What does demon possession mean to you?

[blü 2]

I take it to mean the "essense" of a thing

The spirit of a thing is the essence of a thing? As with Aristotle?

If that's the general idea, I think that Aristotle's essences are far better explained as concepts, ways that humans have evolved to think and perceive. (The same goes for Plato's forms and Kant's universals &c.)

But I'm not sure I've correctly understood you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well that's just empty rhetoric, total ignores free will, assumes God directly contacts man, whereas in scripture its by signs or messengers. Plus you seem total unaware that a lot of phenomena associated with mental illness is recognised as real yet is unexplained by science.

For example I bet you cannot tell me what would be need to scientifically explain say telepathy

Actual telepathy.

 

[Darkforbid]

Actual telepathy.

No

 

[blü 2]

Well that's just empty rhetoric

Asking for clear definitions so that I'll know what you're talking about is 'empty rhetoric'? That doesn't work for me ─ I like to know what we're talking about.

total ignores free will

There's an example straight away. Do you mean anything more by 'free will' than 'freedom from external pressure or constraint when making a choice'? If so, what?

assumes God directly contacts man

I don't assume anything about God. I have no idea what real thing the word 'God' is intended to denote; and no one seems able or willing to tell me.

Plus you seem total unaware that a lot of phenomena associated with mental illness is recognised as real yet is unexplained by science.

Ahm, I actually said that the scientific research and effort to understand mental illness is a work in progress; and that this is a very usual case for questions about being human.

For example I bet you cannot tell me what would be need to scientifically explain say telepathy

You'll recall that the Randi prize for a satisfactory demonstration of paranormal powers was on offer in one form or another for 51 years; and that for the last 18 years the prize was a million bucks. With not a single winner.

So skepticism is a fair response to the paranormal.

I therefore suggest that a repeatable experiment demonstrating that there's an actual phenomenon 'telepathy' at all, would be an excellent start.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's a phrase that's so common in the books I cringe every time I hear it. It's clearly a sign of medical ignorance.

There is nothing to cringe about it. It is called 'Somatization Disorder'. Hysteria - Wikipedia

"Conversion disorder (CD) is a diagnostic category used in some psychiatric classification systems. It is sometimes applied to patients who present with neurological symptoms, such as numbness, blindness, paralysis, or fits, which are not consistent with a well-established organic cause, which cause significant distress, and can be traced back to a psychological trigger. It is thought that these symptoms arise in response to stressful situations affecting a patient's mental health or an ongoing mental health condition such as depression." Conversion disorder - Wikipedia

Have you ever seen a demon possessed person? If you lived in a place where it is common to practice spiritism, you would know the difference.
If you have never had experience with the demons, then how would you know one way or the other?
In modern medicine, there is only mental illness.....they do not recognize demon possession as an affliction.

Yes, I have grown up in a place where it was a common occurance (Rajasthan, India). My father was an allopathic doctor (King George Medical College, Bombay) and these people (mostly women) would be brought to him. His prescription "Give a resounding slap .. and the condition goes away." He was a successful doctor. People had faith in him. They would not go to the Medical College in Udaipur, but wanted to be treated/operated by him. He never left post-operative care to nurses, he himself did it. He died poor.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No

Yes.

 

[Darkforbid]

Asking for clear definitions so that I'll know what you're talking about is 'empty rhetoric'? That doesn't work for me ─ I like to know what we're talking about.
There's an example straight away. Do you mean anything more by 'free will' than 'freedom from external pressure or constraint when making a choice'? If so, what?
I don't assume anything about God. I have no idea what real thing the word 'God' is intended to denote; and no one seems able or willing to tell me.
Ahm, I actually said that the scientific research and effort to understand mental illness is a work in progress; and that this is a very usual case for questions about being human.
You'll recall that the Randi prize for a satisfactory demonstration of paranormal powers was on offer in one form or another for 51 years; and that for the last 18 years the prize was a million bucks. With not a single winner.

So skepticism is a fair response to the paranormal.

I therefore suggest that a repeatable experiment demonstrating that there's an actual phenomenon 'telepathy' at all, would be an excellent start.

Randi the honest liar, here's a quote from the director the film of his life:

"The film’s director, Justin Weinstein, says he’s aware of this very different perspective on the Carlos Hoax. But, he says, his documentary is not strictly a work of journalism. Rather, like Randi, he’s a storyteller. “Sometimes there are greater truths you can reach when you don’t adhere to the facts.”"

Here's where he lied about tests he pretend to do:

One better known complainant was Dr Rupert Sheldrake, the Cambridge biologist whose controversial idea of morphic resonance allows for the theoretical existence of ESP. To test his notion, Sheldrake ran a number of studies on a dog that seemed to know when its owner was coming home.

Following a burst of publicity for Sheldrake, Randi told a journalist, “We at JREF have tested these claims. They fail.” But when I met Sheldrake, at his Hampstead home, he made a serious charge. “Randi’s a liar and a cheat,” he said. “When I asked him for the data, he had to admit he hadn’t done any tests.”

According to Sheldrake, his direct requests for data were twice ignored. After appealing to others at the JREF, Randi eventually wrote back, explaining that he couldn’t supply the data because it got washed away in a flood and that the dogs he tested are now in Mexico and their owner was “tragically killed last year in a dreadful accident.”

Unusually for Randi, he was polite. “I over-stated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained,” he wrote. “It was rash and improper of me to do so. I apologise sincerely.”

But, publicly, Randi then attacked Sheldrake. Of his own failure to provide the data he wrote, “A search of our site would have supplied [Sheldrake] with all the details he could possibly wish. Alternately, I could have supplied them, if only he had issued a request. That’s what we do at the JREF.”

The guy is a liar plain and simple hes never put himself in a position to lose, because he has so much built on his debunking image, then there's the money:

More recently I’ve begun to wonder about his educational foundation, the JREF, which claims tax exempt status in the US and is partly dependant on public donations. I wondered what actual educative work the organisation - which between 2011 and 2013 had an average revenue of $1.2 million per year - did. Financial documents reveal just $5,100, on average, being spent on grants.

There are some e-books, videos and lesson plans on subjects such as fairies on their website. They organise an annual fan convention. James Randi, over that period, has been paid an average annual salary of $195,000. My requests for details of the educational foundation’s educational activities, over the last 12 months, were dodged and then ignored.

And demonstrated phenomenon is not scientific proof

 

[Darkforbid]

Yes.

Nope

 

[blü 2]

Randi the honest liar, here's a quote from the director the film of his life:

"The film’s director, Justin Weinstein, says he’s aware of this very different perspective on the Carlos Hoax. But, he says, his documentary is not strictly a work of journalism. Rather, like Randi, he’s a storyteller. “Sometimes there are greater truths you can reach when you don’t adhere to the facts.”"

Here's where he lied about tests he pretend to do:

One better known complainant was Dr Rupert Sheldrake, the Cambridge biologist whose controversial idea of morphic resonance allows for the theoretical existence of ESP. To test his notion, Sheldrake ran a number of studies on a dog that seemed to know when its owner was coming home.

Following a burst of publicity for Sheldrake, Randi told a journalist, “We at JREF have tested these claims. They fail.” But when I met Sheldrake, at his Hampstead home, he made a serious charge. “Randi’s a liar and a cheat,” he said. “When I asked him for the data, he had to admit he hadn’t done any tests.”

According to Sheldrake, his direct requests for data were twice ignored. After appealing to others at the JREF, Randi eventually wrote back, explaining that he couldn’t supply the data because it got washed away in a flood and that the dogs he tested are now in Mexico and their owner was “tragically killed last year in a dreadful accident.”

Unusually for Randi, he was polite. “I over-stated my case for doubting the reality of dog ESP based on the small amount of data I obtained,” he wrote. “It was rash and improper of me to do so. I apologise sincerely.”

But, publicly, Randi then attacked Sheldrake. Of his own failure to provide the data he wrote, “A search of our site would have supplied [Sheldrake] with all the details he could possibly wish. Alternately, I could have supplied them, if only he had issued a request. That’s what we do at the JREF.”

The guy is a liar plain and simple hes never put himself in a position to lose, because he has so much built on his debunking image, then there's the money:

More recently I’ve begun to wonder about his educational foundation, the JREF, which claims tax exempt status in the US and is partly dependant on public donations. I wondered what actual educative work the organisation - which between 2011 and 2013 had an average revenue of $1.2 million per year - did. Financial documents reveal just $5,100, on average, being spent on grants.

There are some e-books, videos and lesson plans on subjects such as fairies on their website. They organise an annual fan convention. James Randi, over that period, has been paid an average annual salary of $195,000. My requests for details of the educational foundation’s educational activities, over the last 12 months, were dodged and then ignored.

And demonstrated phenomenon is not scientific proof

That you don't like Randi doesn't solve your problem. If the Randi prize had never existed nothing would change.

You still need that repeatable experiment to show there's such a thing as telepathy at all.

Same for clairvoyance, telekinesis, prognostication, every category in the kit,

This has been the central paranormal problem for a lot longer than the 51 years of the Randi prize, and here in 2019 July still boasts precisely zero solutions.

Skepticism about the paranormal is on a very sound basis.

 

[Darkforbid]

That you don't like Randi doesn't solve your problem. If the Randi prize had never existed nothing would change.

You still need that repeatable experiment to show there's such a thing as telepathy at all.

Same for clairvoyance, telekinesis, prognostication, every category in the kit,

This has been the central paranormal problem for a lot longer than the 51 years of the Randi prize, and here in 2019 July still boasts precisely zero solutions.

Skepticism about the paranormal is on a very sound basis.

That's the scientific proof lie:

For any scientific proof the how it happens needs a full explanation, I saw telepathy repeated many times would not cut it, you need the how

 

[blü 2]

That's the scientific proof lie:

For any scientific proof the how it happens needs a full explanation, I saw telepathy repeated many times would not cut it, you need the how

Under controlled conditions with skeptical scrutineers?

At 1 am when the party was getting going?

What were the circs? The safeguards? And what was the demonstration? Details,please.

 

[Erebus]

I never could understand the point of having demons in the first place. What purpose do they serve in the Grand Design? To just go around possessing people?

And it seems rather pointless, since the demons give themselves away with the projectile vomiting, the screaming, the flailing, and turning their heads all the way around.

There are a couple of interesting points here since demons do serve a function as cultural constructs. The mental illness hypothesis is one way of viewing it, that people didn't fully understand the reasons for aberrant behaviour and so tried to explain it as having inhuman origins. I think there's probably some truth to this but not in all cases. Some cultures were aware that these behaviours were the result of sickness but often had a very limited understanding of the nature of that sickness.

Beyond that, demons and other evil spirits very often served as cautionary tales. Spirits were often associated with wild places, the forests, deserts, mountains and rivers, which were often perilous to travel to. To give an example, there are many folkloric examples of river spirits who would lure travellers into the water and drown them. The cautionary element here is fairly obvious, "Be careful around water." Jenny Greenteeth was one such bogeyman figure, apparently designed to frighten children away from playing by the water's edge.

Then there's the possibility that some of them helped people cope with an uncaring world. For example, some demons were blamed for causing miscarriages, stillborn infants or the deaths of mothers during childbirth. It makes sense to me that a scapegoat might serve as a coping mechanism when faced with a tragedy like that. The fact that demon folklore of that sort invariably has accompanying charms and prayers to ward such demons off suggests to me that this may be an attempt to exert some kind of control over a situation that made them vulnerable.

Finally, there's the storytelling element. People tend to think in narrative terms and a good story requires adversity. Demons, monsters and various evil spirits make good antagonists who are powerful, deadly and irredeemably evil. It's not always clear how literally many of folklore's monsters were believed in. It's also not clear how many who were literally believed in were originally intended to be viewed that way.

I'll throw out a disclaimer here that this is a mixture of both scholarly theories and my own conjecture. It's a complex subject with a lot of disagreement and the hard truth is that we may never fully understand the origins and intent behind many of these beings.

You'd think that they'd try to play it cool - possess someone famous or powerful - and try to act like that person, while subtly shaping the course of human events.

This part immediately made me think of the conspiracy theories along the lines of David Icke's reptilians and the believers in a Satanic New World Order. Suffice it to say that there are plenty of people who believe pretty much exactly what you said here. Their view is that there's inhuman influence at the very top levels of society.

 

[Darkforbid]

Under controlled conditions with skeptical scrutineers?

At 1 am when the party was getting going?

What were the circs? The safeguards? And what was the demonstration? Details,please.

Read it again its not a claim

But if you need a practical demonstration of a whole range things regarded as supernatural I live in Oxford

 

[Darkforbid]

That you don't like Randi doesn't solve your problem. If the Randi prize had never existed nothing would change.

You still need that repeatable experiment to show there's such a thing as telepathy at all.

Same for clairvoyance, telekinesis, prognostication, every category in the kit,

This has been the central paranormal problem for a lot longer than the 51 years of the Randi prize, and here in 2019 July still boasts precisely zero solutions.

Skepticism about the paranormal is on a very sound basis.

Actually i do like him he's good at his job which is debunking stage magic

 

[blü 2]

But if you need a practical demonstration of a whole range things regarded as supernatural I live in Oxford

So you decline to specify even one example of your claim.

That's not the way that skepticism is overcome.

And you like Randi when he 'debunks stage magic' but you don't like him when he's associated with a prize that wasn't once claimed in 51 years, because you believe in magic, just not stage magic.

Okay, that's your view and your choice. I'll leave you to it.

 

[Audie]

In the modern day, I ask this sincerely.

It's a phrase that's so common in the books I cringe every time I hear it. It's clearly a sign of medical ignorance.

Among the lowest and most pernicious of
superstitions.

 

[Audie]

It's beyond that. It's throwing disease onto pigs and drowning them.

And who paid for the pigs?

 

[Audie]

I never could understand the point of having demons in the first place. What purpose do they serve in the Grand Design? To just go around possessing people?

And it seems rather pointless, since the demons give themselves away with the projectile vomiting, the screaming, the flailing, and turning their heads all the way around.

You'd think that they'd try to play it cool - possess someone famous or powerful - and try to act like that person, while subtly shaping the course of human events.

They are super stupid. So easy to fool!
In China, you can fool demons who might
harm your boy, by dressing him as a girl.

 

[Stevicus]

There are a couple of interesting points here since demons do serve a function as cultural constructs. The mental illness hypothesis is one way of viewing it, that people didn't fully understand the reasons for aberrant behaviour and so tried to explain it as having inhuman origins. I think there's probably some truth to this but not in all cases. Some cultures were aware that these behaviours were the result of sickness but often had a very limited understanding of the nature of that sickness.

Beyond that, demons and other evil spirits very often served as cautionary tales. Spirits were often associated with wild places, the forests, deserts, mountains and rivers, which were often perilous to travel to. To give an example, there are many folkloric examples of river spirits who would lure travellers into the water and drown them. The cautionary element here is fairly obvious, "Be careful around water." Jenny Greenteeth was one such bogeyman figure, apparently designed to frighten children away from playing by the water's edge.

Then there's the possibility that some of them helped people cope with an uncaring world. For example, some demons were blamed for causing miscarriages, stillborn infants or the deaths of mother's during childbirth. It makes sense to me that a scapegoat might serve as a coping mechanism when faced with a tragedy like that. The fact that demon folklore of that sort invariably has accompanying charms and prayers to ward such demons off suggests to me that this may be an attempt to exert some kind of control over a situation that made them vulnerable.

Finally, there's the storytelling element. People tend to think in narrative terms and a good story requires adversity. Demons, monsters and various evil spirits make good antagonists who are powerful, deadly and irredeemably evil. It's not always clear how literally many of folklore's monsters were believed in. It's also not clear how many who were literally believed in were originally intended to be viewed that way.

I'll throw out a disclaimer here that this is a mixture of both scholarly theories and my own conjecture. It's a complex subject with a lot of disagreement and the hard truth is that we may never fully understand the origins and intent behind many of these beings.

Yes, this makes sense. I figured that demons were mainly storytelling devices in folklore and legend.

This part immediately made me think of the conspiracy theories along the lines of David Icke's reptilians and the believers in a Satanic New World Order. Suffice it to say that there are plenty of people who believe pretty much exactly what you said here. Their view is that there's inhuman influence at the very top levels of society.

It is kind of odd when you think of it, though. Why would such powerful beings (whether extraterrestrials or spirits) even want to play around in this little sandbox of ours? It doesn't appear that it would be much of a challenge for them to get the better of humans, nor does there appear to be much of a reward for doing so. For such powerful entities, it seems the equivalent of wanting to be in charge of a manure pile. Sure, they can pull the wings off of flies if that makes them happy, but it seems such an empty, pointless existence.

 

[Audie]

Well that's just empty rhetoric, total ignores free will, assumes God directly contacts man, whereas in scripture its by signs or messengers. Plus you seem total unaware that a lot of phenomena associated with mental illness is recognised as real yet is unexplained by science.

For example I bet you cannot tell me what would be need to scientifically explain say telepathy

What would be needed first would be some
demonstration that it is real.

Awful hard to study things that dont exist.