Demons, is there any evidence they even exist?

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Jesus did not kill himself. This life is not so easy, I do have compassion for you.

I mean, Jesus has a kind of suicide by cop.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Do you believe that, or do you say that's what it says, in other words, not necessarily what you believe happened.

I don’t believe most of the story is historically accurate. I suspect that Jesus Barabbas is the historical leader of zealots and after a crucifixion, his followers desperately tried to argue that he was a savior who just wanted to help people.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So, when does something become evidence? Only when people are forced to accept that it was evidence before it was verified?

When it's independently verifiable. When it's demonstrable.

For example, you reported to the police, that you saw a man steal his neighbors pig, and dragged it into his house.
The police ignore you, because they claim you must have been drunk, since the neighbors claim you are always drunk.
The case is forgotten, until one day, a cleaner came across a pig tail in a bag in the garbage.
Reopening the case, some serious officers look into the evidence they had.
Some nut case babbling about a man dragging a pig into an apartment. Nuuh. Not evidence.
Pigtail found that matched the stolen pig. Oh Yes. Evidence!

The "nut babbling about a man dragging a pig into an apartment" is the claim. Or more specifically, the claim is that a pig was dragged into an apartment.
The pig tail in a bag in the garbage is a piece of evidence for that claim.

Does it work that way? Keep hoping.

The way I just described? Yes.

Maybe say a pray, and see if things change, and you get what you so desperately want.
While you may accept only evidence outside the Bible, honest researchers accept both the internal, and external evidence.

The Bible contains the claims. It's a collection of books filled with claims. You can't verify those claims by using the same book of claims - that doesn't make any sense. That makes Harry Potter a true story. Or Spiderman comics. And one claim being true or false, doesn't make all the other claims true or false, rather, each claim needs to be independently verified. Because like any book, the authors are going to mention cities that actually exist and people who actually existed at some point - like how Spiderman comics take place in New York City and make mention of current presidents at the time. But the fact that they accurately mentioned the name of a current president doesn't make all the other claims in the comic books true - they need to be verified as well. Especially if those claims are extraordinary, like a person walked on water or brought people back from the dead.

Atheist tend to have an opinionated bias, when it comes to anything that goes against what they believe.

I have the same standard for belief of Biblical claims as I do with any other claims anyone else makes about anything.

The Bible is actually the primary source of evidence for Biblical archaeological discovery.
What archeological discoveries do, is support what the Bible provides. the more evidence we have, the stronger it is.
What archaeologists dig up, are actually secondary sources of evidence.
I don't have to tell you that, do I.

Homer accurately named the city of Troy in the Iliad and a few leaders who lived at the time. So does that mean all the other extraordinary claims made in the Iliad about Apollo supernaturally interceding to help the Greeks win the war and about Achilles being a demi-god are all true as well, because the author got a few other things right? Of course not.

Siege of Jerusalem
Whereas the Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle provides information about the siege of Jerusalem in 597 BCE, the only known records of the siege that culminated in Jerusalem's destruction in 587 BCE are found in the Hebrew Bible.
Archaeological evidence supports the biblical account that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 or 586 BCE. Archaeological research has shown that the Babylonians systematically destroyed the city with fire and that the city wall was pulled down.

Great. That doesn't mean all the other supernatural claims are all true because the authors knew the names of some places that existed when they were alive or some wars and battles that occurred in their lifetimes. Why do you think it does?

Say you found some documents, on space travel, would you say, "Bah. That's just a claim. It's not evidence."
That's the atheistic approach you are presenting here, isn't it?
In his haughtiness, the wicked man makes no investigation; All his thoughts are: “There is no God.” - Psalms 10:4
In other words...

You'd have to be more specific about what "some documents on space travel" would be. A picture of a spaceship that some guy drew wouldn't be evidence for space travel, but perhaps some photos of an actual rocket, or photos of the earth from space, or photos of people in space, would all be evidence for space travel.

I haven't said anywhere in this conversation that "there is no god." What I've said is that I'm not convinced any god(s) exist as I have seen no good evidence for any. Got any?

Did you know: They also use annals, found on tablets as evidence.

Spoiler: Read At Your Own Risk

This ancient Babylonian tablet may contain the first evidence of trigonometry
New finding would unseat the Greeks as the creators of the discipline

Spoiler: Read At Your Own Risk

This Ancient Tablet Secretly Held The Oldest Evidence Of Applied Geometry In The World
The World's Oldest Writing - Archaeology Magazine
The World's Oldest Writing
Used by scribes for more than three millennia, cuneiform writing opens a dramatic window onto ancient Mesopotamian life
In early 2016, hundreds of media outlets around the world reported that a set of recently deciphered ancient clay tablets revealed that Babylonian astronomers were more sophisticated than previously believed. The wedge-shaped writing on the tablets, known as cuneiform, demonstrated that these ancient stargazers used geometric calculations to predict the motion of Jupiter. Scholars had assumed it wasn’t until almost A.D. 1400 that these techniques were first employed—by English and French mathematicians. But here was proof that nearly 2,000 years earlier, ancient people were every bit as advanced as Renaissance-era scholars. Judging by the story’s enthusiastic reception on social media, this discovery captured the public imagination. It implicitly challenged the perception that cuneiform tablets were used merely for basic accounting, such as tallying grain, rather than for complex astronomical calculations. While most tablets were, in fact, used for mundane bookkeeping or scribal exercises, some of them bear inscriptions that offer unexpected insights into the minute details of and momentous events in the lives of ancient Mesopotamians.

No. What the Bible says can be trusted as reliable evidence, because it has time and again been shown to be reliable - i.e. demonstrated.

It is exactly what you argued. That the Bible is true, because the Bible says it's true. You just told me above that the evidence for the claims in the Bible can be found in the Bible. In other words, the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true.

You, evidently are the one having the problem with circular reasoning.
"There is no evidence because I say so. Since I say so, there is no evidence."
Then...

That's not circular reason, and it's not a claim I've made.

So cute.

So condescending.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Some people sound like they got their psychology from Nightmare on Elm Street 3.

Well, it is the best one in the series.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Ironically, being convinced to be haunted by a demon fits right into the picture of the delusions that come with psychosis.

Such is often the problem with getting schizofrenics and alike to take their meds.
They are convinced their problem is a demon and in even worse cases they think their doctor is trying to poison them with the meds.

This is why anti-psychotics also come in the form of melting tablets like Zyprexa, which almost instantly melts when it touches saliva, to make sure they can't quickly spit it out when the nurse / doctor / family member turns his back.

I feel compelled here to share a very personal story of the worst time of my life... It pains me to even think about it.

My wife dealt with psychosis 15 years ago. It was hell on earth, believe me. Our lives were completely and utterly disrupted. I got completely exhausted. She was completely convinced the entire world was against her, that people on TV were talking about her, that there was a conspiracy at work against her,... And all this was "told" to her by the voices in her head.
It was insanely scary. Till this day, I kiss the ground that somehow she continued to trust me. I have to admit, I was afraid. Afraid that one night she would start believing I was also part of the "grand conspiracy" and that she might actually try to hurt me in my sleep or something.

I had to stay home for 6 weeks from work and totally isolated the both of us to prevent such from happening. The first couple of weeks I spend hours a day making her take her meds, convincing her she needed them. After the accute period was over, I actually slept for almost 24 hour straight. Went to bed at 19h and only woke in the afternoon the next day. It was crazy.

After 3 years of being stable, we tried fading out the medication. 2 weeks later: BOOM, the same sh!t all over again. Only this time, I noticed the first symptoms straight away and we immediatly threw the equivalent of a nuclear bomb at it in the form of anti-psychotics. It worked. It was much less severe and only lasted 3 weeks. Still had to stay home again though.

Now, 15 years later, she is still on a small maintenance dose. She herself doesn't want to try and quit anymore. She is completely fine now and we have 2 wonderful kids (8 years later then we originally planned as a direct result of those psychotic episodes). Are there some side effects? Yes.

The first meds we tried gave heavy weight gain and some motoric stuff (slight trembling of a few fingers).
The one she uses now only makes it hard to lose weight.

So is a bit chubby. We'll take some chubbyness and a daily small pill over the horror of psychosis any day of the week, thanks.


So now everybody knows why I'm touchy about this very subject.


Worst. Time. Of. My. Life. (and her's, obviously).

My wife's literal words today are that she'll take an aggressive cancer over psychosis any day if she had to choose.

Both me and my wife are atheists. During the episodes, suddenly she turned all "spiritual" also. Suddenly demons and the devil are real entities and out to get us all. Interesting side note.



So.... in conclusion... @ElishaElijah : you have no idea what you are talking about. And it literally pains me when I see people talk thrash like you do about this extremely serious subject.

Excellent post! Thank you for sharing with us. And I'm glad you and you wife are happy and healthy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'll tell you what I told another Christian member who focused their attention on Dan From Smithville and seemed to be trying to put him on the spot.

I mean no disrespect to Dan, and it's not personal, but I'm not interested in how he interprets anything I've said recently or previously about my medium abilities or about my experiences as a medium. As I've stated numerous times on this forum (for example, in this thread; see here and here), I won't argue or debate with anyone about my mediumship or my experiences as a medium and paranormal investigator. As far as I'm concerned, people are free to believe me or not, and the decision is entirely up to them. I believe I've made it abundantly clear in my posts regarding these subjects that I don't care one way or the other. Any skepticism or religious objection to my mediumship abilities is irrelevant to me because these objections about whether my abilities are real or not won't alter the fact that I have lived with them my entire life, and I won't suppress them again out of fear of what other people will think.

As I've stated in similar discussions, I don't post about my experiences as a medium or with the paranormal in order to argue, debate, or persuade skeptics to believe me. I post about my mediumship on RF so that others who don't have these abilities can experience what I see, hear, and feel on a daily basis. I also post threads detailing my paranormal investigations in order to share my experiences with others who haven't had paranormal experiences like mine.

And, as I explained in another thread (see here), I've spent over a year on this forum, posting about my personal experiences as a psychic medium and seasoned paranormal investigator, as well as commenting in numerous other threads. RF has given me a unique platform to discuss my mediumship and paranormal experiences. I've never been on a forum like this one or even on Facebook (or any other social media platform) where I felt free to discuss these topics without fear of being constantly slammed with malicious remarks that call my sanity into question or relentlessly lectured about believing in the paranormal. I sincerely value my anonymity on RF, and I'm grateful to be a part of this diverse online community. RF has become my online sanctuary.

Finally, I want to make it clear that I don't care what Christians believe about psychic mediumship or what they think about mine or my experiences as a medium and paranormal investigator. As far as I'm concerned, they should mind their own business and keep their pious judgments to themselves, as well as refrain from imposing their beliefs on others. If Christians spent a little more time minding their own business, they would have less time to mind mine.

(Sorry about that, @Dan From Smithville.)



What I said about Dan From Smithville and about not arguing and debating with others about my mediumship and experiences as a psychic medium also applies to SkepticThinker. As far as I'm concerned, it's entirely up to her whether she believes me or not. I'm not interested in convincing her or anyone else that psychic mediumship is real, that there are earthbound human spirits, and that they are capable of communicating and interacting with the living.

(Sorry about that, @SkepticThinker.)



That was very thoughtful of you to say. Thank you. I've shared many of my experiences on RF, such as in this post here, and I believe that is sufficient.

No problem! I wasn't going to go there either. And I quite like our discussions that we have had.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

No problem! I wasn't going to go there either. And I quite like our discussions that we have had.

I appreciate your and @Dan From Smithville's understanding and thoughtful responses.

 

[setarcos]

Not believing, isn't a belief.

Do you consider your lack of belief in magical pixies a belief, or a lack of belief?

I've already explained why I ceased further discussion with you.

Hmmm....since you said I have a lack of belief I guess it would be a lack of belief.

Consider, If we define belief as that which one thinks is true to reality then what is it your not believing about a particular belief? Nothing, because you have no belief concerning it? Then how are you defining what you do believe in relation to that other belief? If you believe nothing in relation to that other belief then nothing can be said concerning that other belief, whether its true, false, partially correct, anything since nothing comes from nothing. This then begs the question, how do you meaningfully define atheism if it has no beliefs about that which defines it?

In truth I have neither formed a belief in nor a lack of belief in "magical pixies" pending further evidence and consideration. However since I believe I know what you mean by those terms and have considered the proposition with the knowledge of those things I currently have, I do have a belief in the possibility of "magical pixies", keeping in consideration further determination of what those terms mean exactly to you and me.

Consider that in the very act of consideration of a particularly defined term with regards to its relationship to reality I've formulated a considered belief however little evidence I subconsciously or willingly found that belief on. To say "I have no belief concerning..." is not semantically equivalent to saying "I have lack of belief in...", the latter being a considered opinion on a belief but the former having no consideration at all on that belief. The former describes a static being. The latter describes an active being in relation to the subject which has beliefs relatable to that subject.

If I may with your patience and indulgence...."Not" or "No" means: to negate, indicate denial, or refusal or to give a word or words an opposite meaning which I'm guessing your trying to use here. As in "I do not have a belief in..." or "I lack belief in..." you equate semantically to having no belief at all or "I have no belief on the matter."
Yet the negation of, or denial of, or opposite meaning of, "belief in" is not equivalent to "No belief" whatsoever.
Having No belief is a semantically isolated state. Such a state cannot exchange meaningful knowledge concerning a belief except that of relationality.
No atheist who states "I do not believe in Gods existence." could make a case as to why. They couldn't make any reasoned statements concerning the subject of belief if they lacked any belief on the subject. When asked what it means that they are an atheist the most they could say would be the considered response of "I don't know" if you equate "I don't believe" with "I have no belief".
If asked if God exists they couldn't make a meaningful answer since saying no or yes, if their answer is a reflection of what they think is true, would be a considered response and having NO belief on the matter is an unconsidered state. Perhaps you believe atheism is an unconsidered state?

An unconsidered opinion is pure faith. For instance if I ask you if you believe in an unfamiliar (to you) animals existence and you say "No.", that is an unconsidered opinion (belief) based purely on the faith that your answer is true to reality. Or you might say "I don't know.", that is a considered opinion based upon the fact that what you believe true about reality hasn't included a consideration of such an animal.
The human mind does not think in a vacuum. Once it moves to consideration of an external belief it of necessity formulates an internal belief on the claims of that belief either in agreement or disagreement or variations thereof.
One cannot formulate counterarguments against a belief not in consideration and once consideration is made a belief is formulated. I've already shown you quotes by quite famous professed atheists which clearly show a belief system.
Atheism can't meaningfully be a position of no belief. Nor can its "claim" of "lack of belief in" be a statement unrelated to how that belief relates to what it lacks belief in. Claiming no belief at all while critiquing a particular belief is a nonsensical cop out on commitment.

In the second sentence you say that the evidence is observed. If there is an effect, then the effect must have some cause. That is the way science works. Finds discrepancies in observations and then tries to look for answers to it. At the moment we may have pointers, but not the answer.

Yes, a phenomena is observed which is evidence of an effect produced by some unknown cause. The point being made is, that cause is unknown so we currently can't say what that evidence is evidence of other than some unknown cause. We can't say its evidence of some known cause not yet correlated because that evidence doesn't seem to fit the known effects of any known cause. We either have to relook at how we think known causes cause known effects and adjust accordingly or we have to presume an entirely knew unknown cause and then formulate how that cause relates to what is already known.
Old theories MAY have to be scrapped and new ones MAY have to be formulated.
Its pretty presumptuous to assume that the newly discovered cylinder must fit into the square hole we think the universe must be defined by.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I appreciate your and @Dan From Smithville's understanding and thoughtful responses.

And I yours.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hmmm....since you said I have a lack of belief I guess it would be a lack of belief.

Consider, If we define belief as that which one thinks is true to reality then what is it your not believing about a particular belief? Nothing, because you have no belief concerning it? Then how are you defining what you do believe in relation to that other belief? If you believe nothing in relation to that other belief then nothing can be said concerning that other belief, whether its true, false, partially correct, anything since nothing comes from nothing. This then begs the question, how do you meaningfully define atheism if it has no beliefs about that which defines it?

In truth I have neither formed a belief in nor a lack of belief in "magical pixies" pending further evidence and consideration. However since I believe I know what you mean by those terms and have considered the proposition with the knowledge of those things I currently have, I do have a belief in the possibility of "magical pixies", keeping in consideration further determination of what those terms mean exactly to you and me.

Consider that in the very act of consideration of a particularly defined term with regards to its relationship to reality I've formulated a considered belief however little evidence I subconsciously or willingly found that belief on. To say "I have no belief concerning..." is not semantically equivalent to saying "I have lack of belief in...", the latter being a considered opinion on a belief but the former having no consideration at all on that belief. The former describes a static being. The latter describes an active being in relation to the subject which has beliefs relatable to that subject.

If I may with your patience and indulgence...."Not" or "No" means: to negate, indicate denial, or refusal or to give a word or words an opposite meaning which I'm guessing your trying to use here. As in "I do not have a belief in..." or "I lack belief in..." you equate semantically to having no belief at all or "I have no belief on the matter."
Yet the negation of, or denial of, or opposite meaning of, "belief in" is not equivalent to "No belief" whatsoever.
Having No belief is a semantically isolated state. Such a state cannot exchange meaningful knowledge concerning a belief except that of relationality.
No atheist who states "I do not believe in Gods existence." could make a case as to why. They couldn't make any reasoned statements concerning the subject of belief if they lacked any belief on the subject. When asked what it means that they are an atheist the most they could say would be the considered response of "I don't know" if you equate "I don't believe" with "I have no belief".
If asked if God exists they couldn't make a meaningful answer since saying no or yes, if their answer is a reflection of what they think is true, would be a considered response and having NO belief on the matter is an unconsidered state. Perhaps you believe atheism is an unconsidered state?

An unconsidered opinion is pure faith. For instance if I ask you if you believe in an unfamiliar (to you) animals existence and you say "No.", that is an unconsidered opinion (belief) based purely on the faith that your answer is true to reality. Or you might say "I don't know.", that is a considered opinion based upon the fact that what you believe true about reality hasn't included a consideration of such an animal.
The human mind does not think in a vacuum. Once it moves to consideration of an external belief it of necessity formulates an internal belief on the claims of that belief either in agreement or disagreement or variations thereof.
One cannot formulate counterarguments against a belief not in consideration and once consideration is made a belief is formulated. I've already shown you quotes by quite famous professed atheists which clearly show a belief system.
Atheism can't meaningfully be a position of no belief. Nor can its "claim" of "lack of belief in" be a statement unrelated to how that belief relates to what it lacks belief in. Claiming no belief at all while critiquing a particular belief is a nonsensical cop out on commitment.

Yes, a phenomena is observed which is evidence of an effect produced by some unknown cause. The point being made is, that cause is unknown so we currently can't say what that evidence is evidence of other than some unknown cause. We can't say its evidence of some known cause not yet correlated because that evidence doesn't seem to fit the known effects of any known cause. We either have to relook at how we think known causes cause known effects and adjust accordingly or we have to presume an entirely knew unknown cause and then formulate how that cause relates to what is already known.
Old theories MAY have to be scrapped and new ones MAY have to be formulated.
Its pretty presumptuous to assume that the newly discovered cylinder must fit into the square hole we think the universe must be defined by.

I'm sorry but I find this extremely tedious and somewhat boring.

My position is that I am not convinced that god(s) exist because I haven't seen any good evidence that convinces me of that.
Got any?

 

[YoursTrue]

@Kelly of the Phoenix I've been close to some that think the TV is talking to them, etc. Usually these people are on heavy drugs, perhaps of the psychotropic

My mom is going through this now and social services said that I would have to get the courts involved to get her help because she refuses but that would put my life in danger so I just have to put up with it, I guess.

It has been my experience with people that hear voices that some of them have taken lots of drugs of the legal and illegal kind, also get involved in mystical experiences.

 

[YoursTrue]

You really can't admit that you are wrong and cannot provide one bit of evidence to support your claims. You didn't need to go to this much trouble to say nothing either.
,
I admit that it is an impressive amount of nothing, but it is still nothing. You have not provided one bit of the evidence that I asked for.

You take care.

My question still stands. For you as well as others who go to church, profess belief somewhat in Jesus == what parts of the Bible DO you believe? I'll leave it there for the moment. I mean if you go to church, perhaps get down on your knees and pray, perhaps your church has Jesus nailed to a cross, what part do you actually believe about Jesus and why? I think it's a legitimate question.

 

[Orbit]

Probably locked up in an insane asylum. Not so in India (most of the time)

I am going to comment on this because I am personally affronted by the assumptions behind it. Mental illness is mental illness. It is not demon possession. This medieval Christian attitude is backward and cruel. Does Prozac or Abilify banish demons? No, they correct the workings of a misfiring brain. I was once told by a Christian, while I was having a mental health crisis that I was possessed by demons. It was callous, ridiculous, and not helpful in the least. Stop equating mental illness with demon possession.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I am going to comment on this because I am personally affronted by the assumptions behind it. Mental illness is mental illness. It is not demon possession. This medieval Christian attitude is backward and cruel. Does Prozac or Abilify banish demons? No, they correct the workings of a misfiring brain. I was once told by a Christian, while I was having a mental health crisis that I was possessed by demons. It was callous, ridiculous, and not helpful in the least. Stop equating mental illness with demon possession.

If I could, I'd give your post a winner frubal. Well said, Orbit.

 

[Eddi]

If I could, I'd give your post a winner frubal. Well said, Orbit.

Me too!

 

[ElishaElijah]

You tell people you can detect demons, but can't tell anyone how. You advocate that people should ignore doctors and just assume they are possessed by demons that you can't verify exist. You equate the illegal abuse of drugs and the abuse of alcohol with reasonable and rational application of modern medicine and drug therapy and encourage people to ignore the facts and assume demons. How does any of that really help people?

Watch the videos because no way to explain everything on this forum, gave plenty of information and resources ex Derek Prince, current Deliverance Ministries. So claiming ignorance doesn’t work. Demons love to hide, they don’t like being exposed by the light, darkness and the occult hate that.
Thats Bible to Ephesians 5 and John 3.

When did I ever say ignore doctors, I said the contrary that I work with doctors and don’t cross over into their area of expertise. So are you willfully slandering or just reading into something not there? Which is it?
If you still after all the videos still come up with a different answer than demons then that’s you, stick with whatever helps you out, I’m free by the power of God. Are you free ?
For the supposed believers who deny there are demons, how can you be a follower of Jesus when you deny much of His ministry?
“But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can one enter a strong man’s house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his house. He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭12‬:‭28‬-‭30‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

 

[Kenny]

I am going to comment on this because I am personally affronted by the assumptions behind it. Mental illness is mental illness. It is not demon possession. This medieval Christian attitude is backward and cruel. Does Prozac or Abilify banish demons? No, they correct the workings of a misfiring brain. I was once told by a Christian, while I was having a mental health crisis that I was possessed by demons. It was callous, ridiculous, and not helpful in the least. Stop equating mental illness with demon possession.

I wouldn't express it as such albeit you have a point.
Some can be possession of demons but most is just imbalances in the brain.

Some physical issues are spiritual in nature most are simply physical issues.

Thank you for asking for clarification

 

[SkepticThinker]

Me too!

Me three!

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I was once told by a Christian, while I was having a mental health crisis that I was possessed by demons.

I was once told by a Christian that I was demon-possessed because I voted for Joe Biden. When I counseled with an evangelical pastor, he told me that it was obvious to him that I'm a cursed soul, that God hates me, and that he punished me for the sins of my biological parents since I was the result of an affair, after I told him about the years of severe abuse, neglect, and bullying I endured while growing up. I told him I grew up in a Christian home, and he said God used my "godly" Christian parents to exact his punishment on me. Not to mention the Christian therapist who told me in our first session that if I wasn't psychologically better in six months, it would be obvious to him that I enjoyed being in emotional pain and wanted others to feel sorry for me.

 

[Orbit]

I was once told by a Christian that I was demon-possessed because I voted for Joe Biden. I counseled with an evangelical pastor once, and he told me that it was obvious to him that I'm a cursed soul, that God hates me and punished me for the sins of my biological parents since I was the result of an affair, after I told him about the years of severe abuse, neglect, and bullying I endured while growing up. I told him I grew up in a Christian home, and he said God used my godly Christian parents to exact his punishment on me. Not to mention the Christian therapist who told me in our first session that if I wasn't better in six months, it would be obvious to him that I enjoyed being in pain and wanted others to feel sorry for me.

It is a twisted and sick ideology, isn't it? I'm sorry you went through that. Christians are useless in any crisis because they're too busy rationalizing everything as "God's plan".