Exorcism

A revolution.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bank

A revolution.

i see that. i am going to try and read all this. it may take some time.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bank

You are right in saying that this is what Theology is supposed to be.....
I should have clarified.
Reading Lewis or even Kant (who, in many regards, was a Theologan opposed to a philosopher), rings true of what you write. With only two ideas-- Kant's Second Catagorical Imperitive and Lewis' thought that Christ was either insane, or truthful, but nothing in between-- the modern Christian intellectual movement (in my opinion) was shaped. What is the first image brought to my mind when thinking of modern theology? Rick Warren, the Da Vinci Code, Left Behind, and other nonesense (the second one is taken as fact by some!). They have nothing to do with theology.
So, the question of beleliving in God should be inserted when I put Theological matters.
I have qualms with you saying that those religion is defined as 'people without faith'. You're correct, somewhat..... but it's a bit like saying all black people steal.

And as for Bertrand Russell... I fucking hated logic. But, in regards to the quote in the context of our discussion, I agree. The question, is, of course, where does that good come from?


And one final thing.... fuck Marx. The guy could have at least been interesting..... you need a fucking chainsaw to get through the bullshit. Give me Locke or give me death. Or, better yet, Nozick.

Cant argue with anything said there bank. Problem with a lot of people is they just dont think! The persuit of truth (however you or I may define it), is ultimatley each of us seeking a framework in which to view our world.

In your intial discussion, it is evident that understanding was sought through a series of frameworks ie: exorcism. The premis of exorcism is the belief that this ritual will bring deliverence (I know it is far more complex than that). However the ritual actual resolves little (apart from opening a hornets nest), unless there is a believer and not someone that merely gives mental ascent to the process, that is leading it.

The root of much of exorcism is caught up in ignorance as much as in the darker side of the universe. One only needs to look back into the 17 and 18th century to see that. Unfortunately these days, much of what we believe has shaped the spiritual dimension back into the dark ages.

In fact humanism is recognised now as a religion. The humanist manifesto is interesting reading.

This is the manifesto's statement on the above:


FIRST: In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical ideals. The cultivation of moral devotion and creative imagination is an expression of genuine "spiritual" experience and aspiration.
We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; <b>in our judgment,</b> the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so. Even at this late date in human history, certain elementary facts based upon the critical use of scientific reason have to be restated. <b>We find</b> insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.

Ironically, they act in the same way in which they acuse those choosing to follow religious codes their opinion is absolute.

btw. I am sure you know the Da Vinci Code is a novel. And Rick Warren is more of a structural change for traditionally bound church bodies (purpose driven church)

Oh and by the way, I do appreciate your point of view........ suppose those dropping in freak

I myself have expierenced exorcisms and let me tell you from firsthand expierence, one word can describe it all...freaky...people talking in ancient languages, abnormal strength, unexplainable things....pray that you never have to experience one...

Quote:

Originally posted by wineanddine

This is the manifesto's statement on the above:


FIRST: In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical ideals. The cultivation of moral devotion and creative imagination is an expression of genuine "spiritual" experience and aspiration.
We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; <b>in our judgment,</b> the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so. Even at this late date in human history, certain elementary facts based upon the critical use of scientific reason have to be restated. <b>We find</b> insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.

Ironically, they act in the same way in which they acuse those choosing to follow religious codes their opinion is absolute.

btw. I am sure you know the Da Vinci Code is a novel. And Rick Warren is more of a structural change for traditionally bound church bodies (purpose driven church)

Naturally, I know the Da Vinci Code is a novel... and a piss-poor one. The shock is that people take it as fact.
I agree with all you say about exorcism. Without a believer, the practice can only make matters worse. What makes me question that, though, is when people are helped without believing. The only reason I can understand is that, sometimes, they are instructed in the Catholic faith before the ritual is performed.

As for what you say about each person finding a framework to view our own world, however, raises problems. Are you advocating moral relativism?
I certainly hope not.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bank

[reply=wineanddine]
This is the manifesto's statement on the above:


FIRST: In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical ideals. The cultivation of moral devotion and creative imagination is an expression of genuine "spiritual" experience and aspiration.
We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; <b>in our judgment,</b> the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so. Even at this late date in human history, certain elementary facts based upon the critical use of scientific reason have to be restated. <b>We find</b> insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.

Ironically, they act in the same way in which they acuse those choosing to follow religious codes their opinion is absolute.

btw. I am sure you know the Da Vinci Code is a novel. And Rick Warren is more of a structural change for traditionally bound church bodies (purpose driven church)

Naturally, I know the Da Vinci Code is a novel... and a piss-poor one. The shock is that people take it as fact.
I agree with all you say about exorcism. Without a believer, the practice can only make matters worse. What makes me question that, though, is when people are helped without believing. The only reason I can understand is that, sometimes, they are instructed in the Catholic faith before the ritual is performed.

As for what you say about each person finding a framework to view our own world, however, raises problems. Are you advocating moral relativism?
I certainly hope not.
[/reply]

No I am not I think whenever relativism comes into the picture we go back to rationalism (a step into the dark ages). I suppose I come more from a pre-determined destiny point of view. However I dont believe sitting on our chuff and waiting for things to turn out is the correct way of entering into our destiny. It requires a framework of attitudes and actions.

I love the quote "we build our life from the building bricks of habit that we choose each day. Before we realise it, we have shaped the house in which we live". forgot who said it tho .

So tell me about your take on moral relativism, partucularly how you see that effecting todays society of thought?

Quote:

Originally posted by Beta671

I myself have expierenced exorcisms and let me tell you from firsthand expierence, one word can describe it all...freaky...people talking in ancient languages, abnormal strength, unexplainable things....pray that you never have to experience one...

I presume you have read the posts through? If so, how do you realte your experience to the comments made?
Good to have your input tho

I think it's clear I don't take stock in any sort of destiny....
As for moral relativism, I think it's literally destrorying Western thought. Somewhere along the lines, people forgot that understanding does not equal acceptance of actions. For instance: I can understand why September 11th or Pearl Harbor occoured, but in no way does that make the action right.
For those unfamiliar with moral relativism, the concept is basically this (and feel free to add if you feel/know otherwise): The actions which one commits can only be judged from within the society which they take place. Some have taken this to the extent that only the individual can determine the morality of said action. A common example is Sparta, where stealing was considered a just action on the basis that the one stealing clearly was superior to the victim.
This mentality is very much in play, both politically and socially. The examples are simple: left media (I have nothing against it, as I am part of it, but it's true) strives to find an acceptable reasoning for Islamic terrorist groups. Rather than portraying it as a Religious war against Jews, Christians, unacceptable Muslims, and any other infidels, it's viewed as a war against consumerism society. This is 'more' morally justified to us, and therefore becomes morally relative. They are only doing what they believe to be right. The idea that actions can be 'immoral' has nearly been wipped clean from our society.
If things continue as this, then history will be viewed with a 'morally relativistic' slant. What's the big deal? Imagine Nazi Germany: death camps were not only common knowedge to citizens living around towns, but also citizens worked for such camps as contractors knowing their purpose. They voted for them. In this light, the death camps were morally justified.
Fucked up.
Moral relativism cannot exist. Plain and simple. Universal morality, man. Chicks dig it.

ok fine i will read all 9 pages.

fuck you fucking fuckers. this shit is way out of my league. i had a whole page of stuff to google after reading all 9 pages just to have the slightest idea what you two were talking about. thanks for making me think. fuckers.

*edit* spelling

something more i have to add to this forum is that i'm not Catholic at all and most exorcisms are reported involving the Catholic church....and to answer you wineanddine... the strange voices and strength that i've encountered was my input

Quote:

Originally posted by Bank

I think it's clear I don't take stock in any sort of destiny....
As for moral relativism, I think it's literally destrorying Western thought. Somewhere along the lines, people forgot that understanding does not equal acceptance of actions. For instance: I can understand why September 11th or Pearl Harbor occoured, but in no way does that make the action right.
For those unfamiliar with moral relativism, the concept is basically this (and feel free to add if you feel/know otherwise): The actions which one commits can only be judged from within the society which they take place. Some have taken this to the extent that only the individual can determine the morality of said action. A common example is Sparta, where stealing was considered a just action on the basis that the one stealing clearly was superior to the victim.
This mentality is very much in play, both politically and socially. The examples are simple: left media (I have nothing against it, as I am part of it, but it's true) strives to find an acceptable reasoning for Islamic terrorist groups. Rather than portraying it as a Religious war against Jews, Christians, unacceptable Muslims, and any other infidels, it's viewed as a war against consumerism society. This is 'more' morally justified to us, and therefore becomes morally relative. They are only doing what they believe to be right. The idea that actions can be 'immoral' has nearly been wipped clean from our society.
If things continue as this, then history will be viewed with a 'morally relativistic' slant. What's the big deal? Imagine Nazi Germany: death camps were not only common knowedge to citizens living around towns, but also citizens worked for such camps as contractors knowing their purpose. They voted for them. In this light, the death camps were morally justified.
Fucked up.
Moral relativism cannot exist. Plain and simple. Universal morality, man. Chicks dig it.

partial quote: wish I knew how to do that???????

This mentality is very much in play, both politically and socially. The examples are simple: left media (I have nothing against it, as I am part of it, but it's true) strives to find an acceptable reasoning for Islamic terrorist groups. Rather than portraying it as a Religious war against Jews, Christians, unacceptable Muslims, and any other infidels, it's viewed as a war against consumerism society. This is 'more' morally justified to us, and therefore becomes morally relative. They are only doing what they believe to be right. The idea that actions can be 'immoral' has nearly been wipped clean from our society.

SO SO SO TRUE! I totally agree with you. One clear example we see world wide, is minority groupings refusing to adhere to the societies rules in which they live on the basis of tribal offiliation. Ehtnicity was divided initially by language and civil regulations (whether that be tribal or Nationalistic). In my part of the world we have racial groups who no longer accept the law or justice system but contend they want the right to judge themselves, devoid of Nationalistic laws and protocol.

Recently we had a local man set fire to the countries flag and shoot holes in it with a rifle. When arrested, he and all his tribal affiliation contended there was no law to answer as they didnt recognise the law of the land but the law of their tribal affiliation. Now this is a dangerous precedent! Not based on the racial biase, but on the unwillingness to recognise the laws that all must obey to avoid anarchy and sectarianism.

Society requires civil law and upon which we determine our moral code. One does not have to subscribe to that law, but it is the framework upon which soceity used to judge(s) itself. As you mentioned the WW2 Atrocities were considered tolerable within the soceity that was committing them, despite the worlds outcry against it.

The society in which we live in, is a pluralistic one at least and a secular one at worst. What freaks me, is how soceity is blended to such a degree now where political correctness is seen as tolerance and maturity. Actually it is ignorance and immaturity. To have an exponent of mass murder given greater rights than one oppressed is beyond rationalisation. However on the political stage it is viewed as being right! In this case, Morality has ceased to be a consideration and world wide reasoning the outcome.

The real bummer, is this type of philosophy is rapidly gaining creedance on the world stage and unless the generation that succeedes us make attmepts to "think", more of your observation will arise.

Quote:

Originally posted by Beta671

something more i have to add to this forum is that i'm not Catholic at all and most exorcisms are reported involving the Catholic church....and to answer you wineanddine... the strange voices and strength that i've encountered was my input

Well most people think that Catholism was the first christian church, when actually it was created by the Romans (oppresors of the Christians) to subdue the rapidly growing "ecclesia" that were raising the dead and healing the sick. They brought form and ceremony and heirachy to ensure the christian uprising was quelled.

Exorcism in the New Testsament church (start of Jesus 3 1/2 yr ministry) was performed by the believers, (congregation) not the priests alone. I have no problem with Catholics, but the power of the NT Church was lost when belivers passed their personal responsibility onto the priest.

Tell me about the voices you mention

Agree completely, windeanddine. Particularly in regards of tribal regions that are attempting to modernize themselves.
In the modern PC world, any critizism of societies in Africa or South America is automatically deemed racist, and the people in those 'cultures' are considered to still have something that we in our modern era do not. People are wistful for the days we wipped our shit with our hands and killed our elderly because we couldn't support them.
Several months back, I wanted to write an editorial piece on female circumcision, which is still practiced in Africa. Basically, they take women against their will and cut off any part which provides pleasure... you get the idea. Nasty stuff. The purpose is to ensure the women do not cheat on their husbands. The basic talk I got after proposing this idea was, "who are we to judge?" Well, we're members of a society which respects rights and justice.
I've recently read rants by those who adopt this mentality that actually defend Saddam, and his personal (yes, he actually did it himself) gassing of the Kurds. And for years now, Islamic terrorists who target Israel are defended as freedom fighters, though they seem to enjoy targeting school-buses and marketplaces opposed to military compounds.
The ultimate end of moral relativism is an inability for any society or individual person to pass judgement on the actions of others. Or, a world without law or reason.
As should be easy to tell, I'm a libertarian-- one who is not shy of war. From what I can tell, most of the critizism of the current wars being fought by the United States focus on the other side from this 'relative morality'. I can understand the concerns within the US, where soldiers are dying and making an impact on lives here. But to those countries who do not contribute, yet are against it-- this remains a mystery. When faced with the option of ridding the world of religious fanatics whose ultimate goal is the genocide of the Jews (as well as others) at no true price for themselves, they say no. I would love to hear what they would say about Churchill if he were here today.
I'm all for being sensitive to others cultures... but when that culture begins to infringe on the rights of others wrongfully, tollerance goes out the window. Morality is independent of society... always.
Funny how with that thought, Bush doesn't look so bad. How could a left libertarian say such a thing? Thought and facts opposed to biased propoganda, perhaps...


Corection: I don't mean libertarian means pro-war... I meant that I, personally, understand the need

Totally!!!

QUOTE: "The ultimate end of moral relativism is an inability for any society or individual person to pass judgement on the actions of others. Or, a world without law or reason".

Take this as an example. The New Zealand cricket team have an upcoming test sereis against Zimbabwe (where Robert Mugabe is destroying townships and killing the poor in a self confessed people cleansing programme). They have agreed to tour depsite opposition from the public and concerns by the government, because it would cost too much financially to pull out do to contractual obligations. The present government are turning this into a morality issue of which they publicly are opposed.
The same governemnt has just signed a free trade agreement with China and relaxed immigration laws, whilst China are still oppressing the Tibetans.

Both situations are drawing deep concerns from Amnesty International about atrosoties to human rights issues. So what moral high ground can a governement base its findings / actions? Simple - $$$$$$$ Zimbabwe is a third world nation and cant offer much in the way of inducements to other Nations. China is the fastest growing economy, and is doing so partly because of cheap labour and low standards of living for the workers. However governments want in and turn blind eyes to these issues, yet take a moral high ground against a small Nation like Zimbabwe.

This is the PC way of failing to do something. Now I dont advocate war as a solution, but where the enemy turns society against itself from within....this is terrorism. I believe there is such a war going on called political correctness. It seeks to erode historical values and codes by descising them as being "old fashioned" and "outdated". But what is the alternative?

bank you should change the name of the thread to the philosophy thread.

Hmm...to these last few posts: WØRD!

WØRD