A Step back to the Dark Ages for the RCC

Originally posted by chebob
What would it take for most of us to suddenly be overpowered by the RCC and give in, to let exorcism once again be the norm? Surely it would be some major event that instantly resurged the worlds fear in God.

Actually, it is a much more insidious obscurity that results in blotting out enlightenment and making an age of darkness. Kind of like snuffing out just one candle here and another there, slowly and surely until it's dark and no one has a match.

I don't wish to offend you, only make you consider something you don't seem to be perceiving---and that it is attitudes quite like the one you have that allow the candle snuffing to go on until it's too late to preserve the light.

That was not an isolated incident, from what I understand from a friend whose mother visits Russia on a yearly basis...it's all about media and censorship and suiting the news to what the reader wants to know--or what interests the public and keeps them subscribing customers.

But that candle snuffing is a matter of opinion. There are other issues in the world that I would consider "snuffing out the candles of advancement", the nuclear bomb for one. But opinion is all it is, and until I smell the pastors breath nearing my candle, I am quite happy to let them do it to themselves. I don't see it as a little change that would combine with others to overthrow our way of life or the level of civilization we have reached, simply because I don't think they have that kind of power, nor do I think it has any potential for spreading in any conceivable way.

I understand that you see my defence as ignorance to what they are doing, but that's not it. I'm not ignorant to it, I just don't agree with the severity of the situation. There are other things I have no doubt that would have us placed in each others shoes: Me thinking that something is dangerous and a step towards eroding all that is good about us, and you thinking it is harmless and I am over reacting. Thats just the way it is, I don't think I'm letting them get away with anything, and I'd be right up there pointing fingers if I smelt something fishy, but this seems to be nothing more than an old tradition, that in most cases is a simple case of Holy Water and Prayer. If I'm wrong and they really do act in a dangerous and harmful way during the majority of these practices, then I take it all back, they a dark aged rascals.

I don't know if there is a psychological disorder or not for speaking in tongues, but a few years ago I was watching a show where they were interviewing a woman who fell, had a case of amnesia, didn't remember her family or friends at all, only knew one language english, but after the fall, she could fluently speak spanish. Doctors never did come up with a diagnosis, or could explain how she was able to do this. But, look at documented case like Sybil, she couldn't play the piano, but as another personality she could. So maybe demonic possession is nothing more than some sort of multiple personality symptom.

I'm trying to find my copy of Charles Fort's book "The Damned Facts."

It has a chapter on demon possession, and the sorts of things that the Vatican is defining here, like speaking in previously unknown (but historically authentic) languages. Can't seem to find it in the library. Going to have to go look in the office. Maybe one of the kids has swiped it again. . .

Charles Fort's stuff is quite dated now; but his stuff is usefull precisely because he refused to "reach a verdict" on the evidence he collected. He felt that NO ONE with an axe to grind could be trusted, whether that person is a believer OR a sceptic.

I remember that Christianity is not the only religion that believes in non-physical entities taking over a human body temporarily. Voodoo is founded on such beliefs, although the practitioners claim to be channeling various gods and nature spirits. It's also common in Tibetan Buddhism, and maybe Hinduism, too?

If I can find the book, and it has anything worth repeating, I'll post it.

Originally posted by Full Metal
You misunderstand the post, according to the church if God talks to you you become a saint. Bush says God talks to him, therefor he is a saint. How do you prove God talks to you? You can't! Church just takes their word for it. I can say God talks to me and if the Church finds out I become a saint! Saint Alexander the 17th and a 1/2 and 4/5, has a nice ring to it.

What church is this? Certainly not the Roman Catholic Church. For us, a Saint is simply a person who displayed such holiness that we are confident that they are in Heaven. Every Catholic should be striving to embrace the concept that we are all inherently holy and that we all are intended to be saints.

As to possessions and exocisms, the Church downplayed them for a long time - perhaps too long. Look at ther tragedies that occured during the secularized church of the 60s and 70's. I believe that evil exists, I believe that faith and the power of Christ can drive this evil out. Even if its all just hokum (again, I believe it is NOT bunk), psychosomatic techniques have a long history of success.

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Once again the Vatican is proving itself unable to enter the 21st Century ...

Vatican state first world power to discover time-travel? Or merely a cheap sneer at people who don't conform blindly to societal values?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

reply to post by Nygdan


I think it is important to note that the RCC does not say women should avoid looking pretty in order to avert evil eye. Rather, churchgoers and clergy alike appreciate the fact that modesty is important. A woman can wear makeup, accessories, and great clothing without having to sacrifice their modesty. In fact, they will appear even more alluring because mystery is sexy. And the reason to do this is so you don't tempt others into lustful thoughts, and so you are not viewed as an object of lust as well. Anyone that feels they must reveal flesh in order to feel attractive is obviously suffering from a skewed self-image.