Exorcism classes!!!

[David T]

Is this supposed to be sarcastic?

I am not Christian about dead. Christians are all about ,"What happens to you after dead happens to you.".
My view is old very very old. This " what happens to you after dead happens to you? " is very modern manifesting up through my degree into modernity. I am slamming Christian theology Why insist on supporting it? It's dumb and the intellects blind spot.. It's also deeply inculturated at the sub conscious level as well.

 

[Woberts]

I am not Christian about dead. Christians are all about ,"What happens to you after dead happens to you.".
My view is old very very old. This " what happens to you after dead happens to you? " is very modern manifesting up through my degree into modernity. I am slamming Christian theology Why insist on supporting it? It's dumb and the intellects blind spot.. It's also deeply inculturated at the sub conscious level as well.

All I'm saying is that once you die, you're dead. End of story. I'm not agreeing with Christian theology.

 

[David T]

All I'm saying is that once you die, you're dead. End of story. I'm not agreeing with Christian theology.

That is fundamental Christian theology "Once you die"... as the base statement. They then project onto that a narrative. Your projected narrative disagrees with their projected narrative about "once you die" base statement is all. Both are intellectually derived Thus false. Before we were literate we understood this better. But that's nature at work for ya!

 

[Quintessence]

World views absolutely can be criticized because some can be very destructive.

I don't believe worldviews in of themselves are destructive or constructive. They do nothing in of themselves until they are translated into action. Curiously, folks with similar worldviews can behave quite differently, as ideologies and actions don't have a one-to-one correspondence. Outcomes tend to involve both give and take, too - something is lost and gained in any exchange. Whether we call it constructive or destructive depends on a bit on how we like or dislike an outcome. Which in a roundabout way gets to what the central point was of that post... and that's how our judgements of others mostly reflect ourselves and our own values.

I'll side with you that the OP could have been structured differently but the point that some of these beliefs falling into the crazy and delusional categories, I feel is justified.

Sure, and both you and they are entitled to that opinion. Such opinions reflects far more on the person doing the judging than anything else. That was my point, really. When we judge other peoples and cultures in general, it reflects our values and our norms. Those are valuable insights, but I think it's important not to mistake our appraisal of a situation for the be-all and end-all of things. If you want to study and learn about something well, you have to set aside your ego and your values to approach the subject impartially. Put another way, you want to avoid ethnocentrism and personal bias... you study and observe without judging. That's the approach I was taught as an academic, at any rate.

 

[Mister Emu]

More generally, there is a risk that people with illnesses such as epilepsy or schizophrenia could be misdiagnosed and miss out on medical treatment if their symptoms are ascribed to supernatural phenomena.

To this criticism, I note that Catholics rules surrounding exorcism, last I checked, required physical and mental health treatment and evidence that it was ineffectual in addition to the signs of possession looked for when determining whether to perform the rite of exorcism or not.

 

[suncowiam]

I don't believe worldviews in of themselves are destructive or constructive. They do nothing in of themselves until they are translated into action. Curiously, folks with similar worldviews can behave quite differently, as ideologies and actions don't have a one-to-one correspondence. Outcomes tend to involve both give and take, too - something is lost and gained in any exchange. Whether we call it constructive or destructive depends on a bit on how we like or dislike an outcome. Which in a roundabout way gets to what the central point was of that post... and that's how our judgements of others mostly reflect ourselves and our own values.



Sure, and both you and they are entitled to that opinion. Such opinions reflects far more on the person doing the judging than anything else. That was my point, really. When we judge other peoples and cultures in general, it reflects our values and our norms. Those are valuable insights, but I think it's important not to mistake our appraisal of a situation for the be-all and end-all of things. If you want to study and learn about something well, you have to set aside your ego and your values to approach the subject impartially. Put another way, you want to avoid ethnocentrism and personal bias... you study and observe without judging. That's the approach I was taught as an academic, at any rate.

I didn't suggest that world views alone are destructive in nature. I said world views CAN be destructive. Criticism is just part of an overall process of checks and balance. Even good processes can be criticized to make them better.

You're later point about the ego and being impartial is fair and I agree with it. But with context to your original comment, we can still use the proper terms of delusional and crazy as an impartial and accurate definition of the situation.

The proper definition of delusional:
"characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder."

I'll go back to the example that I gave a while ago concerning a monster in my basement. If I believed that a monster existed in my basement but no one including myself could prove that a monster exists in my basement, then the correct term for me is delusional. At least from others that cannot prove this monster. I probably wouldn't call myself delusional because I've augmented my "reality" from reality.

I'm not trying to be mean or derogatory. It is my opinion that some beliefs which can not and will never be proven are delusional.

 

[Father Heathen]

Why is it crazy? Because, according to your worldview, the otherworlds and their denizens are not to be taken seriously? Your judgements reflect yourself.

What about instances were mental issues are misidentified as "demonic possession"? So instead an "exorcism" is attempted rather than seeking proper treatment?

 

[Quintessence]

@suncowiam - I used to be able to think that way about terms like "crazy" and "delusional." Then I took enough college level psych courses and did some mental health first aid workshops through my current job, and I just can't. The workshop in particular strongly emphasized that language like that is not only unhelpful to people suffering from genuine mental health issues, it is hurtful. I will not use it and contribute to that problem.

What about instances were mental issues are misidentified as "demonic possession"? So instead an "exorcism" is attempted rather than seeking proper treatment?

I'd first recognize that the way this is framed is laden with biases particular to my culture; then I'd take a step back and ask if those biases are appropriate to project onto the people I'm observing because it isn't about me. Would they characterize it as "misidentification?" Do they consider exorcism proper treatment? What I think about the issue is irrelevant; it's their call to make. If they are wise, they will give due consideration to how cultural norms and laws will interact with their decision. If there is a conflict between their will and cultural norms or laws, the decision is complicated.

 

[suncowiam]

@suncowiam - I used to be able to think that way about terms like "crazy" and "delusional." Then I took enough college level psych courses and did some mental health first aid workshops through my current job, and I just can't. The workshop in particular strongly emphasized that language like that is not only unhelpful to people suffering from genuine mental health issues, it is hurtful. I will not use it and contribute to that problem.



I'd first recognize that the way this is framed is laden with biases particular to my culture; then I'd take a step back and ask if those biases are appropriate to project onto the people I'm observing because it isn't about me. Would they characterize it as "misidentification?" Do they consider exorcism proper treatment? What I think about the issue is irrelevant; it's their call to make. If they are wise, they will give due consideration to how cultural norms and laws will interact with their decision. If there is a conflict between their will and cultural norms or laws, the decision is complicated.

What term or terms would you use?

This is my opinion about expression and intent... I think the following phrase best describes it.

"There is much offense in the world, when one is being offensive and when one takes offense." I learned that in a self-help book over a decade ago and honestly, it changed my personality over the years as I started practicing it.

I just suggest that people should consider the intent of the person expressing. Most people have no intent of being mean, rude, or cruel. It's just a matter of perception and translation of other people's actions across a lens tainted mostly by culture.

 

[Father Heathen]

I'd first recognize that the way this is framed is laden with biases particular to my culture; then I'd take a step back and ask if those biases are appropriate to project onto the people I'm observing because it isn't about me. Would they characterize it as "misidentification?" Do they consider exorcism proper treatment? What I think about the issue is irrelevant; it's their call to make. If they are wise, they will give due consideration to how cultural norms and laws will interact with their decision. If there is a conflict between their will and cultural norms or laws, the decision is complicated.

Culture doesn't change what medical condition someone actually has. It might within someone's culture norm to use eye of newt as a remedy for some malady, but to suggest that it's just as equally valid and effective as real medicine that's backed by real science is rather silly. It has nothing to do with "bias" and everything to do with actual cause and effect; completely objective facts. How others see things doesn't deserve consideration if it's irrational and unsubstantiated, especially if it leads to harm.

 

[A.C. Simon]

Demons are very real, but so is Jesus. There's been a wrong portrayal of casting out demons or "exorcism" because of the catholic church traditions and wrong portrayals of it in movies, but if you want to see a short video of a normal christian casting out a demon from a person in public here it is