Actually I think that spirit possession can manifest bahaviourally, like having addictions, or indulging in fornication. '2 demoniacs making love' paints a wild picture of out of some horror movie but it might not actually seem like that. The point is that the impulse has a spiritual source and the fact that the lovers are not rolling their eyes in a crazed fashion and contorting their bodies does not mean that they are not possessed. Possession can even be manifested in the form of ailments, such as the deaf and dumb man that Jesus encountered.

m_nwankwo:

@Pilgrim

You continue to raise the same issues. Part of the problem in this discussion seem to be the interpretation of words. You adhere strictly to the dictionary meaning of every word. To make my self clearer and less abstract I will adhere to ordinary meaning of words as in the dictionary and where I cannot, I will define or explain what I meant. Now their are two words which I used with regard to demons: will and personality. When a dictionary meaning of these words are applied to my submissions, it leads to interpretations which are not in accord with what I meant in my descriptions. Thus to be as clear as possible I retract the words will and personality.  I will replace them with clearer statements as follows:

Demons are evil volitions of the human spirit. Demons have a form. Demons are ethereal and not abstract. Demons have an elemental core that allows it to act. The action of a demon may be directed by its producer or by others. In this connection an envy witch (a demon) produced by Mr. A may be directed by Mr. A to attack Mr. B or be directed by envious Mr.D to attack Mr. B or may attack spirituallly weak or envious Mr F without a direction from any human being. Demons do not possess freedom of choice, the remain what their originator or producer intended them to be. An envy witch remain so and cannot change its nature. Demons can attack, influence, afflict but are incapable of possessing a human being. I guess this explanation is clealer.

Now let me address some of the issues you raised:


Based on my definition above, I think that your questioning of "volition" exercising "volition" does not apply anymore. A demon is a volition but the volition has no "volition" or "will". In order not to misrepresent your statements, kindly explain what you mean by "spirit is ethereal and incoporeal". Also since you said that a demon is a "type of spirit", what is spirit.

An alien spirit is another human spirit that is no more in flesh and blood. I can infer (correct me if it is a wrong inference) that demons are  not human spirit but diabolical spirits. Now explain how a non-human spirit will take possesion of a human body.

What are spirit beings. Since you have seen spirit, what type of spirit did you see and how does it look.

What is your evidence that there is no such thing as the neutral power of God?


Stay blessed.

But Sir, is it not obvious from the title of the thread that the Demon that is being asked about is the demon as christians understand it. ie a demon that can possess a human being. And further whether such a demon can possess a christian. There has been no talk of demonic Volitions until you came along, and your contribution has not really helped the advancement of this thread.

ps. I hope you don't find what I said rude. I don't mean to be. But it seems obvious to me that you are contributing negative equity to the thread.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

Actually I think that spirit possession can manifest bahaviourally, like having addictions, or indulging in fornication. '2 demoniacs making love' paints a wild picture of out of some horror movie but it might not actually seem like that. The point is that the impulse has a spiritual source and the fact that the lovers are not rolling their eyes in a crazed fashion and contorting their bodies does not mean that they are not possessed. Possession can even be manifested in the form of ailments, such as the deaf and dumb man that Jesus encountered.

Lol, there is a difference in demon-activities and the specific case of demon-possession. I have repeated the outline earlier, and noted the difference. Demonic activities may include all sorts of influences to commit indecent acts; but demon-possession is quite a different matter from being influenced to sin or addiction.

Cheers.

@m_nwankwo,

m_nwankwo:

@Pilgrim

You continue to raise the same issues. Part of the problem in this discussion seem to be the interpretation of words. You adhere strictly to the dictionary meaning of every word. To make my self clearer and less abstract I will adhere to ordinary meaning of words as in the dictionary and where I cannot, I will define or explain what I meant.

I should not begin to go into the details you raised again, which so far (IMHO) are still saying the same vague things.

Rather, I should just point you to Pastor AIO's astute observation to yours:
[list]

Pastor AIO:

There has been no talk of demonic Volitions until you came along, and your contribution has not really helped the advancement of this thread.

[/list]

Cheers.

Pastor AIO:

But Sir, is it not obvious from the title of the thread that the Demon that is being asked about is the demon as christians understand it. ie a demon that can possess a human being. And further whether such a demon can possess a christian. There has been no talk of demonic Volitions until you came along, and your contribution has not really helped the advancement of this thread.

ps. I hope you don't find what I said rude. I don't mean to be. But it seems obvious to me that you are contributing negative equity to the thread.

Hi Pastor,

I do not find your comments rude. It is not my intention to derail the topic. Therefore I will not post further on this thread. Stay blessed!

@pilgrim 1
Thanks for your reply but I have a few questions for you.
1)You keep maintaining that Demons are spirits. What is a spirit?
2)what is a diabolical spirit?
3)Who created demons.
4) You said that they existed before man, what is their origin?
5)For what purpose were they created?
6)Since you believe in the bible as containing the whole Truth. How come in the bible description of how God created the world, demons are no mentioned. So when did God create demons?


I also wish to answer one question that you asked. You asked how can a volition have a volition? Here is the answer:
Volitions do not have volitions. Demons do not have volitions, rather they are forms of volition. They are living forms or embodiments of a particular volition. I.E-- a demon of lust knows nothing but lust, the demon is lust itself in a tangible form. It influences people to lust because it attracts lusts, its existence depends on the lust of people. It does not have a free will and a volition cannot arise in it. It is nothing but a tangible form of lust which derives its energy from lustful people.

You said that there is nothing like the neutral power of God. Even a child knows that the power of God is neutral. There is only one power and only one producer of power, and it is God. Creatures do not produce power, creatures only depend on the power of God, which can be used for good or for evil. Like everything that is lent, the receiver has to answer for his/her use of the power. Thus those that do evil with the power of God will have to answer to God for their misuse of His power. Even Lucifer depends on the power of God. Lucifer can not produce or manufacture power, only God can do this.

My analogy about Mr B and Mrs Z does not imply posesion. m_nwankwo has made it clear that demons cannot posses people, and this is true. The human body is a vehicle designed in such a way that only spirits can inhabit it or poses it. Demons only influence people but demons don't have enough power push away a human spirit from its body by taking control of its brain.

Thanks and remain blessed

@Pastor AIO,
You raised some important points but I need to re-read your posts again. But one that I think I saw in one of posts is that Demons can inspire knowledge. This is true if you look at in the light of my earlier explanation, you will see how this is possible.
An earnest volition for knowledge, takes on form. Guided by the law of attraction of homogeneous species it will attract all forms of like nature and these forms will form a powerful center in the beyond. Like a powerful knowledge magnet these forms will attract all the knowledge that all their producers poses, by attraction these of various knowledges, these knowledges become intensified and more complete; and through its connection with its producers, this more complete knowledge will be poured on its producers who only poses part knowledge. The people that a gifted to see the beyond can see these forms of knowledge desire as living entities, and can even speak and converse with them.

The forms that these volitions take corespond to the nature of the volition. There are beautiful forms, as well as ugly forms like a snake with six heads. A form of wickedness may take the form of a ferocious monster with ten horns and red teeth. We see such forms in works or art by artist who can see the beyond. Also in the Reveleation of John we see some of these forms. I.E, the dragon with many heads, which is a volition of Lucifer.

Thanks and remain blessed.

@justcool,

justcool:

@pilgrim 1
Thanks for your reply but I have a few questions for you.
1)You keep maintaining that Demons are spirits. What is a spirit?
2)what is a diabolical spirit?
3)Who created demons.
4) You said that they existed before man, what is their origin?
5)For what purpose were they created?
6)Since you believe in the bible as containing the whole Truth. How come in the bible description of how God created the world, demons are no mentioned. So when did God create demons?

Many thanks for your reply. Before I take each question in detail, it should be clear that I have been discussing this whole subject particular from the Christian (or Biblical) perspective. Of course, some people may have different takes on the subject, and that's okay. But as we go along, the assertion that someone makes in denial of the true nature of demons as spirits may only be carried in so far as they are willing to show how that idea is substantiated by well-attested sources or references. Failing to do so would mean that such theorizing would just have to be dispelled.

In which case, it would not be in my immediate interest to delve into Biblical discussions on that subject addressing all those questions in so far as you take a stance against the Bible. Without pretences here, we know that the people who take to the Grail Message often hold that the Bible is not the truth - and as such, I don't there's any reason for me to be shy in stating clearly that their own musings are false as well. How? Even if I am a bit reserve in quoting verses from the Bible, at least I could also grant other sources in defining the term "demon"; and as I stated earlier, all major references hold that it is a spirit/being, and not a volition or thought. If the one making such a claim in definition of that term as a 'volition' could go beyond theorising and share substance on the subject, we should be glad to see it. Failing to do so, there's no other way of addressing it directly than what it is: an unsubstantiated theory.

With this in mind, I could then go on and share these matters in addressing your questions. But if the aim is to argue endless with recourse to fancies and theories, I would just leave them as is.

justcool:

I also wish to answer one question that you asked. You asked how can a volition have a volition? Here is the answer:
Volitions do not have volitions. Demons do not have volitions, rather they are forms of volition. They are living forms or embodiments of a particular volition. I.E-- a demon of lust knows nothing but lust, the demon is lust itself in a tangible form.

Lust is an abstract quality - it is not a demon. Rather, demons drive and influence people to become lustful. The lust (abstract quality) should never be confused for the demon which influences it. there just is no way round these issues, because by theorising that "a demon is a is lust itself", you cannot come back to speak of it as "influencing people to lust" -

justcool:

It influences people to lust because it attracts lusts, its existence depends on the lust of people.

. . . which brings the same question out yet again: if a demon is lust itself, how can "lust itself" influence people to "lust"? We know that a quality such as "love" could inspire or influence people to "love" other people - but this is not the same thing as a demon, because the demon is not a quality such as lust or love. This is the reason why I said clearly that every major reference you come across (whether from its historical Greek usage or contemporary treatment) point to one thing: a demon is a spirit being.

Cheers.

dear pilgrim.1

pilgrim.1:

@justcool,

Many thanks for your reply. Before I take each question in detail, it should be clear that I have been discussing this whole subject particular from the Christian (or Biblical) perspective. Of course, some people may have different takes on the subject, and that's okay. But as we go along, the assertion that someone makes in denial of the true nature of demons as spirits may only be carried in so far as they are willing to show how that idea is substantiated by well-attested sources or references. Failing to do so would mean that such theorizing would just have to be dispelled.

In which case, it would not be in my immediate interest to delve into Biblical discussions on that subject addressing all those questions in so far as you take a stance against the Bible. Without pretences here, we know that the people who take to the Grail Message often hold that the Bible is not the truth - and as such, I don't there's any reason for me to be shy in stating clearly that their own musings are false as well. How? Even if I am a bit reserve in quoting verses from the Bible, at least I could also grant other sources in defining the term "demon"; and as I stated earlier, all major references hold that it is a spirit/being, and not a volition or thought. If the one making such a claim in definition of that term as a 'volition' could go beyond theorising and share substance on the subject, we should be glad to see it. Failing to do so, there's no other way of addressing it directly than what it is: an unsubstantiated theory.

With this in mind, I could then go on and share these matters in addressing your questions. But if the aim is to argue endless with recourse to fancies and theories, I would just leave them as is.

I really don't understand what you mean by the above. Do you wish to answer my questions or not.
If yes then I am all ears and I promise to respect your opinions even when I don't agree with. Have I not always done that?
If you don't want to answer my questions then its still okay. I still respect you and your opinions.

pilgrim.1:


. . . which brings the same question out yet again: if a demon is lust itself, how can "lust itself" influence people to "lust"? We know that a quality such as "love" could inspire or influence people to "love" other people - but this is not the same thing as a demon, because the demon is not a quality such as lust or love. This is the reason why I said clearly that every major reference you come across (whether from its historical Greek usage or contemporary treatment) point to one thing: a demon is a spirit being.

Cheers.

To answer the above question. These demons are like magnets. A magnets exhibits the quality of magnetism; and when brought in contact with other metal, over time this quality of magnetism will be influence the metal and make it a magnet too. The fact that something influences you does not mean that that thing is not tangible.

Most of the things that we call abstract are actually living forms in the beyond. This why most people get confused when the see the beyond.

You mentioned love. Love is also a living thing which God posses. I will give an example, the love of God is not just a quality but a living volition of God. All volitions of God are living and far superior to the volition of man.

Even the words of God are living things. If God say something, that thing automatically comes into existence and becomes living. Example--God said let there be light and then these was light! This process is also reflected in the spirits because the Primordial Spirits are in the image and likeness of God. Just as the words of God takes on form, the words of spirits(even human spirits) takes on form too.
It may sound strange to you when I tell you that the message of Christ has a form too. This form lightens or brightens the path of the departed who had lived the words of Christ while on earth. When it is said that the words of Christ lives, this is not only meant metaphorically but also literally.
Everything takes on form in the beyond. Even our convictions and beliefs. These forms shape the environment that we will find ourself in when we depart this earth.
I will give another example--Peter's conviction that Jesus is the son of God, took on the form of a rock. This convictions is a rock or a solid foundation for Peter, and this rock which is solid and unbreakable form is a protection and a solid foundation upon which Peter can rely on! This is a strong spiritual protection. The devil will have to break this rock before it can win over Peter. Thus as long as Peter holds this conviction, his house or spirit stands on a solid rock and protected by an unbreakable rock. This rock is not just a metaphor, it is actually real an in the beyond. This rock influences Peter, just as a demon influence its creators.
When Jesus said "Upon this rock I build my church." He was not talking about earthly rock, neither was He referring to Peter as a rock like the catholics claim. He was referring to a real and tangible rock in the beyond. This rock is a living form of the conviction in the Jesus as the son of God. Thus his church is built on the conviction that He is the son of God. His church is not built on peter who is just a humanbeing.

Also consider this statement:
In the beginning was the word, and the word was God!

Words, volitions, thoughts, all take on forms in the beyond. In the beyond, they are not just abstract but living forms.

Thanks.

@justcool,

justcool:

dear pilgrim.1
I really don't understand what you mean by the above. Do you wish to answer my questions or not.
If yes then I am all ears and I promise to respect your opinions even when I don't agree with. Have I not always done that?
If you don't want to answer my questions then its still okay. I still respect you and your opinions.

Here:

[list]

pilgrim.1:

With this in mind, I could then go on and share these matters in addressing your questions. But if the aim is to argue endless with recourse to fancies and theories, I would just leave them as is.

[/list]

If we are just going to keep arguing back and forth on "volition", I'm sorry that's not of any interest to me. If otherwise, I clearly said I would then go on and address your questions - did I not say so?

justcool:

When Jesus said "Upon this rock I build my church." He was not talking about earthly rock, neither was He referring to Peter as a rock like the catholics claim. He was referring to a real and tangible rock in the beyond. This rock is a living form of the conviction in the Jesus as the son of God. Thus his church is built on the conviction that He is the son of God. His church is not built on peter who is just a humanbeing.

Lol, when you guys try to interpret what Jesus said or meant, my very first question is this: where did you find that statement? If it was in the Bible and not the Grail Message, please leave it as it is. It is when those who follow the Grail Message are doing their best to re-interpret the Bible for us, that is when I point them back to their theories and show how such do not bear any substance to reality. We know what Jesus meant - if your ideas are based on the Grail Message or Abd-Ru-Shin's thoughts, they won't bear much fruit here.

Cheers.

Dear pilgrim 1
Thanks for a wonderful exchange of views. In-order not to allow it to take us to a different path, I will dismiss myself. I have said all that I felt I should say.
Your views are well appreciated and respected.
A thosands cheers

@justcool,

Lol, anytime you do feel like weighing in on the subject, pls do - will be well appreciated. For now, I need to take some time off to attend upon something very crucial which just called for my attention.

A zillion hugs.

justcool:

@pilgrim 1
Thanks for your reply but I have a few questions for you.
1)You keep maintaining that Demons are spirits. What is a spirit?

This is actually a damn good question. What do we understand by the term spirit? I accept that spirit is to be contrasted with physical matter. And there are certain defining things that we can say about physical matter. Like it has a location, and a spatial span (eg. 3 cubic metres). Also matter exhibits certain forces. Physics tells us that these forces are fourfold. Namely, Gravitational force, Electromagnetic force, and then Strong and Weak nuclear forces. It is due to these forces that matter is perceptible to our physical senses.

Can we make a similar outline for Spirit? What qualities does Spirit exhibit?

These questions are very relevant if we are to make statements like a 'spirit entering a man's body'.

n demon-possession, diabolical spirits actually enter into the victim's body and take up residency there - and from that position, they take control of that person's faculties and render the victim incapable of living their own lives in any way contrary to what the demon(s) desires.

The highlighted part above would suggest to me that spirits actually occupy a specific location. If the spirit is in the body then the next question I find myself asking is "what part of the body is it in? the liver? the brain? or is it diffused all around the body?" Is it perceptible to the physical senses? Are phantoms and other effects of the imagination spirits?

My second problem with the demon influence versus demon possession position is as follows. An addict finds within himself the urge to act contrary to his conscious volition. He might resist the urge, or the urge might overwhelm him. How strong does the urge have to be before it stops becoming a demonic influence and actually becomes demonic possession.

Possessed people are not in the state of possession trance constantly. It comes in cycles. It can be predicted most of the time. It could be weekly, or even every evening. But in the daylight, or interim times, they go back to normal. During the possession trance their consciousness is blotted out. They have no recollection when they return to normal. Yet this is not the only phenomenon that does the same thing, like I mentioned before. Even having too much to drink can make you lose all memory of what you did that evening. Although some would argue that being drunk like that is also to be considered spirit possession afterall what else is good whisky if not some damn strong Spirit.

Here's what Wikipedia has to say on the subject:

Demonic possession is often the term used to describe the control over a human form by Satan himself or one of his assigned advocates. Descriptions of demonic possessions often include: erased memories or personalities, convulsions, “fits” and fainting as if one were dying.[1] Unlike in channelling or other benign forms of possession, the subject has no control over the possessing entity and so it will persist until forced to leave the victim, usually through a form of exorcism. Many cultures and religions contain some concept of demonic possession, but the details vary considerably. The Roma people believe that demons can also possess animals, plants, deceased persons or inanimate objects.
The oldest references to demonic possession are from the Sumerians, who believed that all diseases of the body and mind were caused by "sickness demons" called gidim or gid-dim [2]. The priests who practiced exorcisms in these nations were called ashipu (sorcerer) as opposed to an asu (physician) who applied bandages and salves[3]. Many cuneiform tablets contain prayers to certain gods asking for protection from demons, while others ask the gods to expel the demons that have invaded their bodies.
Most illustrations portray these spirits as small, gruesome characters with inhuman distinctiveness. Often referenced as a witch’s “familiars” demons and other evil-spirits employed by witches are also displayed as society’s cast-offs or those beings incapable of caring for themselves thus seeking refuge with a witch. Witches would provide shelter and nourishment via the “witch’s teat” in exchange for the valuable services of the familiars in addition to spells, potions and other attempts by a witch to cause evil or “maleficium” over another.[4]
Shamanic cultures also believe in demon possession and shamans perform exorcisms too; in these cultures often diseases are attributed to the presence of an evil spirit or demon in the body of the patient.
The Malleus Maleficarum speaks about some exorcisms that can be done in different cases.

. . . oh and by the way, the reference to familiar spirits in the OT is not the same as demons that possess people. Familiar spirits are what mediums use to contact the dead and effect certain things, the familiar is subject to the medium not the other way round. Familiaris is latin for household servant.

Here is also a link for a recent case of demon possession. Although I cannot figure out why in this modern technological age the could not have made a video of the events or at least a tape recording.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58835

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

justcool link=topic=181454.msg3016762#msg3016762 date=1225377158:

@pilgrim 1
Thanks for your reply but I have a few questions for you.
1)You keep maintaining that Demons are spirits. What is a spirit?

This is actually a damn good question. What do we understand by the term spirit? I accept that spirit is to be contrasted with physical matter. And there are certain defining things that we can say about physical matter. Like it has a location, and a spatial span (eg. 3 cubic metres). Also matter exhibits certain forces. Physics tells us that these forces are fourfold. Namely, Gravitational force, Electromagnetic force, and then Strong and Weak nuclear forces. It is due to these forces that matter is perceptible to our physical senses.

Can we make a similar outline for Spirit? What qualities does Spirit exhibit?

Indeed, justcool's question is a pretty good one. And I think reference in my rejoinders have already been made as to their nature. In contrast to the physical, I said that "A spirit is not abstract because it is a being that is ethereal and incorporeal, yet possessing a definite form".

What do these terms mean? When something is defined as ethereal, we are pointing to its nature as being characterized by insubstantiality - that is, it is not defined in terms of physical qualities or solid substance. A similar idea is expressed by its being "incorporeal", which is to say that it is a reality which is not composed of matter as we know it.

It is on these two premises that a spirit can easily permeate matter and not be subject to laws of physical quantities. While matter may be restricted in some sense as not being able to permeate and imbue solid substances, the case is different with spirits in their ethereal and incorporeal nature. For this reason, spirits can and do premeate solid bodies - thus possession.

As said, since spirits are characterized by insubstantiality, we do not quantify them by the way one would as in the case of a physical matter. As such, a body could be possessed by one spirit, or several spirits at the same time. It is not the size of the body that determines how many spirits could possess a body, for a spirit is not subject to physical properties.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

These questions are very relevant if we are to make statements like a 'spirit entering a man's body'.

n demon-possession, diabolical spirits actually enter into the victim's body and take up residency there - and from that position, they take control of that person's faculties and render the victim incapable of living their own lives in any way contrary to what the demon(s) desires.

The highlighted part above would suggest to me that spirits actually occupy a specific location. If the spirit is in the body then the next question I find myself asking is "what part of the body is it in? the liver? the brain? or is it diffused all around the body?" Is it perceptible to the physical senses? Are phantoms and other effects of the imagination spirits?

Let's start with the last question: "Are phantoms and other effects of the imagination spirits?"

A simple answer is already in your question - "imaginations" are not "spirits". This is why again demons are not abstract entities like volitions, in as much as they are spirits with diabolical intents.

But what part of the body are they located when they possess a body? It's easier to understand when you ask yourself what part of your body your own spirit is located. Could you point to your brain, liver, or kidney as the precise location of a human spirit? No. This is why people who take that option speak so much about the spiritual connection/chord of the back of the brain, etc - forgeting the basic premise that no part of matter is a composite of the spirit.

So, where is the spirit located in man? Biblically, the spirit is in him - every part of his very being, and not just the material body. One cannot 'slice' the body, soul and spirit neatly with any instrument; for every part of man is permeated by his spirit, and the spirit of man is not divisible in a quantified manner (remember the nature of spirits above as being 'ethereal and incorporeal').

Let's apply a simple test. Assume a scenario where someone is critically injured, say on the arm and leg, and though he survives, those parts are to be amputated so he could continue to live. Now, the question is: when does any part of the spirit and soul get severed in the amputation as well? No. How do we know that? Because the faculties of the soul and spirit of that person are still intact, though their functions may be impaired.

In the same way as the spirit of man continues to reside in every single part of his body, so also a spirit possessing that body does not locate locally to a single part - they overwhelm every single part of the being (spirit, soul and body) of their victims. Here, it is not a matter of trying so hard to figure and imagine where the spirit is located, for spirits are not subject to physical laws. For this reason, a single body could contain just one person's spirit, or be invaded by several demons at the same time. At any rate when this happens, the single demon or several of them actually overwhelm their victims and hold them captive by taking every faculty of their victim under.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

My second problem with the demon influence versus demon possession position is as follows. An addict finds within himself the urge to act contrary to his conscious volition. He might resist the urge, or the urge might overwhelm him. How strong does the urge have to be before it stops becoming a demonic influence and actually becomes demonic possession.

The simple answer that one could give is this: demon possession are related to diabolic spirituality; while demonic influences cut across every strata of life and not restricted to just spirituality.

Let's apply this to a few cases. One could not give a list of all the possible things that demons bring about by possession - they could through possession wreck mental harm, cause physical injuries, and escalate psychologically disturbing effects on their victims. In Mark 9:25, the victim was troubled by a foul spirit specifically called a "dumb and deaf spirit". It does not mean that the spirit itself was dumb and deaf, but it was named as such because of its effect that it produced in its victim - and that was why it could respond to what was said to him ("Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him. And the spirit cried, . ." - Mark 9:25-26).

Demons do not just possess people - they are not given that prerogative to do so. When these happen, it is because an invitation has been given deliberately to the demon to enter its victims, and this could happen in so many ways.

What about addiction?

In the case of an addiction, this is not necessarily a matter of possession, but of influence and alliction. Deep within, the addict knows and is conscious of his/her problems, but is simply unable to break free from such a deadlock. Please understand here that I differentiate between an addict and a pervert; the difference being that the addict would seek help to break free from his problem, whereas the pervert is not looking for help but will fight tooth and nail to remain in his problem. Some demonic activity gravitates to perverts; in the same way, addicts sometimes come under the direct attack of demons while seeking help to be free.

It does not matter how many times one has to keep engaging in a particularly addictive problem: doors could be opened to demonic attacks and direct influence from the diabolic world in just one or a few contacts in such activities. This usually happens through the careless and ignorantly adventurous person who throws caution to the wind and delves into such a phenomenon. I personally know some people who have allowed demons to invade their lives through pornography - and you can know the power behind that person's struggles to keep that depending on porn. Thankfully, some of them are seeking help and through those who have been delivered, we can understand the way these demons operate.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

Possessed people are not in the state of possession trance constantly. It comes in cycles. It can be predicted most of the time. It could be weekly, or even every evening. But in the daylight, or interim times, they go back to normal.

I absolutely agree with you here. In most instances, they go about their "normal" lives with no hint of the real problem. It may surprise some people to know that some who are possessed are very "civil" in their behaviour. . until they come face to face with issues in the person's life that demons react to. In some more cunning situations, when people refer to "witches in church", they may not be far wrong, because it was a diabolical spirit that actually was trying to "promote and support" the ministers of the Gospel in Acts 16:16-18. People should be careful about these matters, because when we read what this spirit of divination said, it then becomes clear why we need the gift of discernment even more today in the Church --

And it came to pass, as we went to prayer,
a certain damsel possessed with a spirit of divination met us,
which brought her masters much gain by soothsaying:

The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying,
These men are the servants of the most high God,
which shew unto [size=14pt]us[/size] the way of salvation.

And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved,
turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in
the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.
And he came out the same hour. '

Notice what the spirit said in verse 17 - "These men. . . shew unto us the way of salvation."

Hold on there. Are demons interested in being shown the way of salvation? We know they are not interested at all - but this is the character of demons: they belie the Gospel and twist its context; that is why we find such spirits even today proclaiming the same thing - "they shew unto US the way to be saved!" Only ministers who live for God will see through the diabolical pretences of those spirits and cast them out!

Pastor AIO:

During the possession trance their consciousness is blotted out. They have no recollection when they return to normal. Yet this is not the only phenomenon that does the same thing, like I mentioned before. Even having too much to drink can make you lose all memory of what you did that evening. Although some would argue that being drunk like that is also to be considered spirit possession afterall what else is good whisky if not some damn strong Spirit.

Lol, drinking liquer (also called "spirits" is not to be confused for demon-possession.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

. . . oh and by the way, the reference to familiar spirits in the OT is not the same as demons that possess people. Familiar spirits are what mediums use to contact the dead and effect certain things, the familiar is subject to the medium not the other way round. Familiaris is latin for household servant.

They are the same. Although some mediums invite evil spirits to possess them for some advantage (such as the spirit of divination in Acts 16), the case of familiar spirits is not different in many respects from demon-possession. You probably have to see what demons do to people when they encounter the presence of God. Isaiah spoke about the effect of these demons known as "familiar spirits" as making their victims do the following -

● speak out of the ground,

● thy speech shall be low out of the dust,

● thy voice shall be, as of one that
hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground,

● and thy speech shall whisper out of the dust (Isaiah 29:4)

Have you ever witnessed what demon possession does to its victims when encountered for deliverance? All these features outlined above there are unmistakably identified! People have recorded instances where they encounter a demoniac who gave them exact and precise information about their background that the victims could not possibly have known prior to that time! And when the spirits/demons speak about these things, you just listen to the scowling and low guttoral voices (such as the "scatological" lingo used in the example you recommended in that link), the shrills, and the rapidly flowing nuaces that their victims could not possibly be pretending! Demons also could make their victims speak several languages fluently that their victims never learned or heard!

In all of these, what Isaiah the porphet described are being confirmed today in demon-possession! Just because he used the expression "familiar spirits" does not restrict its application to just spirits that act familiarly, lol. Go back and read what Isaiah said, and check out reports of demon-possession, then come back and let's see where these things are referring to other things.

Cheers.

@Pastor AIO,

Pastor AIO:

Here is also a link for a recent case of demon possession. Although I cannot figure out why in this modern technological age the could not have made a video of the events or at least a tape recording.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58835

Actually, some who have read that report have tried to cast doubt on its veracity on that same premise of a lack of video or tape recordings. Some honest skeptics do not run down the account, although they quip that it is really intriguing and "interesting".

But we should understand something here. There are a few things that further strengthen the report -

● the credential and standing of Dr. Richard E. Gallagher is unquestionable
even among colleagues in academia.

● it is understandable that the "nameless" woman may not wish her name
and identity to be published at this time - but again, that does not render
the report dubious or suspicious, as those who contest its veracity could
just approach Dr. Richard Gallagher and interview him directly (incidentally,
some have contacted him and he has posted his response).

● another point is that, it is to be understood that Catholic priests do not
draw hasty conclusions on exorcism - and this is not the first instance
where we know about such incidents; consequently, that this one passes
as a "recorded" incident may not rule out the fact that they may have
used other media for the recording.

It would be interesting to go through the report again and see the very issues about demon-possession that we speak of in this thread, then mirror those same highlights on the ideas that some have shared here to see their correlation or otherwise.

Regards.

Here is also a link for a recent case of demon possession. Although I cannot figure out why in this modern technological age the could not have made a video of the events or at least a tape recording.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58835

The Dr might have spoken about this but he clearly was not doing science by saying the victim was possessed by demons. Scientifically, the best he could have said was that this victim suffered/experience condition for which there is no rational explanation. Science CANNOT make attributions to an entity it does not recognise, and I don't think science recognise demons. So speaking as an ordinary bemused member of the public the Dr was every right to say what he said, but in the scientific community he was speaking out of turns. ( I can just imagine giggles and laughters in his directions as he presents his case to a conference of scientists)

huxley:

The Dr might have spoken about this but he clearly was not doing science by saying the victim was possessed by demons. Scientifically, the best he could have said was that this victim suffered/experience condition for which there is no rational explanation. Science CANNOT make attributions to an entity it does not recognise, and I don't think science recognise demons.

People indeed may laugh and giggle at him, but at least Dr. Richard E. Gallagher was honest enough to present a case well attested to that no skeptic in his right mind would dismiss out of hand.

It's also remarkable that you stated unequivocally that "Science CANNOT make attributions to an entity it does not recognise" - that is very interesting indeed. Those who cannot recognize the reality of these things should not wait for what type of "science" to apply when they encounter such incidents! It just makes me wonder that this thing about "science" we talk so much of, is not helping us at all. There are "orphic" phenomena and realities that no scientist can or could deny or dismiss - this report was just one of them! Science (the sort of "science" that one is looking for to "explain" these phenomena is just too lamely excused here - my observation (and I'm not alone). Basically, what science does is to affirm these matters as simply as could be recorded without trying to play a superiority over such issues that it cannot handle. It helps therefore, to recognize its limitations - and a well attested fact, that science does not address everything in our known realities.

Follow Up On Dr Richard E. Gallagher's studies on the case of Exorcism.

Perhaps a few people who may be interested on this event need to visit this link (New Oxford Review) and see a few questions and answers as follow up on Dr. Gallagher's investigations.

---

AMONG THE MANY COUNTERFEITS
A Case of Demon Possession

March 2008
By Richard E. Gallagher



Richard E. Gallagher, M.D., is a board-certified psychiatrist in private practice in Hawthorne, New York, and Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at New York Medical College. He is also on the faculties of the Columbia University Psychoanalytic Institute and a Roman Catholic seminary. He is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Princeton University, magna cum laude in Classics, and trained in Psychiatry at the Yale University School of Medicine. Dr. Gallagher is the only American psychiatrist to have been a consistent U.S. delegate to the International Association of Exorcists, and has addressed its plenary session.

[list]Amid widespread confusion and skepticism about the subject, the chief goal of this article is to document a contemporary and clear-cut case of demonic possession. Even those who doubt such a phenomenon exists may find the following example rather persuasive. For clergy, or indeed anyone involved in the spiritual or psychological care of others, it is equally critical, however, to recognize the many and infinitely more common "counterfeits" (i.e., false assignations) of demonic influence or attack as well.

This need for caution and precision is especially important at a time when untrained laymen or, worse, public ministries may unfortunately mislead or even exploit the faithful in this area. One has only to turn on a television to witness obvious abuses -- for instance, tele­vangelists' dunning their audience for cash as they conduct exhibitionist ceremonies before large assemblies of the overly credulous. Sharp distinctions -- long known to traditional theologians, but now often ignored -- need to be drawn.

Possession is only one and not the most common type of demonic attack. Possession is very rare, though not as exceedingly so as many imagine. So-called "oppression," or "infestation," is less rare, though hardly frequent either, and sometimes more difficult to discern accurately. For our purposes here, a truly "possessed" individual exhibits so massive and unequivocal an assault that we will use it as the paradigmatic example of a genuine demonic attack. This case will be contrasted not to the many lesser degrees of demonic assault, but rather to the varied kinds of purported demonic involvement -- often psychotic conditions -- that turn out to have a purely natural explanation. These states should be more widely recognized as such by religious practitioners. This need is especially great among the many laymen now in deliverance ministries, a rapidly growing worldwide phenomenon.[/list]

Selected Comments and Responses following Dr. Gallagher's Work - (New Oxford Review)


[list]As an academic psychiatrist with an active clinical practice, I read Dr. Richard E. Gallagher's article "A Case of Demonic Possession" (March) with intense interest. Given the skepticism of the 21st-century academic world, Dr. Gallagher should be applauded for his courage in both writing about this case and acknowledging his work in this area. His article is balanced, appropriately pointing out that while many people dismiss the satanic as fantasy, some are quick to invoke satanic causes for well-explained natural occurrences. Also, he presents the facts without sensationalism. Furthermore, I can vouch for the accuracy of what Dr. Gallagher writes about current psychiatric concepts. And, based on what he presents, I concur that this case does not fit any known psychiatric diagnostic category.

I believe that his article has a broader application that goes beyond reminding us of the reality of demonic possession. As Dr. Gallagher states, possession is very rare. Much more common is subtle satanic influence. If you miss the subtlety, it can be at times obvious. I am writing this letter on Good Friday. This very day, in a nearby town, several Christian churches were vandalized with spray-painted satanic symbols. I doubt that the timing was coincidental.

Also not rare is the spiritual dimension of every person who presents himself to healthcare providers. Each of these people has a spirit, and Dr. Gallagher's article should give pause to those of us in the health­care professions. The well-being of the spirit needs to be accounted for in our approach to each person. We shortchange our patients if we take a biologically reductionist view of them, without taking into account the psychological, social, and spiritual aspects of their lives. Clearly, there are other forces taking a serious interest in them.


Mark J. Albanese, M.D.
Cambridge Health Alliance
Cambridge, Massachusetts[/list]

---

[list]Richard E. Gallagher, in his article "A Case of Demonic Possession" writes, "for about 30 minutes, she [Julia, the subject of the ‘possession'], actually levitated about half a foot in the air." Levitation is an illusion. Dr. Gallagher and his group were affected by Satan to see a performance, while supposedly participating in an exorcism.

Louis J. Mihalyi
Newland, North Carolina[/list]

---

[list]RICHARD E. GALLAGHER REPLIES:

I appreciate the two letters sent from fellow academic psychiatrists who seem to be unusually astute and highly knowledgeable physicians who can understand and vouch for my article's complex sorting out of psychiatric from demonic cases ("A Case of Demonic Possession," March). As noted in my article, I don't expect psychiatrists to make diagnostic judgments in this area: "They have been trained (and rightly so) to be skeptical," and "physicians should not be expected to make discernments in matters of this sort -- it is not their trained task or area of expertise." I'd add again that psychiatric input is often invaluable in ruling out manifest psychiatric illness, as indeed mental-health practitioners do rather routinely with psychotic and related symptomatology that can be mistaken by a certain fundamentalist mentality as diabolic attacks. It has been gratifying, by the way, for me to have heard from quite a few psychiatrists who became aware of my article and concur that its thesis meshes with their own beliefs, admittedly on the part of most of them without much direct experience in this area, given the extreme rarity of genuine possessions. Drs. English and Albanese, in my view, deserve special credit for writing attribution, although I can understand why some other colleagues are reluctant to do so.

Mr. Mihalyi presents a not implausible theory about levitation, with a bit more confidence and dogmatism on his part than makes sense to me; after all, he was not present at the exorcism in question. There are documented cases of levitation on historical record, and it is quite clear from the careful descriptions that they are hardly "illusions" (although a subset of such examples, for instance by sometimes acknowledged reports of trickery in Eastern religious lore, certainly seem so). I have provided the two best English references available on the subject, in my estimation, in the endnotes to my article -- viz., the classic work The Physical Phenomena of Mysticism by the scholarly Jesuit expert, Fr. Herbert Thurston, S.J., and also the little known but superbly argued Comparative Miracles by Robert D. Smith.

Concerning the exorcism ritual and levitation described in my article, I mentioned that I did not list all the details. One point worth adding about the levitation is that the two nuns who held "Julia" down were physically struggling mightily for about a half hour, such that her body did not rise further in the air. It sounds remarkable because it was! The nuns were quite fatigued by this point, and eventually the levitation ceased; amazingly, Julia went up and down quite smoothly. Mr. Mihalyi would certainly have a difficult time convincing participants that this literally exhausting event was an illusion.

Of course, we have it on good scriptural authority that some people will never be convinced. I am sometimes asked why we don't have a videotape -- as if demons (or God) were subject to pristine scientific conditions, or the entity involved, with an intelligence of its own, were going to perform for a camera! As also mentioned in my article, the historical events I portrayed are epistemological "singularities"; these episodes are not necessarily non-credible because they can't be replicated or weren't captured on camera. Otherwise, we would trust no historical accounts, such as General Washington's crossing the Delaware.

St. Paul seemed amazed that people did not believe what he thought were 500 witnesses to the resurrected Christ. As with miracles, which have often been exceptionally well documented too (e.g., at Lourdes), our Lord gives (or allows) the evidence He wishes. I have had no "illusions" that my article would persuade the "un-persuadable." My task was simply to document a clear-cut example of demonic possession, and to warn the overly credulous or naïve not to mistake common psychiatric disorders for diabolic phenomena, unfortunately not an infrequent error in our country now.[/list]

Another. . .

[list]How Can She Be So Active?

I was appalled and disappointed that you found Lindy Morelli's story ("Through a Crucible to Spring," article, April) to be worthy of publication. How could a woman "blind since birth" be so active -- an apparently accomplished musician, traveling back and forth from Pennsylvania to New York, and eventually taking a "bright," sunny flight to Ireland's "green, lush countryside"? Prior to that she took two trips to Medjugorje. When I read this, a red flag went up, and from that point on I read her article with a jaundiced eye. I feel like "I've been took!"


Barbara R. Grimaldi
Miramar Beach, Florida[/list]

---

[list]LINDY MORELLI REPLIES:

I became blind due to an accident at birth. My identical twin sister and I were born premature at six and a half months in 1964. We weighed only two and a half pounds, and were placed for safety reasons in an incubator, which caused too much oxygen to be directed toward my optic nerves. This overabundance of oxygen caused permanent nerve damage, which resulted in total blindness.

I received my education at Overbrook School for the Blind in Philadelphia. At Overbrook we were given all the necessary life skills to live an independent life. I received a topnotch education, and went on to receive a bachelors degree in theology, and a masters degree in counseling, and am presently studying for my doctoral degree in ministry at Catholic University. While at Overbrook, I was given sufficient training in mobility and orientation skills so that I would be able to travel on my own.

I was always naturally gifted with musical ability. While at Over­brook I had several great opportunities to learn how to play the flute and how to sing and lead musical gatherings for public worship. Blind musicians are not rare; several are well-known -- e.g., Ray Charles and Ste­vie Wonder.

Most people today are aware of the amazing accomplishments of Helen Keller, who was not only totally blind, but also totally deaf. One may ask how she could have done all she did -- working for peace, traveling the world, and writing several books -- but she is a prime example of someone who was able to overcome her handicaps.

Barbara Grimaldi questions my saying that I would enjoy the "green, lush countryside" in Ireland and the "bright" sunshine on my plane trip. Anyone who has engaged in a normal conversation or knows anything about Ireland knows that it is green and lush. And everybody knows that on a warm day the sun is bright.

I respectfully submit this response with the hope that it will help people realize that just because a person is blind, or otherwise physically disabled, does not mean he is resigned to a limited, imprisoned life without knowledge or function in the outside world.[/list]

Of course, we have it on good scriptural authority that some people will never be convinced.

Is this the language of a man of science?   What a shame.

huxley:

Is this the language of a man of science? What a shame.

Is that the only thing you saw in all the report?

pilgrim.1:

Is that the only thing you saw in all the report?

Let say the Dr was writing a scientific paper intended for publication in his professional journal, in which he included the statement,

Of course, we have it on good scriptural authority that some people will never be convinced.

Do you think that would be considered scientific? This would lose him credibility and predispose all his work to be treated as sub-science or pseudoscience.

I stopped reading when I saw that statement. I wish the statement had occurred earlier as it would have saved me the trouble of reading him.

@huxley,

huxley:

Let say the Dr was writing a scientific paper intended for publication in his professional journal, in which he included the statement,

Do you think that would be considered scientific? This would lose him credibility and predispose all his work to be treated as sub-science or pseudoscience.

I stopped reading when I saw that statement. I wish the statement had occurred earlier as it would have saved me the trouble of reading him.

Could I make a few observations here that may help us both ways?

1. It is not good scientific posture to "stop reading" just because you read his reference to Scripture. A healthy mind of inquiry does not "shut off" on a publication of repute, especially "Oxford" just because the researcher happens to have mentioned Scripture - that is prejudice, not fairness.

2. You are not qualified at all to discredit a man of Dr. Gallagher's repute and and standing in the scientific community. Until you have academically qualified yourself and earned a doctorate as well, there really is no substance to the assertion that such and such would "lose him credibility".

3. If one would read essentially what Dr. Gallagher stated, they could not miss the fact he addressed readers of either groups - religious and scientific. He should know in his own standing of repute that there are "fakes" and "genuine" cases of what he investigated; and as such, he warns that this investigation is a much needed exercise so that the gullible public would be wary of those who "tele­vangelists' dunning their audience for cash as they conduct exhibitionist ceremonies". It is on the basis of this unfortunate confusion where many may not know the difference in demon-possession that he warned that genuine cases "good scriptural authority", rather than dismiss it out of hand.

4. If the skeptics were ever interested to seriously pursue this phenomena fairly, and without prejudice, they would themselves have gone out to conduct their own investigations to "correct" Dr. Gallagher's report. It is a very weak attitude and posture to sit smugly and try to dismiss these occurences without having done any work on them, nor witnessed them, nor even tried to understand them! This is why another reviewer noted that he didn't

expect psychiatrists to make diagnostic judgments in this area:
"They have been trained (and rightly so) to be skeptical," and
"physicians should not be expected to make discernments in matters
of this sort -- it is not their trained task or area of expertise."

Bearing these in mind, one should not that Dr. Gallagher's work has been appreciated by a wide community of researchers as well - one should not on their disproportionate attitude and prejudice call a researcher's repute into question just because they saw something in the report that they don't like to hear or read.

There's a balance on both sides of the scientific and religious community in his research - others have noted it in their comments, and that is why I have tried to post a few and Dr. Gallagher's response as well.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

Could I make a few observations here that may help us both ways?

1. It is not good scientific posture to "stop reading" just because you read his reference to Scripture. A healthy mind of inquiry does not "shut off" on a publication of repute, especially "Oxford" just because the researcher happens to have mentioned Scripture - that is prejudice, not fairness.

2. You are not qualified at all to discredit a man of Dr. Gallagher's repute and and standing in the scientific community. Until you have academically qualified yourself and earned a doctorate as well, there really is no substance to the assertion that such and such would "lose him credibility".

3. If one would read essentially what Dr. Gallagher stated, they could not miss the fact he addressed readers of either groups - religious and scientific. He should know in his own standing of repute that there are "fakes" and "genuine" cases of what he investigated; and as such, he warns that this investigation is a much needed exercise so that the gullible public would be wary of those who "tele­vangelists' dunning their audience for cash as they conduct exhibitionist ceremonies". It is on the basis of this unfortunate confusion where many may not know the difference in demon-possession that he warned that genuine cases "good scriptural authority", rather than dismiss it out of hand.

4. If the skeptics were ever interested to seriously pursue this phenomena fairly, and without prejudice, they would themselves have gone out to conduct their own investigations to "correct" Dr. Gallagher's report. It is a very weak attitude and posture to sit smugly and try to dismiss these occurences without having done any work on them, nor witnessed them, nor even tried to understand them! This is why another reviewer noted that he didn't

expect psychiatrists to make diagnostic judgments in this area:
"They have been trained (and rightly so) to be skeptical," and
"physicians should not be expected to make discernments in matters
of this sort -- it is not their trained task or area of expertise."

Bearing these in mind, one should not that Dr. Gallagher's work has been appreciated by a wide community of researchers as well - one should not on their disproportionate attitude and prejudice call a researcher's repute into question just because they saw something in the report that they don't like to hear or read.

There's a balance on both sides of the scientific and religious community in his research - others have noted it in their comments, and that is why I have tried to post a few and Dr. Gallagher's response as well.

I may not have the Dr training in pschiatry, but I have a scientific background and I have read hundreds of scientific papers in my previous incarnation. I have come closed to being published but for career reasons had to change career completely, which scuppered my publications. Nowadays, hardly a day goes by but I don't read a scientific book/paper or material from the philosophy of science.

Look, science is essentially a free-for-all. It is you job to convince the scientific community that whatever you propose has scientific merits. Am afraid, by the Dr evincing such gross bias towards supernaturalism in what he claims to be a scientific study, predisposes him towards neglect at best and ridicule at worst.

By the way, what parts of the human body does a demon attack and/or infect? Would a demon possession leave tell tale sign of a material nature, such as changes or damage to cells, chemical or hormonal disturbance, electrical signal, etc, etc. Would any of such changes be observable to the senses or scientific instruments?

@huxley,

huxley:

I may not have the Dr training in pschiatry, but I have a scientific background and I have read hundreds of scientific papers in my previous incarnation. I have come closed to being published but for career reasons had to change career completely, which scuppered my publications. Nowadays, hardly a day goes by but I don't read a scientific book/paper or material from the philosophy of science.

There are a lot of people who read scientific material published by scientists of repute; and they don't just "stop reading" just because they don't like to see certain words in other people's researcha nd works. I also read philosophy of science weekly at a deeper level than most people assume they delve into that discipline - and I have used the tools of that discipline to discuss issues rationally with many people.

It is not a healthy attitude to discredit a scientist's research work based just on one word ('scripture') - just evaluating his whole research on that word is prejudice, not science. It is as much for me to hold an anchor in the discipline of Philosophy of Science, and then read and dismiss research works by other scientists just because they mention the word "evolution"! To do so would be unhealthy and even irrational on my part - just as one would assume to call a scientists repute into question on just the word "scripture"!

huxley:

Look, science is essentially a free-for-all. It is you job to convince the scientific community that whatever you propose has scientific merits. Am afraid, by the Dr evincing such gross bias towards supernaturalism in what he claims to be a scientific study, predisposes him towards neglect at best and ridicule at worst.

You see, huxley, a default skeptic mind is hardly doing science. Even when it is not a research on religious and spiritual phenomena, you of all people should know for a fact that there are supernatural events in our real world! More and more scientists are beginning to recognize that it is irrational to dismiss these supernatural and paranormal occurence on skeptic inclinations. Skepticism is NOT science - and anyone pushing this idea around is not doing science or thinking.

We have mentioned a few other phenomena like crop circles which scientists have continued to investigate (even leave UFO aside that continues to be unashamedly and unjustifiably denied by skeptics). No matter how many excuses skeptics give, they cannot deny that there are supernatural and paranormal realities in our world! If Dr. Gallagher investigates the phenomena of demon possession by the basic of all scientific methods - observation and critical thinking - on what basis do skeptics think this is too much to handle? To discredit the researvch on your personal disaffection is nOT science at all! That is why I still ask that those who will simply read issues without this skeptic default will see that on a good ground, they cannot dismiss the reality of that occurence out of hand! There is no "scientific" rationalism for doing so - and personal disavowals are not substitutes for critical scientific reasoning!

@huxley,

huxley:

By the way, what parts of the human body does a demon attack and/or infect? Would a demon possession leave tell tale sign of a material nature, such as changes or damage to cells, chemical or hormonal disturbance, electrical signal, etc, etc. Would any of such changes be observable to the senses or scientific instruments?

I think in my previous responses, I have given a few pointers about the first part of that enquiry.

However, as regards the tell-tale signs, yes indeed - demonic acitivity and attacks leave a lot to be observed. The point is that spirits are not subject to physical laws. Maybe a simple way of explaining this phenomena is to call you mind back to the issue of crop circles. Of those which were genuine, a few anomalies have been recorded which even researchers have not been able to dismiss. Such observations as the one which Nancy Talbott made as regards the fact that the MIT students could not duplicate the precise product of a genuine crop circle - even given the best available technology.

However, there are recorded cases where demoni activities have defied physical laws - levitation for example. For a researcher to have observed this phenomenon directly and reported his findings with clinical precision should make us stop for a moment and think: what know physical laws could explain levitation? Please read me: I'm not looking for physical laws that are engineered and designed to deny such phenomena; rather, I'm asking that if they have been directly observed, then what physical laws could explain such realities?

In the same way, asking for chemical changes and thus-and-those is not really saying anything about the reality of these events. of course, demons attack people and leave their victims injured or with some body scrifications - in some instances, no injuries may be observed, but other occurences directly observed may cannot be dismissed on the basis of seeking a chemical change.

Let me make a few comments on the last response posted above (Linda Morelli)

Barbara Grimaldi questions my saying that I would enjoy the "green, lush countryside" in Ireland and the "bright" sunshine on my plane trip. Anyone who has engaged in a normal conversation or knows anything about Ireland knows that it is green and lush. And everybody knows that on a warm day the sun is bright.

We know that people who have trained their senses to be skeptical by default will find it difficult to understand realities which supercede their own small views. Besides mentioning Helen Keller, there are so many, many other people with amazing accomplishments in life even with their disabilities or limitations. Incidentally, while researching reports for my thread on Our Orphic World, I came across a long list of such fascinating people with amazing abilities:
[list]
    ●   Victorine Morriseau (1789–1832): First deafblind person to be educated in Paris

    ●   Heinrich Landesmann (19th century): inventor and novelist

    ●   Robert Smithdas (1925–): the first DeafBlind person in the US to receive a master's degree.[/list]

There are so many of them, and Lindy Morelli's case should not raise alarm for people like Barbara R. Grimaldi.


Another fascinating figure whom I've always admired is [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raul_Mid%C3%B3n]Raul Midon[/url], an an American singer-songwriter and guitarist from New Mexico, based in New York City. According to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raul_Mid%C3%B3n]Wikipedia[/url],

[list][Raul] combines his distinct voice, strumming, beats, and a cappella sounds to create a one-man performance. His unique style shows influence of virtually every musical genre which came before him, including jazz, blues, R&B, and folk.

Midón was born prematurely in a rural hospital in Embudo, New Mexico to parents of Argentine and African American descent. His father was a dancer from Argentina. Midón and his twin brother Marco (now a NASA engineer) were blinded as infants after spending time in an incubator without adequate eye protection. The sounds of music became integral to Midón's life around age 4, when his father introduced him to the drum. Midón became an avid music lover and learned how to play the guitar while performing in rigorous educational programs, first at a school for the blind and then an elite Santa Fe academy while completing his last two years of high school. Midón then attended the University of Miami, which he selected for its prestigious jazz curriculum.[/list]




Despite having been blinded from infancy,
his twin brother Marco, is a
well-recognized lead engineer
at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(N.A.S.A.)


But here's one thing about Raul Midón - anyone who has listened to his music and unique style would not simply go away without a sense of wonder!



Here's Raul Midon's homepage - enjoy some of his songs online (top right hand corner of the homepage) and see what an amazing figure this man is!

Cheers.