Exorcisms

[Bigdaddydvo]

Since the debates on the existence of God will not end in the near future on this forum, I'll take a different approach...something akin to proving the color black throught the color white.

Throughout the centuries there have been documented instances of demonic posssession. The Church remains committed to fighting these instances by having its Bishops appoint priests as Exorcists. So my question really boils down to this: If a person appears possessed (you all have seen the movie so I'll save space otherwise dedicated to describing what possession looks like) and can do things like speak ancient Aramaic (that they would have an infinitely small chance of knowing already) and undergoes the Catholic rite of exorcism and is seemingly cured...haven't we proven the existence of God through its authority over something tangibly evil?

Please discuss.

But why does God allow the demons to get in these people in the first place, and why does God force them to leave only after an elaborate ritual?

[ QUOTE ]
haven't we proven the existence of God through its authority over something tangibly evil?


[/ QUOTE ]

If an exorcism is such a slam dunk proof, then why doesn't the church invite some independent, credible observers next time and/or film the event for us all to see?

I've wondered about this for quite some time. Apparently, the RCC keeps good records of these sorts of things. I would very much like to attend some of them myself.

[RJT]

Kid and Metric,

I am not even touching the OP’s point. But, again, do you actually think if you witness one it would make a difference to you? Assuming for the sake of discussion you or anyone could not figure out what the problem was with the "patient". Then the exorcism was performed and immediately the person was “healed”. What would that change?

RJT

[ QUOTE ]
Kid and Metric,

I am not even touching the OP’s point. But, again, do you actually think if you witness one it would make a difference to you? Assuming for the sake of discussion you or anyone could not figure out what the problem was with the "patient". Then the exorcism was performed and immediately the person was “healed”. What would that change?

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Such an event may be the strongest proof of the existence of a God that is possible today, so why would the Catholic church choose to be hush-hush about them? They should be trying everything they can to get independent observers to corroborate such an event! Once again, your standard of proof for religious claims is a joke compared to your standard of proof for non-religious claims. It is utterly illogical for the church to not do everything it can to advertise the exorcising of demons ... unless such claims would clearly be shown to be false. I am frankly sick of your lack of intellectual honesty.

[RJT]

First ,the independent observer would have to accept the possibility that someone can be possessed. What scientist or doctor would ever say this? If they couldn’t figure out what was wrong with the "patient" to begin with, they would simply say they don’t know.

So how can you even get to the “cure” was a result of an exorcism?

[ QUOTE ]
First ,the independent observer would have to accept the possibility that someone can be possessed. What scientist or doctor would ever say this? If they couldn’t figure out what was wrong with the "patient" to begin with, they would simply say they don’t know.

So how can you even get to the “cure” was a result of an exorcism?

[/ QUOTE ]


Some evidence, even if it can be debated, is better than none. Even you can put your agenda aside for a moment to concede this point.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First ,the independent observer would have to accept the possibility that someone can be possessed. What scientist or doctor would ever say this? If they couldn’t figure out what was wrong with the "patient" to begin with, they would simply say they don’t know.

So how can you even get to the “cure” was a result of an exorcism?

[/ QUOTE ]


Some evidence, even if it can be debated, is better than none. Even you can put your agenda aside for a moment to concede this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t have an agenda. I am just saying that I find it doubtful that such things would change much in your mind.

I am of the understanding that God is not even much of a possibility to you if any possibility. If I am wrong then I stand corrected. If I am right, then how can anything other than God appearing to you personally get anywhere. And even this, would you be so sure that your weren’t dazed and confused by something else, that is wasn’t a momentary lapse of reason (to mix Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd allusions)?

Btw, of course I agree with your point - I believe to begin with. I am playing the devils advocate is all.

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
And even this, would you be so sure that your weren’t dazed and confused by something else, that is wasn’t a momentary lapse of reason (to mix Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd-lite allusions)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it was Rog who was quoted as calling this "the most aptly titled album of all time." I suppose I might just be wishfully attributing it to him, but nonetheless, I agree 100%.

[Peter666]

To answer your question, yes it would prove God, so long as the evil is clearly from a supernatural source.

To be practical, there are very few documented cases of exorcism.

In the good old days, it took six or seven years of formation to become a priest. Year three was the year when one was ordained an exorcist. So technically, any priest can perform the rites, or even a non priest: a cleric.

However, many may not be experienced enough or psychologically fit to do so. There was a recent meeting of about 200 exorcist students from around the world at the Vatican recently. I can assure you, if they ever face a real possession case in their lifetime, they will be toast.

[KeysrSoze]

Alot of explanations.

1. The possessed could be mentally ill, and the power of suggestion implied by the exorcism could convince the patient that his demons were excised. For instance the patient could have what amounts to a kind of Munchausen dissorder, and acts out in a way to gain attention, leading to the exorcism and "cure". No supernatural element is needed.

2. Telekinetic and psychic phenomenon does exist, but is not supernatural, it meerly is a force of nature with defined laws, causes and effects that we haven't fully understood and studied yet. Possession could be a form of telepathic seepage; the possessed is intercepting anothers thoughts (someone phychotic or evil in the case of a "demon") and is being influenced by them. Or pure mind control where someones telepathic power is so strong they can possess weak minds at will. Etc. The exorcism could ammount to a psychic battle of a kind between priest and subject.

3. The supernatural exists, but God (or the Judeo-Christian version) does not exist. Why does the spirit world inherantly need a specific god or gods to exist? Demons could be ghosts of people dead, insubstantial beings from an alternate dimension, spiritual anthropomorphic manifestations of mankinds' collective taboos and dark thoughts... any number of horror novel answers. Exorcism could work because it is a kind of sympathetic paradigm-effective magic: It works because millions of people believe it should work.

[Peter666]

When someone starts levitating and barfing copious amounts of pea soup, it's the devil.

[KeysrSoze]

That would be choice #4 (actually in the Catholic Vulgate "the devil" would be more akin to "Diabolus enim et alii daemones": the Devil and his demons), but its only your opinion that its not 2 or 3.

[Ringo]

If I personally witness a "posession", where, say a 5 year old is suddenly able to talk in a verified, ancient language, then that would absolutely warrent further investigation from me.

However, I don't expect to see anything like this. In a case of "posession", I would expect to see mental illness, speaking in gibberish, or a willful deceit. A proper scientist would (or rather should) approach things like this with an open mind, and carefully weigh the evidence.

The question is though, how much time do scientists give occurences like this? If genuine posession were a real phenomenon, it should be independently verifiable, instead of consisting of whispers, rumour, and biased (ie, clergy) witnesses.

No-one can deny the existence of x-rays, electricity or magnetism. Theyre all observable and repeatable. How much more time should we give ideas like this? Show me something solid (not rumour or dogma), and I'll all be for further investigation.

I'll not hold my breath though.

Ringo

[Peter666]

The problem with #2 is that there is no evidence of people who can do this sort of thing on demand. If you have evidence of that though, I would love to see it.