A case of demonic possession

[Brickjectivity]

I feel like this is one where I ought to put in from experience that ministers like to pay people to pretend to be 'Possessed' by other souls, ghosts, fallen angels or whatever; and they like to have a lot of intense shouting at the 'Demons' like that would ever do any good. It is totally fake. In addition I have seen youtube videos of questionable muslim practitioners enacting exorcisms, and their exorcisms closely resemble the false exorcisms of ministry.

On the topic of NT writings, its fair to point out that viruses and demons are the same thing to NT people, to those people in Jesus culture. The understanding of the time was to call the more mysterious diseases such as flu, demons; and the various home remedies for curing the diseases was called exorcism.

Those who want to use the ancient terminology of the NT about demons and exorcisms should be consistent and refer to colds, flues and AIDS as demons, otherwise they spread confusion. At least explain to children that this includes any invisible malady, not just schizophrenic behaviors and that aspirin, Tylenol and other medicines are very useful in helping to fight certain 'Demons'. Here in the USA its proven that one cure for the cold that often works is to drink a fifth of Jack Daniels, wrap oneself in a blanket and soak the feet in hot water. In this way we can exorcise a cold virus demon with no shouting, mumbling, chanting, killing or any other weird nonsense.

 

[steeltoes]

I shall remain skeptical until the movie comes out.

 

[thau]

I feel like this is one where I ought to put in from experience that ministers like to pay people to pretend to be 'Possessed' by other souls, ghosts, fallen angels or whatever; and they like to have a lot of intense shouting at the 'Demons' like that would ever do any good. It is totally fake. In addition I have seen youtube videos of questionable muslim practitioners enacting exorcisms, and their exorcisms closely resemble the false exorcisms of ministry.

On the topic of NT writings, its fair to point out that viruses and demons are the same thing to NT people, to those people in Jesus culture. The understanding of the time was to call the more mysterious diseases such as flu, demons; and the various home remedies for curing the diseases was called exorcism.

Those who want to use the ancient terminology of the NT about demons and exorcisms should be consistent and refer to colds, flues and AIDS as demons, otherwise they spread confusion. At least explain to children that this includes any invisible malady, not just schizophrenic behaviors and that aspirin, Tylenol and other medicines are very useful in helping to fight certain 'Demons'. Here in the USA its proven that one cure for the cold that often works is to drink a fifth of Jack Daniels, wrap oneself in a blanket and soak the feet in hot water. In this way we can exorcise a cold virus demon with no shouting, mumbling, chanting, killing or any other weird nonsense.

You would never tell a doctor his penicillin is a fake remedy because you know of some snake oil salesmen who told you the same thing and were frauds. So how can you point to fake exorcist preachers who we know exist and say that proves the more ostensibly humble and real priests are also liars? Why would the majority of priests who give their whole lives as a sacrifice to serving others -- why would they jeopardize their standing with God and their reputation by lying about things like this? That makes no sense to me.


Do you find this Columbia University psychiatrist’s case study of a demonically possessed to be filled with fabrications?
http://forums.understanding-islam.com/showthread.php?10296-A-case-of-demonic-possession

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Do you believe conscious entities can exist without physical bodies?

Do you think if you were to read a dozen or so seemingly strong cases (such as the OP) suggesting the paranormal, could your worldview ever change? Or is the logical appeal of physicalism just too strong?

I'm by no means a physicalist. I fully accept that things happen that we don't fully understand, things that many people would label as supernatural or paranormal. I believe in ghosts- I've seen them, experienced them. I've seen a great amount of evidence supporting their existence. It would therefore be foolish of me to try to deny their existence. However, I do not believe this phenomenon is supernatural or paranormal. Supernatural and paranormal mean what's beyond the natural or normal, and I don't believe ghosts fit this description. I believe that there are things that are not physical, but not beyond the normal or natural.

With that being said, I don't reject the idea of demon possession because it's commonly labeled as supernatural or paranormal. My rejection of demon possession is based on several other ideas: 1. demon possession is an archaic religious concept that was used to explain alot of mental maladies and other such things, 2. the idea is that a being, beyond our realm, has the ability to take over the mind of being on this realm, and I have both philosophical and spiritual reasons for rejecting this, 3. demon possession is predominantly a shamanic and Christian view that I reject.

Could there possibly be spirits that have a malevolent tendency? It's possible, but I don't really believe that's the case. Could such a being, if it existed, take over the mind of another being? That I fully reject.

One more thing, George. You post alot on RF on subjects dealing with the supernatural and paranormal, and it's clear this is an area that you accept and have a liking for. This is fine, but you also seem to have the tendency to think that everyone who disagrees with you on such phenomena de facto reject them, even if they have a different interpretation, like the one I described above that I have of ghosts. I don't reject certain phenomena, I just have a different interpretation of them, but this doesn't constitute physicalism. Just keep that in mind.

 

[George-ananda]

I feel like this is one where I ought to put in from experience that ministers like to pay people to pretend to be 'Possessed' by other souls, ghosts, fallen angels or whatever; and they like to have a lot of intense shouting at the 'Demons' like that would ever do any good. It is totally fake.

Although there may be charlatans, many cases just don't fit the charlatan hypothesis.

 

[thau]

Supernatural and paranormal mean what's beyond the natural or normal, and I don't believe ghosts fit this description. I believe that there are things that are not physical, but not beyond the normal or natural.

But without any clear examples, much less definitions, of what is "supernatural" means we can remain uncommitted on almost anything. In fact what does "natural" mean for that matter? Having observed the event makes it natural?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

But without any clear examples, much less definitions, of what is "supernatural" means we can remain uncommitted on almost anything. In fact what does "natural" mean for that matter? Having observed the event makes it natural?

I don't necessarily think the problem is one of definition, but of how people themselves view the event. Some people want to think that seeing a ghost, for example, is something outside the realm of what's normal, but some people think that it's something completely natural, and one day will be explainable, and even accepted, by science. Not being physical doesn't necessarily mean not being natural.

 

[George-ananda]

One more thing, George. You post alot on RF on subjects dealing with the supernatural and paranormal, and it's clear this is an area that you accept and have a liking for. This is fine, but you also seem to have the tendency to think that everyone who disagrees with you on such phenomena de facto reject them, even if they have a different interpretation, like the one I described above that I have of ghosts. I don't reject certain phenomena, I just have a different interpretation of them, but this doesn't constitute physicalism. Just keep that in mind.

Thanks for your clarification. I can't keep everyone I converse with perfectly straight so you notice I put a question mark after each sentence in my quote you copied. And now you clarified yourself and I apologize if I've been over presumptive.

Now, your views are not what I would call materialism/physicalism but many I meet on RF do have those views.

As for the words supernatural and paranormal I agree with you that there is nothing beyond the natural. I use these words (supernatural and paranormal) in their 'colloquial' sense as I have no better word.

Now I do believe in demons and possession but the subject is not a big thing with me. Here's my theory: Humans of the past were closer to nature than we are today. They also employed more 'right-brained' thinking and were more right-brain dominant which correlates with psychism. They were more influenced by nature spirits, ancestors and beings of the lower spiritual realms (closest to the physical) than us. This trait can still be seen more (but vanishing) in the aboriginal populations of the Americas, Australia and Africa than in Euro-Asians where left-brain processing became dominant.

 

[thau]

I don't necessarily think the problem is one of definition, but of how people themselves view the event. Some people want to think that seeing a ghost, for example, is something outside the realm of what's normal, but some people think that it's something completely natural, and one day will be explainable, and even accepted, by science. Not being physical doesn't necessarily mean not being natural.

That's fine if that is your position, but I guess we disagree.

If I am sitting a room by myself and plaster statue of the Virgin Mary starts to have tears of blood come out of her eyes --- 1) after instantly ruling out some nuns rigged this up, 2) I am going to conclude this is supernatural, this is God, this is the Virgin Mary giving us a message of dire importance. What I am not going to do is say it could have a natural explanation so there is no need for me to consider this further.

I am not trying to demean anyone's personal perceptions, I am telling you how definite I am of my own.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Although there may be charlatans, many cases just don't fit the charlatan hypothesis.

I believe I was the first person in the thread to even mention that there are charlatans out there. Just don't forget they are always with us and in plentiful supply.

You would never tell a doctor his penicillin is a fake remedy because you know of some snake oil salesmen who told you the same thing and were frauds. So how can you point to fake exorcist preachers who we know exist and say that proves the more ostensibly humble and real priests are also liars? Why would the majority of priests who give their whole lives as a sacrifice to serving others -- why would they jeopardize their standing with God and their reputation by lying about things like this? That makes no sense to me.

No, I wouldn't tell a doctor that all penicillin was fake; but I would take into account the existence of snake oil salesman and warn my own dear children about them.

So how can you point to fake exorcist preachers who we know exist and say that proves the more ostensibly humble and real priests are also liars?

As far as I know I haven't claimed to prove anything, but the dramatic exorcisms you see before large audiences? Those are totally fake even more transparently so when it is claimed that they are demonstrations for the purpose of strengthening faith. This claim appears frequently (though perhaps not in Catholic mass -- I don't know about Catholic mass). Look, nobody so far mentioned charlatans until I posted. Know this: They exist and are worse than demons.

 

[Ingledsva]

You would never tell a doctor his penicillin is a fake remedy because you know of some snake oil salesmen who told you the same thing and were frauds. So how can you point to fake exorcist preachers who we know exist and say that proves the more ostensibly humble and real priests are also liars? Why would the majority of priests who give their whole lives as a sacrifice to serving others -- why would they jeopardize their standing with God and their reputation by lying about things like this? That makes no sense to me.


Do you find this Columbia University psychiatrist’s case study of a demonically possessed to be filled with fabrications?
http://forums.understanding-islam.com/showthread.php?10296-A-case-of-demonic-possession

It is kind of like the God issue - there is no proof.



Your link is to an Islamic site, talking about a Christian doctor. Both believe in demons.


His story is not documented and as far as I'm concerned, not real.



"Julia revealed a long, disturbing history of involvement with explicitly Satanic groups (an obvious, historical antecedent to her then-present condition and to her accompanying "psychic" abilities, as they might be characterized). Though raised a Catholic, she no longer practiced the Faith. But, with considerable ambivalence, she stated she might need the Catholic Rite of Exorcism."




*

 

[George-ananda]

Your link is to an Islamic site, talking about a Christian doctor. Both believe in demons.

It's almost like you're saying you want demon stories only from people who don't believe in demons. Seems like there's a logical impossibility there.


(p.s. there are people who didn't believe in such things prior to their exposure to strange events)

 

[Ingledsva]

*

It is kind of like the God issue - there is no proof.



Your link is to an Islamic site, talking about a Christian doctor. Both believe in demons.


His story is not documented and as far as I'm concerned, not real.



"Julia revealed a long, disturbing history of involvement with explicitly Satanic groups (an obvious, historical antecedent to her then-present condition and to her accompanying "psychic" abilities, as they might be characterized). Though raised a Catholic, she no longer practiced the Faith. But, with considerable ambivalence, she stated she might need the Catholic Rite of Exorcism."

It's almost like you're saying you want demon stories only from people who don't believe in demons. Seems like there's a logical impossibility there.


(p.s. there are people who didn't believe in such things prior to their exposure to strange events)

I don't care where the stories come from - however - I want real scientific research into the cases, not anecdotal "evidence" from people whom already believe in demons.



*

 

[Boyd]

So do all legitimate teachers of the Christian faith and the Bible. And the evidence is pretty widespread, IMO.

That's not true. I know many Christians who reject such an idea, and if you look at more liberal denominations, there is a lack of belief in possession.

Then maybe we should set your personal experiences aside because the documentation of hundreds of others in the Catholic Church alone do not resemble whatever it is you were part of. Disturbed mothers do not come frantically begging a priest to look after their sadistic child and then make a secret agreement “let’s ride this ruse for all we can.”

Actually, it happens quite a bit. There is also the problem of misdiagnosing possessions. Such as, an epileptic child being brought to a priest or minister because they think they are possessed. It simply is a misunderstanding.

This is also the reason why none of those "documented" cases stand up to actual scrutiny.

I’m sorry, but I find your explanations considerably more faulty than the professionals in this story. Is it not more a matter of “what you want to believe” than what the professionals want to believe?

I am a professional on the subject. In fact, my background makes me an expert on the subject. I have done the same exact work as those "professionals" and I know what goes into it. That is why their claims have to be taken on simple faith.

Right.

So, the boy, who was holding his grandmothers hand, walked up the wall, onto the ceiling, then did a flip over them, while enver letting go of the grandmothers hand? Think about that a bit. It is an impossiblity, as the grandmothers arm would have been broken. In fact, her shoulder, in order for this to have occurred as reported, would have had to have been ripped out of her socket, and most likely her arm would have had to have been broken.

Also, if you really look at the report, the story gets larger and larger. First, it is the kid walking up the wall. Then its the kid walking up the wall, and flipping over them. Then it's the kid walking up the wall, and the ceiling. The stories do not remain constant.

So yes, my explanation is much more logical, and probable.

 

[Boyd]

While I normally don't accept anecdotal evidence of anything supernatural, the shear amount of it in this case is what gets to me. I'm not the type to automatically accept supernatural events without exhausting all rational measures first, and I certainly don't believe in demon possession. But I posted this OP because, while I don't believe it's something demonic, as normally understood, but I do think something is going on. I don't think a case such as this can be easily tossed aside, trust me, I've tried.

But what is there really to this story? It's the same thing found in dozen other supposed cases. Even the greatly popularized Amityville horror story has many of the same similarities (and nearly the same background).

 

[dawny0826]

The exorcisms of Latoya Ammons

A Real-Life Demon Possession Is Being Reported in Indiana

This case happened about 45 miles from where I live. I don't believe in god, miracles, and demon possession, but this case is just odd. All there is as far as evidence is anecdotal, but there's enough of it to give one pause. Personally, I don't believe it, but I wanted to see what everyone else thought about it.

I accept that demonic torment and posession occurs.

I don't know what to believe as it relates to this family, but, I am pleased that things are looking up for them.

 

[George-ananda]

I don't care where the stories come from - however - I want real scientific research into the cases, not anecdotal "evidence" from people whom already believe in demons.
*

I'm with you on the desire to know more. But let me bring up a thought. I watch those ghost and paranormal investigation shows on TV. I know the conventional response is to roll your eyes at me but I see them using some very high tech equipment.

The point I'm getting to is what do you call 'real scientific research' as you put it. I don't think what you call 'real' scientists study the paranormal and those that do are called 'parapsychologists' which automatically gives them a dubious reputation in the eyes of people who talk of 'real' science. Those guys you see on the shows are the real ones doing scientific research with the highest tech equipment available. Parapsychologists try to be as scientific as they can be with the limitations of scientific equipment.

We go to biologists to study biological issues. But we shouldn't go to parapsychologists to study paranormal issues? I just think there's an irrational resistance to parapsychology among many.

 

[George-ananda]

But what is there really to this story? It's the same thing found in dozen other supposed cases. Even the greatly popularized Amityville horror story has many of the same similarities (and nearly the same background).

To me, the fact that there are so many similar cases as you say is supportive of their being a real phenomena here. You make the fact of numerous cases sound like a drawback to acceptance when it's just the opposite.

 

[Ingledsva]

I'm with you on the desire to know more. But let me bring up a thought. I watch those ghost and paranormal investigation shows on TV. I know the conventional response is to roll your eyes at me but I see them using some very high tech equipment.

The point I'm getting to is what do you call 'real scientific research' as you put it. I don't think what you call 'real' scientists study the paranormal and those that do are called 'parapsychologists' which automatically gives them a dubious reputation in the eyes of people who talk of 'real' science. Those guys you see on the shows are the real ones doing scientific research with the highest tech equipment available. Parapsychologists try to be as scientific as they can be with the limitations of scientific equipment.

We go to biologists to study biological issues. But we shouldn't go to parapsychologists to study paranormal issues? I just think there's an irrational resistance to parapsychology among many.

I've watched a few of those shows, and changes in areas of the environment, electrical static, etc, picked up by a machine, is not proof of ghosts.



*

 

[George-ananda]

I've watched a few of those shows, and changes in areas of the environment, electrical static, etc, picked up by a machine, is not proof of ghosts.

*

What could ever constitute proof of ghosts? I don't think proof is possible at this time. Proof is pretty much a useless word in these debates.

Considering all the evidence and arguments for and against such things, I believe it is highly likely that something like what we call 'ghosts' do exist. I'm sure you don't.