale, finetuned into the smallest particle. A man has a son. His son is injured in an accident, and looses both of his eyes. He can go to church, and pray that his son is going to make it the rest of his life without his eyes, or, he can go to a doctor/"mechanic" and get new eyes for his son. And you don't have to pray for new eyes, or go to church. You don't even have to believe that it is possible.

What I am saying here is that because of this, people will loose faith. And not simply because of the replacement of organs, or cures for various diseases, but because science also explains logically how everything works. Mathimatically, physically, bilogically etc., without anyone having to pray to a god, or go to any church. So, in order for people to regain faith they must have proof of God. Let it be something that stunns everyone, some unexplainable and undeniable act of God. All it requires is 5 minutes of miracle, nothing more.

When a stranger welcomes me and helps me because of what he thinks is the best for him to do, and that this "best" comes from religion, I see that he isn't acting selfish (whattever the others).

Not necessary. Psychology explains that working together is benefits both parts than being selfish. I believe you know it as "prisoner's dilemma". It's a evolutionary programming of humans that allows us to do this, not necessarily moral law.

About being sure of something, well you do trust your wife/girlfriend or that she loves you.

As harsh as this may sound, I don't trust anything. It has been prooven that love lasts for about 4-5 years, then our "chemical kicks" are not enough to keep us together, and so we search other attractive males/females. This can also be parallelled with any lifeform: replication. By only loving one partner for a whole life is not very beneficial, the spicies will not develop as fast. But if we are attracted to more females, then we will also make more offsprings, which is the whole point of a spicies: survival and replication.

Then, of course, there are people who trust each other, but let us consider that many people also keep things hidden throughout their whole life. But of course, there are many kinds of trust. I trust that no one will take my books on a lesson in class when I go to the bathroom (yes, it's a little slap where I go), or take my seat, and so on. But even this kind of trust also needs a, what I would call, "situation evaluation", that is: is my class a group of thieves?, have anyone lost their books/things during a lesson before?, who is the person sitting next to me, how long have I known him, can I trust him not to take my books?, and so on. It's not that I stand there like some demented idiot and think these things out everytime, it's a big flash of consideration my brain is calculating out in less than a second.

The same thing happens in countries too. When a country has almost zero crime, people are more open because they have evaluated the situation as "not dangerous". If we look at the country again in 50 years, we see that crime has risen by 500%, and survelliance, police and defence is common. People have evaluated that situation as dangerous, thus the increase of security devices, police and survelliance.

Personally, I can't be sure in the absolute that you exist, and it's not so much of an issue.

:) Have you ever had the thought that you may be the only person really alive, and that everything you know is just some unimaginable computer simulation? Your family, your friends - nothing of it was or will ever be real. (But don't think too much of this or you'll go insane :D )...

Science is good to verify empirically, but as any set of instruments its very nature form its capacities and limits.

That is true. Can't that also be said about religion?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Well Acriku, billions have the same "extreme" faith as I do in this world, its just that the centralization of secular ideas dwells in the west and far east. To those who believe though, your notions of a world bound only to itself without spiritual rules and laws, and spiritual history are silly.

Yea.. i think the problem is that Acriku wants to compare Satan to Santa Claus.

[Acriku]

Yea.. i think the problem is that Acriku wants to compare Satan to Santa Claus.  The problem  is that Satan has a little more backing due to being part of a major religions whereas as Santa is clearly a character that everyone agrees is ficticious.  So we can say for sure that santa claus doesnt exist because he was clearly made up.  Since Satan is part of many major religions of which many intelligent people believe and have faith in then it becomes a matter of you cant really know for sure.

Quite the same evidence to support both's existence, however. Being a part of a major religion is not evidence. Sorry.

Its all very logical and there is no need to ring the "reality bell".... you are just being  a "wet blanket" Acriku. (putting out good ideas like a wet blanket puts out flames).....Plain and simple.  As soon as people start getting ideas to the contrary of what you believe then you start to to panic and try to "call to reality"  Which is stupid cause this universe is mysterious... if you believe that matter of the universe just magically made itself...then to me that is just as silly as religion is silly to you.  I dont believe a hamburger is gonna magically appear in my hand without the assistance of a higher being... just as i dont believe a universe wouldnt spawn out of nowhere without the assistance of a higher being.  So your call to "reality" is pretty dumb when we dont even know what "reality" is in the first place.

First of all, if the premises are not logical, the conclusion cannot be logical, but that's for another debate ;-) Anyway, it's not that I get antsy when people have ideas to the contrary of what I believe in. It's when people start going so far deep into their own religion, they really do appear to be so far out there that people from an objective standpoint put on their "whatchu talkin' bout Willis?" face and go, "Huh?" And I don't believe matter magically made itself. I'm not sure where you got that from my post.

The major flaw in your reasoning of the hamburger is that if a simple hamburger requires a higher being to make it, then there's even more reason to believe that the higher being requires an even higher being to make. If you disagree and say that God does not need a creator, than neither does the hamburger or the Universe for that matter.

[Caid Ivik]

You make all same error by wild categorizing; to search for a common point between Santa Claus and Satan, and then using is as evidence for truth value of this category, that's apophenia, not a way to argue...

[Acriku]

While it is not the subject of this discussion, it was a point that I brought up to demonstrate how "imaginative" TMA and GUNWOUNDS' talkings of Satan and his demons were. If someone started talking of rogue and splinter elves, which are as logical as rogue and splinter demons are (according to GUNWOUNDS' reasons for the demons' logic, which can be applied to the elves), they would not be taken seriously.

[TMA_1]

We both have different perceptions of this universe, with different logic and a different mindset. How can I or the other be right? its all relative. You are one dimensional because your perception only allows you your specific form of logic and point of view.

so what makes us different?

[Acriku]

I adhere to a simple philosophy that places concepts that have come out of a two-thousand-year-old book into a category of high skepticism. You don't.

[Caid Ivik]

While it is not the subject of this discussion, it was a point that I brought up to demonstrate how "imaginative" TMA and GUNWOUNDS' talkings of Satan and his demons were. If someone started talking of rogue and splinter elves, which are as logical as rogue and splinter demons are (according to GUNWOUNDS' reasons for the demons' logic, which can be applied to the elves), they would not be taken seriously.

It isn't needed from you to show us how imaginative they are, we can read them ;) On the other hand, it won't help any side of understanding any of the used terms. If you categorize all as part of imagination, then you wouldn't understand anything. Solipsism is a hard way, you know.

[GUNWOUNDS]

It isn't needed from you to show us how imaginative they are, we can read them ;) On the other hand, it won't help any side of understanding any of the used terms. If you categorize all as part of imagination, then you wouldn't understand anything. Solipsism is a hard way, you know.

Makes sense.

TMA,

I think i see what Acriku's problem is.... he thinks super deep theological thinking will alienate people who are unfamiliar with the religion. THIS IS TRUE.

[TMA_1]

no you are right, and really that hit me between the eyes, thanks for posting it. "a little knowledge puffs up" as the bible says. Sometimes I just desire to talk abouti t anyways, but I know it is only meant for fellow brethren at times. There is a verse for it actually, but I dont want to post it as it sounds kinda offensive.lol

C.S. Lewis is a genius, read a lot of his essays and speeches. He did talk a lot about issues involving christianity to new believers and those who dont believe. There is really so much you can say. So yeah, I do agree with you. :)

[GUNWOUNDS]

no you are right, and really that hit me between the eyes, thanks for posting it. "a little knowledge puffs up" as the bible says. Sometimes I just desire to talk abouti t anyways, but I know it is only meant for fellow brethren at times. There is a verse for it actually, but I dont want to post it as it sounds kinda offensive.lol

C.S. Lewis is a genius, read a lot of his essays and speeches. He did talk a lot about issues involving christianity to new believers and those who dont believe. There is really so much you can say. So yeah, I do agree with you. :)

yea i think you are referring to the scripture that has the word "pearls" in it?  ;)

[GUNWOUNDS]

The major flaw in your reasoning of the hamburger is that if a simple hamburger requires a higher being to make it, then there's even more reason to believe that the higher being requires an even higher being to make. If you disagree and say that God does not need a creator, than neither does the hamburger or the Universe for that matter.

No, i understand that you can only go so far back until you logically have to accept that the first cause had to have no begining.

[Caid Ivik]

After this argument

I think i see what Acriku's problem is.... he thinks super deep theological thinking will alienate people who are unfamiliar with the religion. THIS IS TRUE.  Which is why C.S. Lewis said you should never argue complex deep spiritual or theological things with someone who is unfamiliar with your religion.  So really Acriku shouldnt be in this conversation since he isnt part of our faith TMA.  This is really a discussion that a christian should be having with another christian.  Its deep theological thought and an Atheist should not be in such a conversation since he doesnt even accept the first premise of a God existing.  So really, he shouldnt even be in this discussion and his mere presence is that of a troll, technically speaking.  A christian shouldnt be discussing this type of deep stuff with an atheist... the only things we should be discussing with Acriku/atheists is BASIC faith premises.  Do you agree with C.S. Lewis's opinion TMA or do you disagree?  Personally i agree.

I find it rather unhonest to make other arguments towards him, Gunwounds. Altough imo it is a flawed one, as nobody can become "familiar with religion" without discursive exploration. Either it was one-sided acceptance during childhood from catechumens or personal philosophical research, which may - and I would say that it should - include doubt and critical stance.

[GUNWOUNDS]

After this argument

I find it rather unhonest to make other arguments towards him, Gunwounds. Altough imo it is a flawed one, as nobody can become "familiar with religion" without discursive exploration. Either it was one-sided acceptance during childhood from catechumens or personal philosophical research, which may - and I would say that it should - include doubt and critical stance.

[Caid Ivik]

Our flesh and logic are bound to each other, so I would not say it is "pride" which searches for consense. You yourself said that criticism is natural. Acriku only criticizes more deeply, he questions more basic elements. Which are imo easier to explore, and so it is easier to discuss about. Essence of religion and ie demonology is not same, but when you show it so (without ontologic reduction; as you can say that everything has same primordial essence...), it is a very easily arguable point.

So as I may now turn to the second thing, demonology has no place in christianity nor in Bible. Despite we may talk about spiritual and immaterial existence (or being? to be more accurate), it is sure that not in the terms which would have some "alternative logic", which doesn't bind other phenomena of the world. Also I don't know, what makes you certain, that this "spiritual logic" would be the same as the one concerning ie concepts of salvation. Jesus himself was no epistemologist, nor was any of the patriarchs or prophets.

[GUNWOUNDS]

"He only criticizes more deeply"

This is false he only criticizes more shallowly.

[Caid Ivik]

I would hold the context  ;)  Deep criticism means to criticize foundation, what is the motive is irelevant. I would say it is needed to criticize it exactly because it is a foundation. What so extremely complex was proposed by Acriku, I don't know. Next important factor is whether you both understand complexity of discussed phenomena.

Our mind works somehow different than by dialectics of arrogance and submission. Your neurons are parts of same body as you are, altough they hold more data than hormones. In your example, there simply was no link between one info and the other. While there is one logic functional for both: ignoring desire to sleep (lazyness) would also harm you. Such discourse was a question in times of Aristoteles who solved many such questions, altough you can still criticize 2k years old books...

To the end, perception of God is a very hard question. God has no mouth to say you something, and there is no prophet alive to ask him how it went. Here, solipsism would be really an argument. We know what Moses wrote, but not what he perceived. I would say he had to have problems to formulate the teaching, and also name of God (dh his primary attribute - as Jah, ultimate being), more than a book of commands, which was instantly accepted by such a critical nation as Israel.

[TMA_1]

interesting point Caid about the transcendance of God in the old testament, you can really get a feel for it if you know what the language is saying. Like when Moses recieved a vision of the glory of God through the burning bush. When God calls himself the doubled "I am". Complete and utter self contained being. God is the only self fulfilling and self sustaining one, and people just dont see how amazing this is, how no other religion really taps into the complete eternal nature of God. Even religions of the east that try to break otuside the boundaries of the old Hindu dogma, looking beyond to something even deeper. No notions ever beat the awe inspiring beauty of the scriptures.