Exorcism

more like this

The One factor that determines exorcism being actuated is "ownership". Who does the persons bieng belong too? Most people who are possessed have been possessed by "legal right". Evicting spirits is by serving notice on them through the supreme power over life or death. One cannot negotiate in exorcism. You either have the right or dont have the right to evict.

The key in such a ritual is "the power of choice". Which is what differentiates us from all other life forms. We have the power to choose,

the problem with possesion (according to the Church) is that individuals no longer have the right to choose... they loose their will. God's gift of choice is gone.
Legal rights, the Church contends, always go to God... thus, the inhabitant of the body.
There is no negotiation. Priests demand for the 'spirit' to leave. The spirit has no choice... as it's Jesus who speaks through the priests (in theory). Often, St. Michael is witnessed by those possesed before the spirit leaves, demanding for the cursed being to leave the body.
It's literal war... nothing to do with ownership in the mind of the priest/God. Even if the person doesn't wish for the spirit to leave (I've never heard of it), the priests would still act... as it is one of the few realms where they are true soldiers.

Longest post ever, but good. Very interesting.

thanks....
more pictures relating...


st. michael...

its some scary stuff to think about

Quote:

Originally posted by Bank

the problem with possesion (according to the Church) is that individuals no longer have the right to choose... they loose their will. God's gift of choice is gone.
Legal rights, the Church contends, always go to God... thus, the inhabitant of the body.
There is no negotiation. Priests demand for the 'spirit' to leave. The spirit has no choice... as it's Jesus who speaks through the priests (in theory). Often, St. Michael is witnessed by those possesed before the spirit leaves, demanding for the cursed being to leave the body.
It's literal war... nothing to do with ownership in the mind of the priest/God. Even if the person doesn't wish for the spirit to leave (I've never heard of it), the priests would still act... as it is one of the few realms where they are true soldiers.

Finally some common ground bank

This is where the place of faith comes in......... Where standing in what someone else has done for us. The word church is derived from the word ecclesia (or called out ones) is where a representative of the church (or called out ones) stands on the power of the finished work of God (which is putting the power of death and hell under its feet).

Actually the priest does not speak as Christ, but speaks the Word of God and Christ is God in Flesh.

You said literal war and you say well! But you miss the revelation that It has ALL to do with choice and ownership. We all shoose to live in one kingdom or another.

Kingdom is all about: King = Rulership and Dom = Old word for Ground or an area of earth

Take it to the literal meaning (who is ruling your life) Man was formed from the dust of the earth (King-Dom)

When a priest or believer stands for the kings rulership they do so on behalf of the one possessed.

You're right about Christianity and the power to choose which kingdom to live in. The reason that priests intervene is that this choice is taken away.

My interpretation of possesion, outside of the life death situations, is that priests act to defend the choice which God supposedly gave to man. I suppose, in this regard, the priest acts for both man and God. The ownership is unquestionable... so I have a hard time imagining the debate. Kind of like having your aparment run over with cockroaches.... you own the place, they have no claim. You call the exterminator. Or, if you're unwilling, the landlord does.

And, yes, all that is necessay (according to some faiths) is the Word of God when exorcising a demon. So, just say "Christ" and it's as good as done. The Catholic church, though (I think), believes that the priest is actually commanding the demon to leave with God's voice... and if things get rough, he'll send St. Michael.


Sorry if I misunderstood... I'm drunk and sure of type-os

So true. The misconception between religions and interpretation of them is often found in dogma. People often try to defend what they believe according to the sect of religion that they are familiar or committed to.

Truth however, does not need defending. Truth is truth wether it comes from an heathen or believer. There is truth without religion and none truth with it. From a Christian standpoint "The Truth shall set you free" is the basis on which all believer should live. Note I said SHOULD!

Where truth gets clouded is when individuals try to defend "their truth" by religion. Their actual knowledge of truth has come from the religion or sect of belief. Suprisingly, I have found many people defending their sect rather than defending their truth (IE the role of the priest). The role of the priest as defined by Christ (who is the Christians high priest) was to serve humanity as He served them.

I dont know if you are a reader or not, but a book called "Healing The Family Tree" was written by a guy called Dr Kenneth Mcall -Sheldon Press ISBN 0 85969 532 8 (1987). In which he chronicled and evidenced deliverences and healings appropriated when individuals took of communion (the catholics call this eucharist). Not by words or conversation, but by taking communion (which is the centrality of the Christian Faith as the blood of Christ being the power by which all men are saved).

This is the individuals choice to live inside the power or outside of it. One doesnt have to have all the facts to believe, or the faculties to understand but obedience to act or choose.

Good on ya Bank

This is the book link online

http://www.spck.org.uk/cat/author.php?2852

really interesting stuff here. continue the debate fellas.

Dude that is just way to much to read

Excellent thread. I can't say whether I lean one way or the other on excorcism either. I am, however, completely fascinated by the topic.

Quote:

Originally posted by wineanddine

So true. The misconception between religions and interpretation of them is often found in dogma. People often try to defend what they believe according to the sect of religion that they are familiar or committed to.

Truth however, does not need defending. Truth is truth wether it comes from an heathen or believer. There is truth without religion and none truth with it. From a Christian standpoint "The Truth shall set you free" is the basis on which all believer should live. Note I said SHOULD!

Where truth gets clouded is when individuals try to defend "their truth" by religion. Their actual knowledge of truth has come from the religion or sect of belief. Suprisingly, I have found many people defending their sect rather than defending their truth (IE the role of the priest). The role of the priest as defined by Christ (who is the Christians high priest) was to serve humanity as He served them.

I dont know if you are a reader or not, but a book called "Healing The Family Tree" was written by a guy called Dr Kenneth Mcall -Sheldon Press ISBN 0 85969 532 8 (1987). In which he chronicled and evidenced deliverences and healings appropriated when individuals took of communion (the catholics call this eucharist). Not by words or conversation, but by taking communion (which is the centrality of the Christian Faith as the blood of Christ being the power by which all men are saved).

This is the individuals choice to live inside the power or outside of it. One doesnt have to have all the facts to believe, or the faculties to understand but obedience to act or choose.

Good on ya Bank

On organized religion and its dogmas:
It's taken a lot of heat lately, from believes and non alike--which seems most curious to me. There's a notion of truth which many people speak of... "let the Bible speak the truth", etc, and these people also think that Church organizations are designed to steal the power away from the people and lie to them in regards to their faith. I won't say this hasn't happened--it has, repeatedly. But people saying cover-ups exist about the true nature of Christ (i.e. Da Vinci Code, Gospel According to St. Thomas), well, I have difficulty believing them. Read St. Thomas if you haven't.... there's a good reason it was left out.

As much of a non-believer as I am, I'm surprisingly pro-communal faith. Take the Catholic Church: they've done bad, sure. The Inquisition, the Crusades, the refusal of an English Bible. They've also done good, producing men such as St. Thomas Aquinas, housing the worlds great art and literature durring times of war and trouble, and continuing to be both the world's great uniting force and charitable organization. Take an ignorant man, believing with all his heart: you've got a guy on a street corner, preaching and telling women that they're all whores.

Truth doesn't need to be defined because it cannot be defined. Those professing to have found a singular truth are either a) lying, b) crazy, or c) taking a leap of faith. The job of organized religion, when done right, is to examine the documents that some choose to believe in, and then present them in a manner which is comprehendable to the lay-man. No truth involved, unless they claim it (which they usually do).

I know nothing of the benifits of communion, outside of the proposed ones claimed by the Church (or, of course, you're starving to death). I'll check out that book.

Back to choice.... my personal opinion is non-existant, but I think I've stated the Catholic Church's stance accuratly.
And, yes, I've got to have all the facts to believe. Or at least a fuckload of them.

well said bank....but i thinnk that truth is pretty clear in many things, i think we can be 100% sure about certain issues: if you jump off a mountain, you will fall. 1 out of 1 dies (the only TRUE statistic im aware of) etc etc....so, i think believing in a truth isnt insanity or a leap of faith, but an observable event that can be repeated.

in the case of faith in God, i dont think ANY believer would claim that they havent taken a leap of faith, and i think most are proud they have.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricTheViking

well said bank....but i thinnk that truth is pretty clear in many things, i think we can be 100% sure about certain issues: if you jump off a mountain, you will fall. 1 out of 1 dies (the only TRUE statistic im aware of) etc etc....so, i think believing in a truth isnt insanity or a leap of faith, but an observable event that can be repeated.

in the case of faith in God, i dont think ANY believer would claim that they havent taken a leap of faith, and i think most are proud they have.

Well, of course there are absolute truths.... but I was talking about a Universal Truth some people claim to have.
And I know many believers who claim no faith is needed... that the Bible is fact and any straying from it would be wrong and hellworthy. But, remember, I do live in the US.

hmmm....well, i meant someone who had a FAITH as opposed to religion (i dont want to argue semantics here.....but there is a difference, to me at least) religion to me is a big machine that is simply creating more people to be religious....and i dont want to discuss it too in depth, because that will break the rules here of no religious discussions. but i think RELIGION is simply an entity, something you do because it feels right, not because it is TRUTH....i think a person who is FAITHFUL believes that they have found a universal truth, and i think someone like that tends to be a bit more honest about the fact that they truly believe something
so, to me, someone who is "religious" is the person who just says the bible is fact without any thought or reasoning. (which doesnt make sense anyway as the bible clearly states "question everything" the bible itself is part of everything)....and someone who is faithful, realizes that they believe in a greater truth, and that they must have taken the leap of faith to dive in

so, to me, the truly faithful, the believer, admits that he doesnt know, but that he is willing to take that chance becuase he thinks he has found an ultimate truth that he cant define in any other way.


is that more clear, or less?

Quote:

Originally posted by EricTheViking

hmmm....well, i meant someone who had a FAITH as opposed to religion (i dont want to argue semantics here.....but there is a difference, to me at least) religion to me is a big machine that is simply creating more people to be religious....and i dont want to discuss it too in depth, because that will break the rules here of no religious discussions. but i think RELIGION is simply an entity, something you do because it feels right, not because it is TRUTH....i think a person who is FAITHFUL believes that they have found a universal truth, and i think someone like that tends to be a bit more honest about the fact that they truly believe something
so, to me, someone who is "religious" is the person who just says the bible is fact without any thought or reasoning. (which doesnt make sense anyway as the bible clearly states "question everything" the bible itself is part of everything)....and someone who is faithful, realizes that they believe in a greater truth, and that they must have taken the leap of faith to dive in

so, to me, the truly faithful, the believer, admits that he doesnt know, but that he is willing to take that chance becuase he thinks he has found an ultimate truth that he cant define in any other way.


is that more clear, or less?

Yep, clear.
I'd argue about their actually finding faith, but yea. It's the unquestioning believer vs. the doubting thomas... thomas being the Faithful, I think.... what you're trying to say. They believe, but are intellegent about it.
I think.
Right?

not necessarily even that....im comparing the guy who BELIEVES something as opposed to someone who just gets up every sunday (or whatever day is the sabbath=whatever for them) because he thinks he should, and thinks that its a nice set of rules and stuff, but doesnt have a FAITH. the person with faith thinks that they have found something deeper, something that he HAS taken a leap of faith in....not something he does out of habit.

it might be a poor example, but the born again guys compared to the "we go to church every sunday" guys but who only live like they believe it for the hour they are in the building

Oh, man, it's the born agains that I hate.
Faith becomes a problem when it blinds you to everything else. Not that all are like that.

I guess I can respect them... but I won't go any further on this one. Might offend some.