Should exorcism be outlawed?

[Јas]

No the observers were.

I see. By the by, is there anything else in the Bible that the observers mistook?

[John Dibble]

No the observers were.

So why didn't Jesus bother to correct them? If he was really God in the flesh then why would he leave his followers to wallow in ignorance and do harm in his name?

[Јas]

Come back and play BRTD!

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So long as he isn't a Biblical literalist of some kind, none that is really relevant.

[John Dibble]

So long as he isn't a Biblical literalist of some kind, none that is really relevant.

So showing that he's arguing in a completely inconsistent manner is irrelevant?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

So long as he isn't a Biblical literalist of some kind, none that is really relevant.

So showing that he's arguing in a completely inconsistent manner is irrelevant?

Is he arguing in a completely inconsistent manner? I've not read the thread closely (and can't be bothered to), but his remarks wrt demons and the bible seem to be expressing a fairly orthodox point of view, if not in an especially erudite way.

[John Dibble]

So long as he isn't a Biblical literalist of some kind, none that is really relevant.

So showing that he's arguing in a completely inconsistent manner is irrelevant?

Is he arguing in a completely inconsistent manner?

He's inconsistent because he's cherry picking. He claims to be a Christian and therefore would have to believe that Jesus is the son of God and God in the flesh as stated by the Bible (if he doesn't believe that then I don't see the point in claiming to be a Christian), but when the Bible states that Jesus exorcised demons he thinks that somehow the authors got it wrong. If the authors were wrong about the latter, why believe they were right about the former? There certainly isn't any additional evidence for it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm pretty sure that most believers don't think that when the Bible is talking about demons and Jesus exorcising them that it wasn't actually what happened, so I'm not sure how that's orthodox. Heck, throw him back a few centuries ago and he'd be accused of heresy by both Catholics and Protestants. Also, even if it was mainstream thought it wouldn't make his arguments any more consistent.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

but when the Bible states that Jesus exorcised demons he thinks that somehow the authors got it wrong.

That isn't exactly a rare view amongst ordinary Christians in the urbanised 'West'. Again, unless he's a biblical literalist of some type or other (and I'd be surprised if he is) that isn't especially relevant. To Christians who are not fundamentalists of some kind, the Bible is not a legal text that must be interpreted in the most literal ways possible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't really understand religious belief, do you? Which is fine - it isn't always easy to understand how people with a very different view of the world think - but I would suggest that, given that, you don't attempt to judge whether someone is or not an actual 'member' of their stated faith based on this sort of thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Globally that is probably true, but in the urbanised 'West', not so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are not a few centuries ago.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I am very far from a biblical literalist. Have you ever seen me agree with jmfcst?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

No... as it would suggest it was real in the first place.

[Јas]

I am very far from a biblical literalist. Have you ever seen me agree with jmfcst?

Literalist or not, references to demonic possession are aplenty in the Bible, and indeed the Gospels - to simply write it off as misguided but accepting plainly and on its face things such as the resurrection, or the belief in Jesus as the son of God and such (to take a couple of more central supernatural biblical events), strikes as odd (to me anyway). I'm interested in how one comes to the distinction between what to give credence to and what to disregard. 

[John Dibble]

but when the Bible states that Jesus exorcised demons he thinks that somehow the authors got it wrong.

That isn't exactly a rare view amongst ordinary Christians in the urbanised 'West'. Again, unless he's a biblical literalist of some type or other (and I'd be surprised if he is) that isn't especially relevant. To Christians who are not fundamentalists of some kind, the Bible is not a legal text that must be interpreted in the most literal ways possible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You don't really understand religious belief, do you? Which is fine - it isn't always easy to understand how people with a very different view of the world think - but I would suggest that, given that, you don't attempt to judge whether someone is or not an actual 'member' of their stated faith based on this sort of thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Globally that is probably true, but in the urbanised 'West', not so.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We are not a few centuries ago.

Ok, you seem to be ignoring the crux of why I think he's being inconsistent - again, he's cherry picking. This isn't a matter of not understanding religious belief, it's a matter of understanding that he's decided to believe only part of what his holy book asks him to believe even though none of said claims have any more or less evidence for them. Why should he believe one claim without evidence but not believe another related claim without evidence?

And again, since that former claim is that Jesus is God in flesh it would be entirely ridiculous that he would let his followers believe a falsehood that he would know would result in harm? It's not logically consistent that he would.

Also it's not really relevant to there are others who think the same way he does. Inconsistency doesn't cease to be inconsistency just because its popular.

[Јas]

I am very far from a biblical literalist. Have you ever seen me agree with jmfcst?

Can we take your reluctance to engage a sign of your uncomfortableness in taking a moderate hero position?

[Magic 8-Ball]

Yes.  I will never leave this host.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Does anyone around here think of ANYTHING in practical terms?

Exorcisms being performed is a rare thing.  A very rare thing.  If there is the case of someone dying during an exorcism, we can investigate and give justice to the situation.  Basically, we'll cross a bridge like that when we come to it.  I see no reason to outlaw exorcism because all it will do is draw attention to the subject and piss off a lot of people.  

I'm sure it fun to argue about the moral and  philosophical aspects of supposed demonic possession... but c'mon.  Really?  Exorcism?  Could you imagine "Exorcism being outlawed" flash across the screen on CNN?  

What happened to this girl in Milwaukee is a tragedy, but creating a law for one or two people is the very definition of over-reactionary.  This is planet Earth and we are humans and we are generally stupid and there are 6 billion of us.  Sh*t happens. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

Outlawing exorcisms would almost certainly be struck down by the courts considering that exorcism is an exclusively religious practice that likely doesn't lead to harm.

As Hockeydude said.. all priests should be aware that if their practice of an exorcism causes harm to the patient, they should be partially held responsible.

But also as he said... exorcisms are exceedingly rare.  The Catholic church would certainly exhaust all other possibilities before ever consenting to an exorcism.  Common medical ailments like epilepsy included...