Gay Exorcism!?!?!

[Emher]

I suppose it could be. Exorcism, however, is very real.

*Starts the J. Allen signal*

 

[The Lady Eve]

Gay demon on the loose!

Colbert Nation

 

[DAK]

I suppose it could be. Exorcism, however, is very real.

Are you serious?!

Absolutely.

Wow. Just wow.

 

[Kestra]

If he's eighteen or over and it was his decision, then he got what he asked for; if he's under eighteen, the law needs to step in and help him as best they can (and prosecute his abusers).

So if someone is younger than 18 but has a demon they can't get removed until they are 18? That's ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is abusing children and impressionable young adults by having them participate in backwards and harmful superstitious rituals.

Posts why this are why I fall back to lurking so much. I wanted to say exactly what you have, only you said it better and faster than I could have!

Thanks, btw.

 

[DeafPoet]

Are you serious?!

Absolutely.

Wow. Just wow.

Yeah those were my thoughts exactly. I'm all for religious tolerance and everything but actual exorcism presupposes real demons. And that's just nutty.

 

[Brent]

I just wanted to state, I wasn't serious about the Incest posts, I was trying to make a point, I don't want people to think I'm weird or anything

 

[Michael Chris]

Absolutely.

Wow. Just wow.

Yeah those were my thoughts exactly. I'm all for religious tolerance and everything but actual exorcism presupposes real demons. And that's just nutty.

Christ Himself exorcised demons.

 

[The Lady Eve]

I just wanted to state, I wasn't serious about the Incest posts, I was trying to make a point, I don't want people to think I'm weird or anything

Too late.

 

[DeafPoet]

Wow. Just wow.

Yeah those were my thoughts exactly. I'm all for religious tolerance and everything but actual exorcism presupposes real demons. And that's just nutty.

Christ Himself exorcised demons.

Says you. But in absence of empirical proof I'm content to view Christ as a regular guy with a literal god complex.

It's a little (but granted, not a lot) OT anyway.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Well, what do you mean by "accepting gay marriage"? Do you mean legally or are you asking us to accept it morally as well?

Legally. I believe that finding it morally acceptable or not is entirely up to you; however, when you are in a position where you have the power to use your personal opinion to hurt or damage others, your personal opinion should weigh less then your compassion for others. Hurt yourself with your faith, if you really want to. Don't hurt others. If they really want to be hurt, they can do it themselves.

Rephrased in the aforementioned example: Even if you find it morally unacceptable, if your job is to marry people, your personal opinions should hold no sway over whether you marry someone or not. Marrying a gay couple does not hurt anyone. Not marring them hurts the couple, even if only for a little while. The choice seems clear. As long as it's legal, of course.

In the example of exorcism, it's much the same. Say, you hold the belief that your child needs an exorcism. In your faith, this exorcism will better the well-being of your child. However, evidence has shown that exorcisms usually either result in nothing, or in mental and/or physical damage to the child, depending on how much physical or psychological force was used (I've read accounts of children being beaten to a pulp under the guise of 'exorcism'). As such, because there's a high chance it will hurt the child, I think you should not have the right to put your child through that, no matter what you believe; the well-being of the child is more important then appeasing your religion. In this case, since your views are damaging to your child, you, as the legal guardian, should have no voice in the matter.

I believe people should simply not have the right to damage others under the guise of religion.

Legally I don't have any issue with state gay marriage since I don't consider any state marriage anything other than a piece of paper.

As far as what parents are allowed to do with regard to their children, I think as long as they aren't abusing them I'm okay with it. If they are they should be arrested.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I suppose it could be. Exorcism, however, is very real.

Exorcism has no basis in scientific fact.

But, that's not a problem, as long as the one who's undergoing it has chosen it for him/herself. A child does not have the ability to choose due to his/her age, thus, it should be forbidden to be done to a child. A grownup has the ability to choose, but not for somebody else. If a grown person believes it helps, or gets some sort of satisfaction out of it, one should have the right to choose for himself to undergo such a ritual. But only for himself.

Science is extremely limited and only understands a miniscule portion of reality.

 

[Brent]

Science can answer a lot, or give theories to a lot of things, but it doesn't have all the answers, and theories are just theories, some of which cannot even be proven.

Science and Religion can coexist, for me, Science answers a lot of things about the how God created the universe.

 

[DeafPoet]

I suppose it could be. Exorcism, however, is very real.

Exorcism has no basis in scientific fact.

But, that's not a problem, as long as the one who's undergoing it has chosen it for him/herself. A child does not have the ability to choose due to his/her age, thus, it should be forbidden to be done to a child. A grownup has the ability to choose, but not for somebody else. If a grown person believes it helps, or gets some sort of satisfaction out of it, one should have the right to choose for himself to undergo such a ritual. But only for himself.

Science is extremely limited and only understands a miniscule portion of reality.

That's certainly a possibility. The point is what science "understands" is only what is verifiable. So it's pretty unimpeachable on that front.

 

[sidious618]

I just wanted to state, I wasn't serious about the Incest posts, I was trying to make a point, I don't want people to think I'm weird or anything

Considering you're advocating beating kids with belts in another thread I think you were completely serious.

 

[Brent]

I just wanted to state, I wasn't serious about the Incest posts, I was trying to make a point, I don't want people to think I'm weird or anything

Considering you're advocating beating kids with belts in another thread I think you were completely serious.

I never condoned beating, sigh

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Science can answer a lot, or give theories to a lot of things, but it doesn't have all the answers, and theories are just theories, some of which cannot even be proven.

Science and Religion can coexist, for me, Science answers a lot of things about the how God created the universe.

Yeah! But it leaves out the most important part and then tries to fill in the holes with a "singularity". I also agree they can coexist though,

 

[TheLonelySquire]

I just wanted to state, I wasn't serious about the Incest posts, I was trying to make a point, I don't want people to think I'm weird or anything

Considering you're advocating beating kids with belts in another thread I think you were completely serious.

I never condoned beating, sigh

See, that's where it goes downhill. The difference between a beating and parental discipline was made quite clear by you.

 

[Brent]

Science can answer a lot, or give theories to a lot of things, but it doesn't have all the answers, and theories are just theories, some of which cannot even be proven.

Science and Religion can coexist, for me, Science answers a lot of things about the how God created the universe.

Yeah! But it leaves out the most important part and then tries to fill in the holes with a "singularity". I also agree they can coexist though,

There are indeed Christian Scientists. I believe in the Big Bang. I just believe that God was the one that initiated it. I'm sure you've seen that bumper sticker "I believe in the Big Bang Theory, God spoke and BANG it happened"

 

[Amaris]

I suppose it could be. Exorcism, however, is very real.

It was believed, hundreds and even thousands of years ago, that when one was mentally ill, one was actually possessed by a demon. Today we know better. I find it sad to see people giving advice "if you were abused as a child you have a demon", or "if you look at someone lustily, you can have a demon". Thousands of years ago it was a serious issue. Today it's a modern scare tactic. What scares people more than the idea of losing control of their own body to a force they can't see? It's the stuff horror films are made of. The exorcism is very popular in culture, and right now has an air of legitimacy, much like "Ghost Hunting", in a sense.

The mind copes with highly stressful things in unusual ways. Sometimes people become disassociated from themselves, doing things they'd never do as a normal, sane individual. This isn't indicative of a demon, it is a sign that someone does need help, professional help, but from a Doctor, not a cleric. I also believe that many "possessions" are an escape from doing wrong and unethical things. You can steal from or cheat on someone, and say "I think I'm possessed!" and BAM!, you're in the clear, so that when they "exorcise" the demon, you can love your wife/husband again, hallelujah!

It is another example of something being completely circumstantial, yet being given full credence, while scientific understanding is scoffed at because it doesn't tell you what you've been taught. Believe me, when I was a devout Pentecostal, you couldn't have convinced me with all the charts in the world that demonic possession was anything more than a psychological trigger for something deeper. I would have said "God's word is more authoritative than your "scientific theories", but those who live in the world just can't understand the supernatural order of God's power". Sound familiar?

J.

 

[TheLonelySquire]

Exorcism has no basis in scientific fact.

But, that's not a problem, as long as the one who's undergoing it has chosen it for him/herself. A child does not have the ability to choose due to his/her age, thus, it should be forbidden to be done to a child. A grownup has the ability to choose, but not for somebody else. If a grown person believes it helps, or gets some sort of satisfaction out of it, one should have the right to choose for himself to undergo such a ritual. But only for himself.

Science is extremely limited and only understands a miniscule portion of reality.

That's certainly a possibility. The point is what science "understands" is only what is verifiable. So it's pretty unimpeachable on that front.

I disagree. Scientists change their opinions all the time and many times a consensus is never acheived in the first place. That being said, it just adds to the mysteries of the universe that God created.