The thing I found to joke about was the satirical show you brought as evidence, the show that won best comedy series. How am I supposed to take a best comedy series seriously?
It wasn't a satirical show. It was a show got wrong!
It's one of those shows where John Sarfran explore bizarre spiritual activities. He had done Voodoo, done sacrifices to some gods etc. John hardly speakers about the event because it shook him so much. I bet you were not aware of it years back when it happened. John's reactions isn't different from Jim Iykes own. Did you read about the comment of some of his crew? Google is your friend!
If it was a satire, then John Sarfran must be acting his script. Prove that John was acting a script else keep quiet!
Let's agree that you prefer to live in stubborn denial.
If Jim wasn't given something to drink nor given something to smoke, he shouldn't behave like that.
It's obvious Something not physical was done to Jim Iyke. This is where the gross limitations of your rule of "physical evidence" break down
Explain what was done to Jim Iyke to cause this if you can!
Something was done to him.. That, we dont know.
we cant keep labeling thing we dont know with stupid names as demons. Yet when sensitive questions as regards to demons are asked u start going round and round
It wasn't a satirical show. It was a show got wrong!
It's one of those shows where John Sarfran explore bizarre spiritual activities. He had done Voodoo, done sacrifices to some gods etc. John hardly speakers about the event because it shook him so much. I bet you were not aware of it years back when it happened. John's reactions isn't different from Jim Iykes own. Did you read about the comment of some of his crew? Google is your friend!
If it was a satire, then John Sarfran must be acting his script. Prove that John was acting a script else keep quiet!
A show that won best comedy series isn't satirical, are you high?
we cant keep labeling thing we dont know with stupid names as demons. Yet when sensitive questions as regards to demons are asked u start going round and round
The issue is that "that thing" should not be called demon! We should look for a scientific name!
But that's not my problem. We can call that thing anything...I don't care. The issue is, what is this Thing?
Since you don't have any ready answer, let's hear what the church people say:
Question: Who are you in this body? Answer: I am the spirit wife! I am the great giant! I am a snake spirit! etc etc
We call those things speaking in first person tense: Demon, Evil Spirit, Familier Spirit, Unclean Spirit
You Atheists: Give us the correct scientific explanation of this things you see.
It's amazing that with all our knowledge of psychotherapy, psychology etc this common thing has not been described scientifically. Could it be that our knowledge of science is deliberately selective?
A show that won best comedy series isn't satirical, are you high?
Why do you like speaking half truths.
Yes, John Safran vs God series won the best comedy series!
The series was eight parts: The final part was the episode of his Deliverance.
Check this from Wikipedia:
John Safran vs God Edit Main article: John Safran vs God In August 2004 he debuted his new show John Safran vs God, also on the SBS television network. The first seven episodes were typical Safran informative satire. The series' finale featured Safran being exorcised of demons which had supposedly possessed him during his dabblings with world religions. The exorcism was performed by well-known Christian fundamentalist Bob Larson. It has been claimed that Safran's behaviour during the exorcism was faked.[citation needed] Safran has neither confirmed nor denied faking his behaviour, but in an interview with an Australian radio personality, Safran did say that he "felt something was going on", and that "there was something about the expression on my face". In an interview on Andrew Denton's Enough Rope program, he claimed that he had no memory of the events during the exorcism, and stated that the footage shown on the show was merely the most interesting from hours of footage. John Safran vs God won a 2005 AFI Award for "Best Comedy Series"
If John couldn't remember anything that happened during the exorcism, it's no more a joke and it's a serious affair.
If you've watched any of John's other series, you'll know that his deliverance session was his most serious and. He had a serious face throughout.
But I'm not surprised! The normal reaction of atheists to bewildering issues is to turn it into a joke.
Just got home. Checked the evidence, the first one, and you were rather very too lenient in your assessment of it, Sabrina
The first few lines of John Safran in the first video are:
"I've thrown myself in to a lot of religions over the making of this series. I've met Indian gurus, Freemasons, Christian racialists, Jewish extremist, witch doctors. And then there were the ceremonies...."
Shadeyinka, God loves you! I have no choice but to be lenient with you.
Thank you
I know God loves me. I only ask for grace to love Him more than these things around!
Yes, John Safran vs God series won the best comedy series!
The series was eight parts: The final part was the episode of his Deliverance.
Check this from Wikipedia:
If John couldn't remember anything that happened during the exorcism, it's no more a joke and it's a serious affair.
If you've watched any of John's other series, you'll know that his deliverance session was his most serious and. He had a serious face throughout.
But I'm not surprised! The normal reaction of atheists to bewildering issues is to turn it into a joke.
So Safran has neither confirmed nor denied faking his behaviour, and the show is a comedy show, how again am I supposed to take it seriously? I can't remember what happened is no proof of anything, it simply reveals a lack of information so how does one go about concluding that a comedy show is serious because the comedian says I can't remember?
Has he answered the case of the evidence presented in this thread? Tell him to answer scientifically what happened to Jim Iyke and John Sarfran!
They want a physical evidence for a spiritual event. SMH Are spirits flash and blood?
just as scholar8700 say, it is fruitless to argued here. you have tried bro, you did a very good job, atheists are very good in making fun with reality . narrate your experience with a supernatural to atheists and they will turn the reality into joke. thank you.
So Safran has neither confirmed nor denied faking his behaviour, and the show is a comedy show, how again am I supposed to take it seriously? I can't remember what happened is no proof of anything, it simply reveals a lack of information so how does one go about concluding that a comedy show is serious because the comedian says I can't remember?
It was a series designed to mock religious activities like Voodoo, Fatwas, Sacrifices etc. It got out of hand in their last episode.
If it didn't how was it that John Sarfran didn't want to speak about the issue. His reaction is just similar to that of Jim Iyke. If that was a joke what's keeping his mouth shut over the strategies they used.
Check out Derren Brown and see if its the same kind of reaction. The truth is constant any day!
Watch his deliverance and tell me that it was funny! If anything was funny, it wasn't Bob Larson, it was John!
The issue is that "that thing" should not be called demon! We should look for a scientific name!
But that's not my problem. We can call that thing anything...I don't care. The issue is, what is this Thing?
Since you don't have any ready answer, let's hear what the church people say:
Question: Who are you in this body? Answer: I am the spirit wife! I am the great giant! I am a snake spirit! etc etc
We call those things speaking in first person tense: Demon, Evil Spirit, Familier Spirit, Unclean Spirit
You Atheists: Give us the correct scientific explanation of this things you see.
It's amazing that with all our knowledge of psychotherapy, psychology etc this common thing has not been described scientifically. Could it be that our knowledge of science is deliberately selective?
I dont know what it is and can't tell you because I have not done any personal research to find out.
I have given u reason why I ruled out demons yet u keep calling it demons.
If spiritual wife, that is a great giant and a great snake (only am) left Jim's body how come nothing significant changed about him? How come he hasn't told us anything about how it felt like having a spiritual snake leave his body?
I call all that meaningless mumbling. Why are u taking them seriously?
If someone gets cured of malaria, we see the difference instantly... But here we are a whole spiritual with,a spiritual snake, a spiritual giant, a demon, left jim's body and the young man has not gone to appreciate Joshua for a job well done, rather he is trying to forgive the man for embarrassing him, for making him talk nonsense.
malvisguy212: just as scholar8700 say, it is fruitless to argued here. you have tried bro, you did a very good job, atheists are very good in making fun with reality . narrate your experience with a supernatural to atheists and they will turn the reality into joke. thank you.
They wouldn't go to where they can encounter Jesus Christ in truth but when they see things that challenge their faith in atheism, they laugh it to scorn amongst themselves pretending that the truth didn't hit them in a bad spot.
Humility is a virtue. But when a man is caged sometimes, he refuses to come out when the door is forced open for him
They wouldn't go to where they can encounter Jesus Christ in truth but when they see things that challenge their faith in atheism, they laugh it to scorn amongst themselves pretending that the truth didn't hit them in a bad spot.
Humility is a virtue. But when a man is caged sometimes, he refuses to come out when the door is forced open for him
Your argument if I get you well is that: 1. Christian subjects are willing participants in the hypnosis 2. Highly creative/imaginative people are easy subjects of hypnosis (Jim Iyke as a good example) 3. The environment is designed in such a way as to present a subliminal imagery to predispose subjects to hypnosis.
1. If you listened to Interviews with Jim Iyke after the episode, he wasn't a willing participant at all. He didn't even want to enter the church for he came for a different purpose "his mother's healing". Watch his tape. 2. I partially agree on you with your point 2. It is very difficult hypnotizing a dummy. The higher your imagination ability the better. BUT, this works only when such put himself deliberatly under the hypnoist.
If you watched the deliverance of Jim Iyke from the beginning, HE WAS JUST HIT on the CHEST. And then all the gymnastics started. (It looks like scoan pulled down the full video: can't find it).
AND, all hypnosis need the subject to be prepped before bring put in the state. You may need to watch more videos to unravel how scoan preps their subject.
3. What specifically is special about the environment? The average Catholic church have 10 times more. How come deliverance don't occur there as often. Do I show you Deliverances done in the STADIUM? Would that clear the air for you?
Finally, if you know a little about hypnosis, you will know that it is the hypnoist who suggests the state the subject should be in. How come in this deliverances, no such is taking place.
The "subject" contrary to what happens in hypnosis seem to want to resist the "hypnoist" and has to say or do things under duress. Do you have an answer to this: cause it is contrary to what happens in hypnosis
I don't know what happened to you but with due respect, it is you who need to question things around you. There are so many things that doesn't have scientific explanations.
You keep repeating the same questions which I have already provided answers for.
Others have also provided enough explanations for you to understand what is actually taking place in those videos uploaded. It is either you don't take your time to read them or simply are unable to understand
I will just try to explain as clearly as possible what is actually happening in those videos . I don't know the exact methods used, but fear, anxiety, anger, excitement and any other kind of positive or negative emotions has been induced. Once these is achieved they easily shift into an altered state of consciousness which set the stage for a complete take over of their minds. It does not matter whether you are a willing participant or not. This is advance hypnosis technique which is not open to the public and it works. Whether you believe it or not. They only way to protect yourself is to stay away from such places.
By the time they stand in from of the deliverance minister they are ready to be plucked. Then shock is apllied by. suddenly hitting them on the head or any part of the body to achieve a final to take over of their mind, once this happens the brain slate is temporarily wiped clean and suggestions can then be inputted to make act accordingly. Demons talking through them barking like dog, meowing like a cat and just anything. At the end of the deliverance when the are brought back to full consciousness they don't remember anything.
This is the scientific explanation provided byprofessionals who have studied this phenomenon. You can do your research to disprove this
Although this method can put to good use, it is currently being abused. It is not only the Church that is involved in this. A lot of organizations are secretly using other forms of it to influence people whether for good or bad
As to why it doesn't not happen in catholic churches, the simple answer is they do not use it or hardly use it
So an orthodox church is safe to attend.
, It does not mean that those who use this methods in churches really understand what they are doing. They do it because it is what they have learnt from others and it works. Healings can be achieved but it is usually temporary a few are permanent.
Demons are not responsible for anything. This has nothing to do with denying God. I am not an atheist neither do I attend any church
, I have question for you.. Before the coming of Christianity to Africa, was the African possessed by demons? If he was, how was he delivered?
Cc. LordReed, budaatum, Martinez39, triplechoice, Dantedasz
*slow clap*
I'm going to give you credit for finally showing us another video besides SCOAN (something i've been asking you to do). Not just that, but going online to finally dig up the video of an atheist being "exorcised" (something i didn't think you'd do). This alone deserves my response. That being said, i still don't see anything supernatural in this video. You can call me stubborn, but i just don't.
First of all, we see from the films that he took hours with him, sizing him up, getting his personal information. Psychics will do that and then, after buildup, repeat back details of what you've told them as if these were revelations, hooking you on the accuracy of their skills. Then there's techniques of hypnotism such as repetition and focusing on objects. There's the force of his personality. There's accurate diagnoses of his problems because he can use the techniques that work for astrologers and psychics and snake oil salesmen- cold reading that sounds specific to the subject but really are likely to apply to everyone- Do you feel a spiritual void? Do you feel there are things you want to stop doing but are compelled to do anyway such as drinking too much or smoking or overeating or having sex with the wrong people?
Given the right pattern, the right amount of conviction, these things work on enough people to keep psychics and faith healers in business. Not to mention, i'm familiar with John Safran. I've watched his videos where he practices rituals from multiple religions and he seems like a highly susceptible individual. It would be harder to pull on someone who isn't predisposed to see you as an authority. But it's easier to pull on someone who hasn't experienced it enough before to recognize the patterns and techniques.
If you go back, you'll remember i said this a few posts back: "Possession" only seems to occur within religions that embrace the idea that it can happen. "Possession" also seems to take place among people who are highly susceptible and are overly-pious. It seems that when the mind starts to twist due to other factors, the environment in which the subject is contributes to the phenomenon. So clearly, you can see i haven't changed goalposts and my point still stands
This reminded me of Richard Dawkins trying on the so-called "God Helmet" and having no results from it. Turns out the machine was largely a measure of how susceptible to the power of suggestion that people were (it also didn't work on the clergy member that tried the device too--though it worked for, so people claim, some 70% of users)
Also, as far as i know, John is still an atheist. Surely he should have changed his position. So wetin Bob gain?
Once again, this is my final post. You better dig up something better than this if you want my response In a way, this was fun! Thanks
He is unwilling to learn anything.. He does not take is time to read any replies the reason he continues to repeat the same questions
It was a series designed to mock religious activities like Voodoo, Fatwas, Sacrifices etc. It got out of hand in their last episode.
If it didn't how was it that John Sarfran didn't want to speak about the issue. His reaction is just similar to that of Jim Iyke. If that was a joke what's keeping his mouth shut over the strategies they used.
Check out Derren Brown and see if its the same kind of reaction. The truth is constant any day!
Watch his deliverance and tell me that it was funny! If anything was funny, it wasn't Bob Larson, it was John!
The question then is how do you know it got out of hand? Satire has the tendency to use real issues exaggerated for effect so how do we conclude Safran is not exaggerating if he refuses to confirm or deny any speculation?
now listen!!! there is a radical difference between someone humbly longing to understand the presence of God compared to someone arrogantly refusing to believe unless God acts in a certain way.
The question then is how do you know it got out of hand? Satire has the tendency to use real issues exaggerated for effect so how do we conclude Safran is not exaggerating if he refuses to confirm or deny any speculation?
Check out Safran's Wikipedia page. He is know for stunts of exposing frauds through his satire and comedy.
Safran is known for his television stunts, which include placing a fatwa on Australian television host Rove McManus, sneaking nine young men into an exclusive Melbourne nightclub by disguising them as members of American nu metal band Slipknot, running through Jerusalem wearing nothing but the beanie and scarf of St Kilda Football Club, driving a remote controlled seagull with a cigarette onto the Melbourne Cricket Ground, and his confrontation with tabloid current affairs host Ray Martin.
Safran is known for his television stunts, which include placing a fatwa on Australian television host Rove McManus, sneaking nine young men into an exclusive Melbourne nightclub by disguising them as members of American nu metal band Slipknot, running through Jerusalem wearing nothing but the beanie and scarf of St Kilda Football Club, driving a remote controlled seagull with a cigarette onto the Melbourne Cricket Ground, and his confrontation with tabloid current affairs host Ray Martin.
I am trying to confirm a stunt he pulled were he was crucified with real nails through his hands. If this report is true then Safran is a pretty extreme guy so I don't know how someone can say for sure that he was not just being his extreme self during the exorcism.
malvisguy212: now listen!!! there is a radical difference between someone humbly longing to understand the presence of God compared to someone arrogantly refusing to believe unless God acts in a certain way.
I am trying to confirm a stunt he pulled were he was crucified with real nails through his hands. If this report is true then Safran is a pretty extreme guy so I don't know how someone can say for sure that he was not just being his extreme self during the exorcism.
MuttleyLaff: TB is a charlatan, a fraud and a conman who exploits and takes advantage of people's desperation, vulnerabilities, ignorances, insecurities and hopes.
Jim Iyke was a desperate man, will to do and try anything to extend his mother failing health. He saw through TB, and wanted out, told his sisters to let them leave TB and take their mom to South Africa, but his suggestion fell on deaf ears, only to in his own words, for him to be overwhelmed by some force he couldn't explain and the rest is the ugly history
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders that would deceive even the elect, if that were possible. - Matthew 24:24
Matthew 24:24 above, paints a good picture of TB and people like shadeyinka, petra1 joagbaje etcetera that famzing him
