Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by azrael on Friday July 04 2014, @07:14AM   Printer-friendly
from the voices-disagree dept.

Exorcists now have an extra weapon in their fight against evil - the official backing of the Catholic church. The Vatican has formally recognised the International Association of Exorcists, a group of 250 priests in 30 countries who liberate the faithful from demons.

Pope Francis speaks frequently about the devil, and last year was seen placing his hands on the head of a man supposedly possessed by four demons in what exorcists said was a prayer of liberation from Satan.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday July 04 2014, @07:22AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Friday July 04 2014, @07:22AM (#64018) Journal

    Darn Manicheaeans! What with their independently existing forces of evil and completely wrong dualistic thinking! I imagine god will have mercy on their souls, if they have any. But then, I find Buddhism to be the most metaphysically correct religion. No demons. Just Asuras!

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by AnonTechie on Friday July 04 2014, @08:09AM

      by AnonTechie (2275) on Friday July 04 2014, @08:09AM (#64036) Journal

      No amount of belief makes something a fact. -- James Randi (attributed: source unknown)

      Oh God, if there is a God, save my soul, if I have a soul. ("O Dieu, s'il y a un Dieu, sauvez mon ame, si j'ai une ame!")-- Ernest Renan (attributed: source unknown) seems pretty apt ...

      --
      Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04 2014, @08:17AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04 2014, @08:17AM (#64039)

        Sorry, your soul currently cannot be saved, due to a failure of the file system.

  • (Score: 0) by pkrasimirov on Friday July 04 2014, @07:24AM

    by pkrasimirov (3358) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 04 2014, @07:24AM (#64022)
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by bootsy on Friday July 04 2014, @07:42AM

    by bootsy (3440) on Friday July 04 2014, @07:42AM (#64030)

    If you really believe you have in fact been possessed and no amount of councilling can convince you otherwise then I guess this is the only way to play that scenario through to the end and resolve it. The human mind can get itself in all sorts of knots and if this fixes the problem for some people without the need for drugs then I guess it is of benefit. My only concern is that no one is taken advantage of financially.

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Randolph Carter on Friday July 04 2014, @09:33AM

      by Randolph Carter (4509) on Friday July 04 2014, @09:33AM (#64063)

      Indeed! My old friend Crowley put it thusly...

      There is the story of the American in the train who saw another American carrying a basket of unusual shape. His curiosity mastered him, and he leant across and said: "Say, stranger, what you got in that bag?" The other, lantern-jawed and taciturn, replied: "mongoose". The first man was rather baffled, as he had never heard of a mongoose. After a pause he pursued, at the risk of a rebuff: "But say, what is a Mongoose?" "Mongoose eats snakes", replied the other. This was another poser, but he pursued: "What in hell do you want a Mongoose for?" "Well, you see", said the second man (in a confidential whisper) "my brother sees snakes". The first man was more puzzled than ever; but after a long think, he continued rather pathetically: "But say, them ain't real snakes". "Sure", said the man with the basket, "but this Mongoose ain't real either".

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Hairyfeet on Friday July 04 2014, @12:15PM

      by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Friday July 04 2014, @12:15PM (#64112) Journal

      But wouldn't supporting their delusions make it worse long term? That would be like telling somebody suffering from paranoia "Why yes there WAS somebody out to get you, but I chased them off" in that while you have created a short term solution you have also given validity to the delusion, thus making them more likely to jump to that conclusion in the future?

      And I'll get hate for saying this but I find it really sad that its 2014 and some ancient stories (I would say myths myself) written by goat herders on sheepskin can cause so much suffering, strife, murder and even wars and genocide? And ironically those in the west that consider themselves hardcore Christians still treat their book like a salad bar because if they REALLY followed what the supposedly "good book" says, from stoning adulterers to forcing rape victims to marry their rapist? Frankly they would be so close in practice to the Taliban to be damned difficult to separate. And every bigotry you can think of can be justified biblically, just look at how those that support denying gays civil rights use almost word for word the speeches used to first justify slavery, followed by justifying Jim Crow and segregation.

      I personally long for the day when we can take these stories and treat them as what they are, ancient myths to explain the world, no different than Odin and Isis and the other stories told by primitive societies. Its just sad how everything from civil rights to middle east policies are affected by something written by primitives from the other side of the planet thousands of years ago.

      --
      ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
      • (Score: -1) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04 2014, @09:29PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04 2014, @09:29PM (#64326)

        > some ancient stories (I would say myths myself) written by goat herders on sheepskin can cause so much suffering, strife, murder and even wars and genocide?

        Those stories don't cause shit. Religion is just the uniform that those people wear, it doesn't cause those problems any more than army fatigues cause invasions.

        > And every bigotry you can think of can be justified biblically,

        There have been plenty of 'scientific' justifications [wikipedia.org] for bigotry too. The common factor is people trying rationalization their bigotry, it doesn't matter specific form it takes. The problem is within the people, not their excuses.

  • (Score: 2) by Geezer on Friday July 04 2014, @09:00AM

    by Geezer (511) on Friday July 04 2014, @09:00AM (#64049)

    It is a pity that so opportunities for much scientific and philosophical discourse and exploration get lost in the false deist v. atheist dichotomy.

    Consider this: for many, spirituality is not a matter of blind belief but of their own experience of empirical observation. Indeed, I have read of a number of modern spiritualists who quite honestly hold that "magic" is merely the intentional exercise of natural phenomina. Condescending dismissal smacks of small-mindedness.

    Viewing the Universe as an organic totality of yet-unexplored and unexplained possibilities does not seem unreasonable. It's actually good mental exercise. Without abstract thought incorporated in mathematics and physics, we'd still be stuck in the 18th century.

    I prefer to think that the ultimate truths here lie in a singular convergence where all questions are answered to the satisfaction of all. We are nowhere near there yet.

    • (Score: 2) by Geezer on Friday July 04 2014, @09:05AM

      by Geezer (511) on Friday July 04 2014, @09:05AM (#64050)

      Should have read "so many opportunities"

      • (Score: 2) by The Archon V2.0 on Friday July 04 2014, @02:02PM

        by The Archon V2.0 (3887) on Friday July 04 2014, @02:02PM (#64152)

        The edit widget is on the timeline, somewhere near the singular convergence where all questions are answered to the satisfaction of all.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Friday July 04 2014, @09:25AM

      by bradley13 (3053) on Friday July 04 2014, @09:25AM (#64056) Homepage Journal

      Fine, that's a nice view. However, individual experiences of "empirical observation" are not empirical at all. People are lousy observers, most especially of themselves.

      Can believers genuinely see results? Certainly, but any actual effects will be due to the belief, not the activity itself. Rather like the way homeopathy produces genuine results through the placebo effect.

      If it were possible to "intentionally exercise natural phenomena", then it would be possible to do so in a way that others could perform the empirical observations. Among other incentives, there is a cool million in prize money [randi.org] awaiting the first person to do this. No luck yet...

      --
      Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04 2014, @10:13AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04 2014, @10:13AM (#64070)

        Without the actual activity, the believe that the activity helps will achieve nothing.

      • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday July 04 2014, @12:16PM

        by Geotti (1146) on Friday July 04 2014, @12:16PM (#64113) Journal

        People are lousy observers, most especially of themselves.

        That's just your own generalization stemming from your own empirical observations, and as such unprovable.

        If it were possible to "intentionally exercise natural phenomena", then it would be possible to do so in a way that others could perform the empirical observations.

        Consider that there may be certain rules of engagement (as in e.g. quantum physics) that would negate any effect, whenever someone else attempts to observe it.
          It's quite possible that we can emit, or influence energy waves, and/or the patterns thereof, and the emitter performs such acts without actually observing what he/she does.
        This would require indirect means of observation.

        In other words, how do you know, are you a psychic or mystic? This fanatical arrogance that the "scientific method" is a fixed structure instead of an organically evolving body of knowledge, and even that it's possible to prove and disprove everything with it, sometimes really baffles me.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04 2014, @01:54PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04 2014, @01:54PM (#64148)

          You seem to be confused about what the "scientific method" is.
          Hint: it isn't a body of knowledge, evolving or otherwise.

          • (Score: 3) by Geotti on Friday July 04 2014, @03:03PM

            by Geotti (1146) on Friday July 04 2014, @03:03PM (#64178) Journal

            How about you re-read my sentence, and then read it gain and think about it for a moment.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by strattitarius on Friday July 04 2014, @02:13PM

          by strattitarius (3191) on Friday July 04 2014, @02:13PM (#64159) Journal

          ""People are lousy observers, most especially of themselves."
          That's just your own generalization stemming from your own empirical observations, and as such unprovable."

          I think the theory that humans are bad observers/rememberers is pretty well settled. Watch a few episodes of Brain Games as they show how your brain is "seeing" what it thinks it should see as much as what it actually sees. While eye-witness testimony is given quite a bit of credit, it has been proven time and time again that the witness did not see what they truly and honestly thought they saw.

          --
          Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
          • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Friday July 04 2014, @03:09PM

            by Geotti (1146) on Friday July 04 2014, @03:09PM (#64182) Journal

            I'd rather take some psychedelics, go out for a walk and watch people getting fooled live. : )

    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Friday July 04 2014, @09:41AM

      by tftp (806) on Friday July 04 2014, @09:41AM (#64064) Homepage

      Indeed, I have read of a number of modern spiritualists who quite honestly hold that "magic" is merely the intentional exercise of natural phenomina.

      The only problem with that is that all the existing body of science - which is sufficiently cross-linked - does not leave much room for magic. In fantasy worlds, where magic is present, it exists as a scientific discipline, with repeatable experiments and with provable theories that explain them. In this world there are no experiments (that are successful,) and as such there is nothing to explain.

      It doesn't mean that $x does not exist. The knowledge of this Universe is not complete. But the more we learn about it, the less room remains for unexpected. Perhaps this makes this world boring and bland, as we cannot visit neighboring realities or use household magic to make tea. But that's what we have. In this world it's very hard to carve out some space for an energy being that is composed of fields of unknown nature, is sentient, is capable of directly interacting with totally alien beings (humans,) and on top of that is interested in such interaction for some reason. Such a being is also associated with activities that are considered bad - which, if intentional, requires a shared set of morals. Or you can consider another possibility: something in this person's brain has failed. Which one is more likely - new laws of physics, or an everyday medical case?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04 2014, @12:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 04 2014, @12:22PM (#64118)

        So you are saying that everyone who disagrees with your weltanshauung is a nut case? Nice arrogance there.

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Friday July 04 2014, @07:15PM

          by tftp (806) on Friday July 04 2014, @07:15PM (#64284) Homepage

          So you are saying that everyone who disagrees with your weltanshauung is a nut case?

          Everyone who claims demonic possession is far more likely to have psychological or medical reasons for such a claim, rather than actually being invaded by an invisible, sentient being from another plane of existence that has an agenda on this plane.

          This last point is more unbelievable than an extraterrestial from another galaxy landing his saucer on Earth, and then immediately starting a political campaign for mandatory study of Volapuk [wikipedia.org].

          Even if we accept that demons are real, and they are coming here to invade people... why do they behave suicidally then? It makes no sense. If they like it here, they'd accomodate the host. If they hate it here, they'd leave on their own, without being prodded by priests. Religion says that "they have a job here" - but that implies a lot of interaction between worlds; such interaction is not observed. How does religion explain irrational *and* intelligent behavior of those demons?

    • (Score: 2) by geb on Friday July 04 2014, @12:03PM

      by geb (529) on Friday July 04 2014, @12:03PM (#64108)

      If you want to say there are unknown things out there, and some of them might look wierd enough to call them magic, then fine.

      However, once you start making specific claims about magic or the supernatural, then you are supposed to test them, and accept the results if repeated testing shows them not to exist.

      There are a vast number of supernatural claims out there that can be tested, and have been shown to be false, but people keep believing in them.

      • (Score: 2) by Geezer on Friday July 04 2014, @12:18PM

        by Geezer (511) on Friday July 04 2014, @12:18PM (#64115)

        Do try to make the distinction between belief in invalid claims and the belief that all tests are conclusive. Tests of all sorts are continually being invalidated by more more effective ones, and hopefully will continue to be. My point is that science is not built on dogma any more than spiritualism. When we stop asking questions we stop learning.

        • (Score: 2) by geb on Friday July 04 2014, @01:18PM

          by geb (529) on Friday July 04 2014, @01:18PM (#64136)

          Only partly true. Science is pretty good at defining limits to our knowledge. There are some areas where we know our data is incomplete, and where we suspect hidden things may lurk, but in other areas we are very confident in what we know.

          An individual experiment might be invalidated due to poor methodology, but that's why I said repeated testing. Independent experiments performed by multiple groups all intent on finding the truth will tend to find the truth.

          It is staggeringly rare for established knowledge to be completely invalidated. For example, germ theory of disease might be adapted if we discover a new type of pathogen, such as adding prions to the list alongside viruses, bacteria, and so on, but we are never going to announce one day "oops, all our biological understanding is wrong, it actually was demons causing disease" because the evidence for the existence of pathogens is overwhelming.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Theophrastus on Friday July 04 2014, @03:42PM

    by Theophrastus (4044) on Friday July 04 2014, @03:42PM (#64200)

    ...were the opening acts of Christianity. the twelve apostles were deputy exorcists because Jesus was getting too many gigs. (the big sell out show being that whole 'i am legion' and the 'it sucks to be a nearby pig' scene around about Matthew 8:28-34 or so)

    flopping about speaking in tongues really sold the variant of Judaism to the Greek crowds (hey, this was before candy-crush(tm)) ...that, and making circumcision optional.

    so giggle and gaffaw all ye want about exorcism, (i know i will), but the Vatican knows its history rather better than Dan Brown.

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday July 05 2014, @04:43AM

      by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday July 05 2014, @04:43AM (#64431) Journal

      flopping about speaking in tongues really sold the variant of Judaism to the Greek crowds (hey, this was before candy-crush(tm)) ...that, and making circumcision optional.

      Mostly, though, it was the not having to have the end of your johnson cut off, and the opportunity to meet all kinds of hot Christian singles, who were not yet Mormon! That whole demon thing came up later, when hordes from the North, and their pagan beliefs infected good Romans, and impregnated a fair number as well. Used to be, in classical times, when a poor girl found herself in a family way with no father in sight, she could claim that her offspring was the scion of a god! Ha, take that! Call my kid a bastard, when he is Heracles? At your own risk! But then, we end up with demon-spawn instead of demi-gods, and the whole continent goes to shit. This all started when Hobby Lobby got the Areopathegilon Court in Athens to say that they did not have to pay child support for their employees who had birthed demigods.