Oh well, one less grandpa deluded with idiocy.Man Dies After Police Break Up Exorcism
PHOENIX (July 29) – Officers responding to a report of an exorcism on a young girl found her grandfather choking her and used stun guns to subdue the man, who later died, authorities said Sunday.The 3-year-old girl and her mother, who was also in the room during the struggle between 49-year-old Ronald Marquez and officers, were hospitalized, police said. Their condition was unavailable.The relative who called police said an exorcism had also been attempted Thursday.”The purpose was to release demons from this very young child,” said Sgt. Joel Tranter.
The BAD news is that this stuff is not rare. Indeed, about half of the respondents to AOL’s questions voted IN FAVOR of demonic possessions and exorcisms. And they vote.
Poll ResultsDo you believe exorcisms can expel demons from people?No 52% 23,042 Yes 48% 21,625
jack the toad
you are welcome on this site just be prepared to get hit hard because we aren’t soft on each other here and its not because we don’t respect each other.i am glad to hear your believe in research if you keep it up who knows where you will endup maybe atheist maybe christian but with a different view then the one now.keep and open heart an mind and enjoy this trip called life.
Morality existed before the bible. If it didn’t we wouldn’t be here.
Jack
I am interested to know what other religions you looked into before settling on the bable ? And what verse in the bable did you find those answers ? Everyone on this site I am sure has read the bable more then one time so I am interested to see what part effected you so much and which you overlooked.
Jack,
Please excuse my rude tone earlier, but I think my point still stands. If atheists by definition have no incentive to act morally, then why do the vast majority of atheists live law-abiding, moral lives?
In my opinion the flaw in your approach is that you expect anyone to have a “consistent” moral basis for their actions, if by consistent you mean absolutely consistent, without respect to some innate sense of right and wrong. Everyone, religious or otherwise, picks and chooses. I am not aware of a single Christian who does not live his or her life based on SELECTIONS from scripture. They sense that “love your neighbor as you would yourself” is worthy to be followed, and “stone adulterers” is not.
Ah, cooler heads prevail.
No need for kid gloves here folks, thanks for the seat at your table.
Now Mr. Cohen is just setting up a strawman and knocking the snot out of it.
The purpose of the law was to reveal to us that we aren’t as neat as we think we are. It wasn’t to teach us how to live as much as to show us that there is something in us that doesn’t want to live that way. Paul talks about this in Romans very plainly.
Rusty,
I’m not saying you don’t have the incentive to act morally, I’m saying that you don’t have the basis to say that anyone else is acting immorally. If your society says kill all the Indians and we’ll split up their land for ourselves, or kill all the Jews, they are the source of all our trouble, and we can take their stuff. To what do you appeal in order to say that’s not right? You can’t really say it’s not good for the herd, killing off the Indians has been quite lucrative for America. Holding Hitler’s cloak while he murdered the Jews was a bonanza for Switzerland.
It seems to me that all you can say is you don’t like it.
Good post jshanewhit, I need to chew on that for awhile.
Believe or not, there were two books that had more to do with my conversion than the bible, Dune and Cat’s Cradle. Vonnegut will be sorely missed by me.
Jack
Of course I do. The basis is my own reason and moral sense. That’s all anyone has. In fact, that’s what theists are using when they choose – using their innate ability to make moral choices – their belief system and then make the next choice of which parts of it they will actually follow. Even if you use an allegedly objective source – say, the Bible – you have still chosen to use that source.
I appeal to myself, my reason, my empathy for others, my innate ability to make moral judgments. Contrary to what I think you think, these things do not follow from religious belief; they necessarily precede it. Most children, even those who have not been indoctrinated into a faith system, have an innate sense of fairness. Are we morally inferior to children?
That IS all I can say. That is all ANYONE can say, even if they use an “objective” source like scripture – because they have chosen that source.
In essence, that’s why we have a system of secular laws. They prohibit the things we’ve agreed are bad. And note how vastly different our criminal code is from, say, the Ten Commandments or Sharia law. We, as a society, using our ability to make moral judgments, have agreed on a code by which we all must live. No god required.
Jack,
In response to your bizarre statement:
“I’m saying that you don’t have the basis to say that anyone else is acting immorally.”
I think that the Christian religion has done quite enough finger-pointing at people and proclaiming the immoral behavior of others, while behaving in their own immoral ways. Basically NO ONE is “moral” it’s a subjective term.
Everyone makes choices based on the situation they find themselves in, that’s it, sometimes you choose right and sometimes you choose wrong and based on these experiences does a person learn.
Religious people, like yourself, use the bible as a weapon to attack anyone and everyone, by cherry-picking lines that suit you.
You brought up the genocide of the native americans, a genocide supported by Christians who belived them to be heathens. And here we are again, Christians against Muslims, many Christian leaders calling for furthers invasions and murders, but you come here to an atheist site and dare question our moral compass.
By being a part of Christianity YOU are responsible for everything done in the name of your religion. If you could think for yourself you would realize many of “us” non-belivers are the most outspoken against corporate greed, government sponsored mass murders and supporters or equal rights.
I’m sorry but how dare you proclaim your moral superiority to me. You are a murderer and my hands are clean.
Ahhh newsflash.. both these acts were carried out by Xians. I think that the moral compass that most Christians follow is deplorable.
As usual, the high moral horse that religious people look down their noses from has fetlocks of clay.
Look, I am not saying that I am better than you in any way, shape or form, I don’t believe that I am, I know that I am not. I am as appalled as you are by things done in the name of Jesus both in the past and present. I am so sorry that we have acted so disgracefully that it has given you cause to doubt that God exists. All I can do is try to live in a manner that I don’t continue down that path. I really don’t know what other options there are.
I agree completely that morals preceed religious belief. It’s realizing that you fail to live up to your own morals that causes you to reach out for help. To God.
“It’s realizing that you fail to live up to your own morals that causes you to reach out for help. To God.”
I thought gawd only helps those who help themselves. So when you fall off your high moral horse, you’d better get back on before gawd sees you!
Jack,
Why do you assume that it is something you, or some other believer did that makes us doubt God?
I can only speak for myself, but my lack of belief is based solely on evidence, or in this case, the complete lack thereof. If every self professed Christian behaved in a way that brought only praise upon themselves, it would not change one iota, my lack of belief in anything supernatural. I also don’t believe in ghosts, ghoulies, vampires, UFO’s or even Big Foot. Sorry to break it to you, but it has absolutly nothing to do with YOU.
Jack:
For me, that was only a piece of the puzzle I put together.
When 1st I did the research, it came as something of a shock to realize that in no way does religion elevate anyone. 1 would expect that it does. So I’d been led to believe.
When in fact, it seems to be quite the opposite. Such a contradiction leads 1 to examine the epistemology closely. So I put it under a microscope (figuratively speaking).
‘What a long, strange trip it’s been’, as the Dead say.
Augustine said, ‘1 should not judge a philosophy by its abuses.’
What then, IS the yardstick? That it makes people feel good? So do placebos. That it makes them feel part of something larger? Any community can do that. Byproduct of evolution anyways. That it gives them hope? Hope for what? A pipe dream of immortality? There’s never been proof of a hereafter.
& all that peace, & serenity, & love & all that? That was no one else but YOU.
So don’t underestimate your own worth, or anyone else’s, by attributing it to some ancient fantasy.
After which, you continue to fail. And to you this is evidence that God exists?
Krystalline apostate, millions of people would disagree with your statement that religion doesn’t elevate anyone, including me. But I guess you know better.
Rusty, but I’m failing a lot less, and yes that is evidence to me that God exists, but I don’t expect you to believe because of that, you have to trust in your own experiences.
I remember finishing the chapter on the bat in the blind watchmaker and thinking how can this guy not see the hand of God in all this?
Here are some things that I feel make it at least reasonable to believe in God-
- the anthropic principle
- the explanation given in the bible for the duality in man, it’s account of history, and it’s prophesies.
- the testimony of people I’ve met, young and old, rich and poor, educated and ignorant, domestic and foreign, that they have encountered something that has changed their minds about life and how to live it.
- my own experience of a changed life.
Jack:
Actually, a lousy point.
All incorrect. Sorry.
They found it w/in themselves.
All you, baby.
Jack
Can’t add much to what KA said, other than that Dawkins pretty much destroys the anthropic principle argument in God Delusion.
Do you also therefore believe in alien abductions?
Jack, if I may steal just a moment of your time, please? You echo an argument by (I think, though I could be wrong) McGrath in a debate with Hitchens: though an atheist may act morally, an atheist doesn’t not have the objective basis to do so.
If so, then I am interested in your take on the moral divisivness among the faithfull, even within a singular denomination, or even a church. As you may know, Bible was used on both sides of slavery debate. Likewise, it is used on both sides of death penalty debate. Not to mention a whole range of regulations that Bible proscribes, which aren’t upheld today, by either the xtians or the jews.
My question is, if the Bible, if God’s existence can give us an objective set of behavioral rules, whence comes the debate on which set is the objective one? And if any one side is wrong, by what Biblical criteria do we find that out?
I’ll play my hands in advance, thus forewarning you: If the criteria is what is written in the Bible, none of the xtians are obeying the rules. If the criteria is outside the Bible, a) how can we be sure of it’s objectivity and b) what is the difference between extrabiblical criteria and atheistic non-basis of morality?
Thanks!
wow, a personal query from the father of all evil. This site is way more exciting than I thought it would be!
Before I tackle your question, I gotta ask- After your rebellion in heaven did God get you in a headlock and say
“Lucy you got some ’splainin to do.” ?
The divisions are the result of bad or incomplete research, disobedience, pride (one of your favorites), and other factors depending on the subject.
It would be convenient if a person was infused with all wisdom and knowledge when they first converted but that’s not how it works. So the church ends up with varied levels of maturity and division.
The criteria is the bible and some christians aren’t following it but to say that none are is stretching the truth. But hey, look who I’m talkin’ to ya big lug.
Toad,
Then may I assume, for the sake of argument, that you do not eat shellfish, or wear clothes made of blended fibers? Were you a virgin until marriage? (you don’t have to respond to that so long as you know the answer in your heart) Lastly, would you take your unrepentant son to the gates of the city to be stoned to death by the public?
If you do not abide by these rules, by what authority do you ignore them? Oh, and please don’t tell me those are all OT rules and the NT corrects, or fixes all those barbaric rules. If the NT supercedes the OT, then why is the OT used at all, if it is flawed?
Is there somewhere in the bible that gives you the authority to pick and choose which parts to follow and which parts you can safely ignore? Is it all the infallable word of an all knowing God, or all allegory?
Wow Ren,
This is the most basic stuff- I’m suprised you don’t know it.
How about if you don’t ask me a question and then tell me not to give you the answer.
The new testament isn’t a fix, it’s a new covenant, a new contract. The old one was paid in full by Jesus death. The new one was started with his resurrection.
The OT is good for teaching the character of God, among other things.
I’m afraid you have a misunderstanding of how christianity works as well.The only rules there are are to love God with all you are and to love your neighbor as yourself. Paul said that it’s for freedom that we were set free but not to use that freedom to sin.
The bible is the infallible word of God as it was originally written and in it there are many allegories. But it’s not an either/or thing. A lot of people err when they take verses out of context and try to apply them to situations that those verses aren’t addressing.
From Toad:
I think you’ve taken Paul out of context.
Actually, Jack, my nom-de-guerre on this blog comes from a, believe it or not, christian bishop named Lucifer. Even more interesting, I’ve yet to come upon a believer who knows the origin of the term and what it stands for. Oh, well. Back to the question.
I see you didn’t shy away from the question, but that you also skipped over a bit. The question wasn’t wether all christians adhere to the “code of behaviour”, it is how come there are different interpretations, and doesn’t that nullify the “Bible gives us the ultimate ruler to judge behaviour” idea.
For instance, imagine yourself in a debate with one Micheal Bray, a supporter of, among other things, stoning people ingaged in homosexual, male-male, sex. His claim, if I can take the role of advocatus diaboli, stems from the Leviticus, true, but he also strenghtens it by quoting Jesus’ words that all OT laws (stoning for homosexual sex among other things) should be held, and not one should be broken (Matthew 5:18-19). The question is how solid are both your cases (assuming you are against that), and how is it possible that one ultimate ruler on good behaviour can be used to argue for both sides.
In a less bloddy example, we have the general attitude towards gays. You said:
If by “paid in full” you mean to say that OT legalities aren’t binding on christians (which, again, has two sides of the argument, both extensively quoting the Bible), then one wonders where and how does the gay sex condeming philosophy of christians stems from. If my memory serves me, Jesus said not a word of gays. Condemnation of gay sex is deeply rooted in the OT (”it is abomination”) and some Saul’s comment in the epistles (which leads to a whole new set of problems – wether we’re talking about followers of Jesus or Saul). Alongside condemnation of gay sex, there is the same condemnation of shellfish, pigs, et cetera. If xtians are to shy away from gay sex due to it being “abomination”, why not shying away from other things that are “abomination”? And again one has the same situation, two sides on the issue of homosexuality, gay sex and rights of homosexuals, both of which are argumented extensively by Bible quotes.
One wonders how the hell does one universal absolute set of rules splits so easily into feuding groups, and what is it that makes it so different then our evolution-given sense of empathic cooperation. :/
Come on Lu, you didn’t get even a little chuckle out of that post? That was good solid schtick.
Lucifer means light bearer doesn’t it?
I gotta eat but I’ll get back to your question.
peace
No I didn’t. I asked you a serious question. Xtianity’s history is a firsthand evidence that Bible doesn’t provide us with an immutable basis for morality. And without acknowledging it’s conflicting interpretations, you can’t claim otherwise.
st.lucifer [Member]
I don’t know why there are so many different interpretations, I do know that most of them are about peripheral issues that aren’t set in stone, so there is no right or wrong side to them, people have their preferences and often feel passionately about them, but they are no more important than a preference for a certain football team. It doesn’t surprise me that fallen man would come to many different conclusions about things of God. In fact that is what one should expect.
As far as that nullifying the truth of the bible, nice try, but the truth is true whether we understand it or not.
Micheal Bray sounds like a real piece of work, I’ve never heard of him.
The argument about OT laws is an ancient one, even the apostles had to figure that out. (Acts 15) I’m going to have to rest on their expertise.
There seem to have been laws given to man before the mosaic law (the sacrifices of Cain and Able, Abraham’s tithe to Melchizidek, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah), perhaps that’s where you’ll find the difference between eating crawdads and having gay sex.
Again the problem isn’t with the bible the problem is with man.
Toad,
Can you answer the belly button question?
karen
Yes!
a fish.
(You Know) Jack:
& there’s the end of discussion right there.
There is no ‘truth’ in the bible, regardless of capitalization.
But if you’d a bit more of the critical eye, you’d analyze it (as I did, as many, many others here have), & find it wanting.
Miracles? NONE. Prophecies fulfilled? NONE. Historical veracity? NONE.
Zero, zilch, zip, nada, nil, void…plenty of descriptive nouns.
We could go into detail on this, but it’s obvious your mind’s made up, & no amount of actual dissection will make you realize the heart is just a liver – smelly & unpalatable.
Jack the Toad
Um.
Ah.
Er, maybe you didn’t understand the question correctly?
Or maybe you could ’splain your answer to dumb ole me.
The question about belly buttons was, did Adam and Eve have them?
K A
That’s just silly talk, of all the holy books the bible is the only one with any historical veracity.
As far as prophesy goes- how about Nebuchadnezzar’s dream? How about God’s promise to Abraham that he would sire a great nation? How about God’s promise to gather Israel from the nations back to Canaan and Jerusalem?
Yeah, my minds made up, what’s wrong with that? But you’re wrong if you think haven’t listened to your side, after awhile your arguments just sound closed minded and bitter. You use every trick in the book when you involved in a debate (not all of you) and then you mock us. When I tell you I’ve encountered something greater than myself that has changed the way I live my life, that has given me peace in my smelly unpalatable heart.
You say- no you didn’t, and further more that thing you call God is a hatefully vicious egomaniac. Oh yeah, and all those people you love are stupid.
I’ve been around this planet for awhile now, I’ve kept my ears open and I’m not impressed with your arguments. Sorry, but they just seem like a facade to me.
Jack:
I’d advise you study actual history then.
Just because a book mentions the occasional event or person, doesn’t make it a history book.
Archeology has come a long ways in debunking the mythology.
A fable. Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd BCE, not the 10th. Ain’t a prophecy if it’s written post ex facto.
How weird it was, that it got the events of the 2nd BCE right, but fucked up wildly about the 10th BCE.
Or ‘gawd’s’ promise to make old Abe’s seed a king, but telling him to kill Isaac 8 years later? Serious problems: Abe pimps out his wife TWICE. Same trick: ‘She’s my sister!’
If old Abe ever existed, he heard voices. In his head. That’s all.
Which 1? All these ‘promises’ were broken, time ‘n again. Including the 1 where Israel would never fail again.
Ah, yes, ‘beware the wicked reasonings’. After Paul was laughed outta Athens.
It’s called logic. ‘Trick in the book’. Sheesh. Why do I sound bitter?
BECAUSE I’M BEING HONEST W/YOU, & you call me dishonest.
Just because someone’s smart, doesn’t mean they’re not stupid.
That was you. All you. Nothing else, noone else.
You gave yourself an excuse to do better. That’s all.
“The Bible Says It, I Believe It, End of Story”
Indeed.
Archeology has done no such thing my sweet baboo, my guess is your study of archeology is extremely selective, just like you selectively read my sentences. I didn’t say the bible was a history book.
You don’t believe in prophesy so you cling to any explanation that allows you to avoid it’s possibility. It’s like you’re trying to do math while saying there is no such thing as the number 4, you can get around it for awhile but sooner or later…
Daniel was completed about 530 B.C.
Your comment about Abe is exactly what I’m talking about with “every trick in the book”. What the heck kind of argument is that? You remind me of my ex, you get stuck so you stink up the conversation with diversion.
I don’t know if you’ve looked at a map lately but Isreal is right there on the east end of the Mediterranean, against all odds no less. After people with a naturalist point of view tried to eliminate them from the gene pool.
You are completely wrong about what has gone on in my heart, I think I would know better than you.
Then you’re completely ignorant of your xtian history. I suggest you do some brushing up on the history of xtian heresies.
In addition, you’re also completely ignorant of your contemporary Bible readings. As I said, people like Micheal Bray claim Biblical basis for stoning homosexuals and adulterers. Do you seriously think it’s a “peripheral issue”? Or do you think there’s “no right or wrong side” to stoning people?
Read my posts again. I did not invalidate “the truth of the Bible”. I invalidated the basis of your claim that Bible offers some kind of an imutable, ultimate moral basis.
Face it, Bible is as useful (or useless) to the questions of moraliy as is Marx’ “Kapital”, Nietsche’s “Thus Spoke…” or John Stuart Mill’s “On Liberty”.
Just as is in the case of any other book on morality. For a book to be taken as some great text on morality, it’s message should be clear and equally understood by all. The Bible obviously, and you’ve admitted that, does not accomplish this.
Post dictum.
Failed.
Self-fulfilling.
Toad:
A. I’m a guy, so cut the ’sweet baboo’ talk. I ain’t like that.
B. Your exact words were ‘historical veracity’.
Your little book of fairy tales fails many, many tests.
Actually, wrong again. I used to believe in all that folderol. Really did. Post 9/11, I went haywire religious. Revelation, the whole 9 yards. Almost joined your tribe.
Problem is, I did the research 1st. If I hadn’t read McDowell’s book, I probably WOULD be on your side.
Ah, ’scuse me, I’m not the reality denier here, Toad. I took that wild ride. Didn’t take.
Ah, no, 2nd BCE, not 530 BCE.
Hello? My member swings a little to the left, just like yours.
Conceited? How so? I’m not laying claim to the ‘ultimate truth’ here, now am I?
That’s not a prophecy, you dope. That was the work of humanity. No more, no less.
(Another end-timer – oh, JOY.)
A fox cannot smell its own lair.
Humanity has a penchant for lying to itself.
Krystalline Apostate
Here’s a link on Daniel
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3a.html
I didn’t read that Mcdowel book, but I did read Evidence that Demands a Verdict, some of it was useful but some of it seemed forced. I wish you had looked further into it before abandoning your faith.
“Hello? My member swings a little to the left, just like yours.
Conceited? How so? I’m not laying claim to the ‘ultimate truth’ here, now am I?”
I don’t even know what you’re talking about. I think you’ve confused me with some other post.
Your comment about Israel proves my point about your presupposition, you don’t believe in the supernatural so you will look to any other explanation.
Humanity does have a penchant for lying to itself, which is why you’re insane to put your faith in it.
JTT:
You mean, Evidence That Demands A Refund?
That’s exactly the book I was talking about.
The supernatural fails every time. The only time the supernatural is used, is when there’s a gap in knowledge.
Further proving that you utterly lack a critical eye.
Religion’s the biggest lie of all, is my point.
I’m familiar w/McDowell, Miller, & Holding too.
Along w/Aquinas, Augustine, Chesterton, Lewis…fact is, I investigated BOTH sides of the argument.
Y’see, I approached the subject as objectively as I possibly could.
Compared to the actual history, it falls terribly, woefully short more often than it should.
Here’s a link (Book of Daniel):
http://www.religioustolerance.org/daniel.htm
and yet another:
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1996/4/4danie96.html
You should really do some research. It’s rather eye-opening.
Or, in your case, earth-shattering.
Exorcism’s are another way for religous fanatics to hide behind their own sicko adgendas. They, like most God People are brainwashed in to believing they are right on any and all subjects broached.
In other words, they are of the opinion that they can do no wrong, as they are living in the embrace, and beneath the umbrella of a ficticious charachter, God.
These fanatics literally get away with murder, and call it an exorcism?
They should be bound, gagged, and casterated right in front of the church building which houses their membership.
Kristal,
Looks like you are right about Daniel, I won’t say my earth is shattered, but I’ve definitely got some research to do. Thanks for the links that seems like a good place to start.