|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Decline of religious belief means we need more exorcists?
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
So here's my problem with this article. I thought satan was a religious belief. And I'm fairly sure that the more secular a society gets the less likely it is to believe in things like the occult. The argument being put forward seems to be an oxymoron. Thoughts?
[edited for format on main page]
[ 14. May 2014, 07:33: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
At a guess I think they're saying that Catholics are becoming more fearful due to no longer being surrounded by other Catholics.
Plus a bit of the theory (Chesterton's?) that when people stop believing in Christianity it's not that they believe nothing but that they believe anything. Kind of like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUQcCvX2MKk
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
StevHep
Shipmate
# 17198
|
Posted
The decline of religious belief is not the same thing as a decline in curiosity. People who are fascinated by the notion of an unseen spiritual world but who have no framework of belief to guide them might dabble in all sorts of strange practices. Some of these will be more dangerous than others.
Btw people might be interested in the novel The Necromancers by Robert Hugh Benson from about a century ago which looks at a Catholic who's faith has declined and who looks into Spiritualism with unfortunate results. Widely available as a free ebook.
--------------------
My Blog Catholic Scot
http://catholicscot.blogspot.co.uk/
@stevhep on Twitter
Posts: 241 | From: Exeter | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
I'm minded to agree with Chesterton - it's an invitation to believe in anything. And, if/when it goes wrong, there's enough folk memory of religion for the idiots to want their church to pick up the pieces.
Oddly enough, I was having a conversation about this with a clerical friend at the weekend. Anecdotally, the CofE's diocesan exorcists (deliverance ministers) are as busy as they've always been...
Over pond dwellers may not be aware that the CofE has a duty to have a deliverance (exorcism in old money) team in each diocese as it remains something that is taken seriously, although little discussed. Probably as it should be.
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
I still don't understand where "believe in everything" comes into it. The basis for the article is that people are believing less not more.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot
So here's my problem with this article. I thought satan was a religious belief. And I'm fairly sure that the more secular a society gets the less likely it is to believe in things like the occult. The argument being put forward seems to be an oxymoron. Thoughts?
If there is a spiritual dimension to our lives and to reality in general, then the secularisation of society will not discourage the investigation of spiritual ideas. You are assuming that there is no spiritual dimension, which is, of course, consistent with your atheism. But suppose atheism is false (which I certainly believe it is)? Then your argument doesn't hold true.
The term "religious belief" has to be understood in the context of the article, and it is clear that it is referring to Christian belief. I am aware that atheists use the word 'religion' as a catch-all term to denote anything that is not consistent with the philosophy of naturalism, and which therefore involves the supernatural. But this is not the way many people use the term.
If it is true that we all have spiritual needs (whether we openly acknowledge it or not), then the lack of a relationship with God may cause some people to look for spiritual fulfilment in the wrong places. This is entirely logical.
Therefore the fundamental premise of the article is correct (even though I may not particularly agree with the Catholic angle or the suggested methods of dealing with spiritual evil).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
Assume, at least for the sake of argument, that there is such a thing as a spiritual instinct/drive in human beings. Rather similar to how there is a sexual instinct/drive in human beings. What religions do then is to take this spiritual instinct/drive and channel it into a specific framework. That framework provides predictability and regularity concerning the exercise of the spiritual instinct/drive, if nothing else. To continue the analogy to sex, this would be like (classical) marriage. People still have their sexual desires, but now they are to a large extent shaped by the institution "marriage" (even sex outside of marriage tends to be shaped by marriage, if that institution is strong). Likewise, religion shapes the spiritual activity of the population.
Now you weaken religion, what happens? Note that I did not say "now you weaken the spiritual instinct/drive", it is the framework that gets weakened, not what it frames. In terms of the analogy to sex, we can predict that there will be a lot more "screwing around". Spiritual activity will persist, but it will be less predictable and less regulated. One might even (perhaps somewhat counter-intutitively) expect an increase in activity. Because imposing a framework on something adds a kind of cost, and removing that framework makes things "cheaper", encouraging more "spending".
So the question is simply what is getting weaker here. If "secularisation" means that the spiritual instinct/drive gets weaker, then you are right and one should expect that there is less and less need to deal with "spiritual emergencies". But if it instead means that the spiritual instinct/drive stays relatively untouched, and that it is only religion (the spiritual framework) that gets weaker, then the article you linked to makes perfect sense. The weakening of the framework would make "spiritual emergencies" more, not less, likely.
In my opinion, there is actually a bit of both happening. While I would say that there is such a thing as a spiritual instinct/drive, I would also say that it can be "aroused" or "suppressed" by general cultural trends. And current Western culture is pretty deadening. However, I think there are limits how far one can suppress it. And since there are no limits on how far one can weaken religion (all the way to non-existence...), I think it is entirely plausible that the current balance of things shows some net up-tick of "spiritual emergencies". I don't know if it is true, but I think it could be.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I think that's a superb bit of analogising, IngoB. It corresponds exactly with what I see as a healthcare chaplain day by day: people who say they're not religious, but that they are spiritual, and who then recount beliefs and practices that can be ... well, let's say refreshingly original, shall we? I think two of the great benefits of virtually any religion are the structure it gives to people's spiritual expression, and the support it gives to their spiritual needs. Take the religion away and the spiritual expression becomes gradually random, and the spiritual need becomes increasingly unmet.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bax
Shipmate
# 16572
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
So here's my problem with this article. I thought satan was a religious belief. And I'm fairly sure that the more secular a society gets the less likely it is to believe in things like the occult. The argument being put forward seems to be an oxymoron. Thoughts?
[edited for format on main page]
If what the church teaches is actually true, it does not cease to be true just because people don't believe in it.
Therefore, if what the church teaches is true, people are more at risk of being devoured by Satan as he prowls around as a roaring lion (to paraphrase S Peter); more people have not "reject[ed] Satan, and all his works, and all his empty promises" (to quote the rite of baptism), and so are more likely to fall foul of the more exotic manifestations of Evil in the world.
Christians who don't believe in Satan, of course, is a whole other topic...
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Only a couple of weeks ago in a very large conference hall here there was a huge turn out for an event that had crystals to revive your bank account, something or other healing with twigs, commune with God through a parrot, healing music (that strangely sounded like the sort of music played as a coffin enters the crematorium) and genuinely ancient pagan practices dating back to at least 1991 that thankfully didn't involve chopping anyones head off or divining their intestines.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I notice in my acquaintances and friends an uptake in various New Age and eccentric movements. I have always seen this as partly a response to the weakening of religious uptake. As IngoB says, religion contains our spiritual and religious feelings, and without religion, they are rather uncontained.
So religion ≠ spiritual stuff. A friend who used to be in my meditation group, startled me by taking up channeling, and now she communes with 'Michael', whoever he is. So it goes.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
A few months ago I heard about tulpas for the first time, which is ostensibly a Tibetan Buddhist practice but is now being taken up in the west. A tulpa is a thought-created being that once properly conceived of exists independently from its creator and then engages with him or her. Tulpas are being used as essentially an imaginary friend, not for any spiritual purpose.
Experiences with these range from the perfect best friend to malign tulpas that say negative things.
I would say that decline of Christianity has made room for beliefs and practices like this. I would also say that the Catholic relative of someone who says they have a negative tulpa might be quite likely to call the local priest with concerns of demonic possession. So the point in the article makes sense to me.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, angels are also big amongst the non-religious, and seem to have hopped over the fence from religion to 'Mind, Body, Spirit'. I'm not sure about demons.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Since demons are supposed to be fallen angels, I guess you get the whole package, whether you want them or not.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
Well...yes. If the article had said fall in Christian beliefs then I could understand someone making a correlation with the rise of other religious beliefs. But that's not what the article says.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Only a couple of weeks ago in a very large conference hall here there was a huge turn out for an event that had crystals to revive your bank account, something or other healing with twigs, commune with God through a parrot, healing music (that strangely sounded like the sort of music played as a coffin enters the crematorium) and genuinely ancient pagan practices dating back to at least 1991 that thankfully didn't involve chopping anyones head off or divining their intestines.
A load of stupid people do stupid stuff. I'm not sure I see the problem.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Well...yes. If the article had said fall in Christian beliefs then I could understand someone making a correlation with the rise of other religious beliefs. But that's not what the article says.
Silly! Christian beliefs are the only real beliefs. Everything else is just silly buggers or dum dum dum duuumm, the Devil! ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot
Well...yes. If the article had said fall in Christian beliefs then I could understand someone making a correlation with the rise of other religious beliefs. But that's not what the article says.
Well, perhaps the writer of the article does not classify all spiritual beliefs as 'religion'.
Atheists tend to use the word 'religion' very loosely. It doesn't follow that we should all adopt that usage.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
In this post I'm responding to or building on IngoB's impressive analysis - if people have a spiritual "drive" then giving up Christianity doesn't change that drive, just redirects it into things mentioned such as channeling, crystals, fortune telling of various kinds.
Head of alter guild reads tea leaves claiming absolute accuracy and claiming grandma was a gypsy fortune teller and it's genetic; her best friend is "spiritual not religious," reads palms, her New Years Day party is centered on fortune telling/future telling activities of the kind the Christian church has traditionally warned against.
Do these activities "invite demons" as some think? The users claim they connect with spirit influences or spirit guides who convey the information. They assume the spirits are only good and helpful.
But also - I know secular people who use Ouija board or tarot etc claiming such activities are "obviously" just psychological games with no spiritual component because they deny there exists any spiritual reality. I overhear arguments about who is pushing the pointer on the ouija board, each insisting the other is pushing it, each denying they are pushing it. What if it's not just a game but a tool that sometimes attracts spirits whose presence is not recognized because of the disbelief?
So we have Christians turning to activities advised against by the Church, non-Christian believers in an active intentional spiritual reality, but also people who claim disinterest in spiritual things pursuing activities that others say invite spirits they deny the existence of.
Yes it makes sense that some see increasing need for exorcism, not just because people look to fulfill the spiritual "drive" elsewhere but also because spiritual activities get relabeled secular "games" and are used by people who claim to have no spiritual "drive." (Fortune telling booths are a popular entertainment at fairs.)
Scorn for exorcism would be increasing too, since all three of these categories deny unfriendly spirits are involved, the believers in spirits insisting their spirit contacts are only good and helpful, the secularists insisting everything has a physical world explanation even if they can't figure out what.
(I have to say, the article's claim "Demonic possession manifests itself in people...vomiting nails, pieces of metal and shards of glass, according to those who believe in the phenomenon" sounds like an effort to discredit exorcists.)
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
George: quote:
If the article had said fall in Christian beliefs then I could understand someone making a correlation with the rise of other religious beliefs. But that's not what the article says.
Journalist writing article on subject s/he doesn't really understand gets hold of the wrong end of the stick. But who cares, it makes a better story that way.
In other news, the Pope remains Catholic.
[ 14. May 2014, 15:45: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot
@EtymologicalEvangelical
Interesting. So for example would I be wrong in characterising the devil as a religious belief?
Well, it depends what you mean.
Do you mean "belief in the existence of the devil" or do you mean "personally trusting in and worshipping the devil"?
As a Christian I certainly believe in the existence of the devil, and so I suppose you could say that that kind of belief is a "religious belief", on the understanding that Christianity is defined as a 'religion'.
But someone who engages in various occult activities may believe in the existence of the devil and may even seek to engage directly with the devil in the hope of receiving some power from this being. Is that a "religious belief"? Yes or no, depending on how we define the word 'religion'.
If 'religion' denotes a systematisation and institutionalisation of various spiritual beliefs and practices, then I would say that it may not necessarily be a "religious belief", but rather a belief of personal spirituality. But if 'religion' is defined in the way many atheists define it (i.e. as any viewpoint that affirms the existence of the supernatural), then it would be a "religious belief".
I don't accept that what seems to be the accepted atheist definition of religion is correct. It seems to be a convenient shorthand for "whatever we subscribers to philosophical naturalism don't agree with".
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Marvin:
quote:
A load of stupid people do stupid stuff. I'm not sure I see the problem.
I just thought it was illustrative of Chesterton's views.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If 'religion' denotes a systematisation and institutionalisation of various spiritual beliefs and practices, then I would say that it may not necessarily be a "religious belief", but rather a belief of personal spirituality. But if 'religion' is defined in the way many atheists define it (i.e. as any viewpoint that affirms the existence of the supernatural), then it would be a "religious belief".
I don't accept that what seems to be the accepted atheist definition of religion is correct. It seems to be a convenient shorthand for "whatever we subscribers to philosophical naturalism don't agree with".
I don't think atheists agree on the definition. I used to spend time on the Guardian Belief blog and remember an article where an atheist writer claimed to have conversations with his or her dead relatives. The comments section was full of people who repeatedly wrote "I am an atheist but I communicate with my Nan, she sends me messages" etc. On the same blog an article about Christianity is routinely filled with comments about how idiotic it is to believe in sky fairies.
I think for a lot of people atheist means not Christian/Jewish/Muslim. At the very least, the idea that atheists are such for reasons of rationality and scientific evidence is hard to square with the existence of atheists who claim to speak to dead relatives, believe in crystals, visit fortune tellers, and study Buddhist meditation.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If 'religion' denotes a systematisation and institutionalisation of various spiritual beliefs and practices, then I would say that it may not necessarily be a "religious belief", but rather a belief of personal spirituality.
So then, a person who believes in Jesus, but does not ascribe to a particular denomination also has a belief of personal spirituality?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
I don't think atheists agree on the definition. I used to spend time on the Guardian Belief blog and remember an article where an atheist writer claimed to have conversations with his or her dead relatives. The comments section was full of people who repeatedly wrote "I am an atheist but I communicate with my Nan, she sends me messages" etc. On the same blog an article about Christianity is routinely filled with comments about how idiotic it is to believe in sky fairies.
Atheists are of a broad spectrum. I do not expect them, as a group, to be any more rational than Christians.
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
At the very least, the idea that atheists are such for reasons of rationality and scientific evidence is hard to square with the existence of atheists who claim to speak to dead relatives, believe in crystals, visit fortune tellers, and study Buddhist meditation.
Thank you kindly for such an open minded, considered and nuanced statement.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
Not far from the truth
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
So then, a person who believes in Jesus, but does not ascribe to a particular denomination also has a belief of personal spirituality?
I wouldn't call that person 'religious'. Spiritual, yes. Religious, no.
I don't doubt that many will disagree with me on this point.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I think there must be quite a lot of people who 'believe' in Jesus as a good man/revolutionary/spiritual leader/example of courage and kindness, etc., who don't see themselves as 'belonging' to any particular church, nor subject to the dictates of what organised religion calls Christianity. They have their own self-authorised, ad hoc version of spirituality that may or may not be structured enough to be labelled as 'religious'.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Not far from the truth
From the outside, all religious and spiritual beliefs have a "Hang on, you believe What?! " aspect.
[ 14. May 2014, 16:27: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha
From the outside, all religious and spiritual beliefs have a "Hang on, you believe What?!" aspect.
"From the outside" is presumably code for "from the standpoint which assumes that the only rational position is naturalism".
Therefore "from the outside" in this context is not the position of every person. I don't find it all surprising that most people affirm the reality of the spiritual dimension of life. What is surprising is the position of those who don't.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
So then, a person who believes in Jesus, but does not ascribe to a particular denomination also has a belief of personal spirituality?
I would say so. Or at least given the distinction between "spirituality" and "religion" that people often draw these days anyhow, this is to my mind a consistent application of the same distinction.
Etymology does not determine current meaning, but it is interesting to note that "religion" comes from Latin "religio" (obligation, bond, reverence) and was originally a term applied to those living under monastic vows. I think we hence can say that "religion" goes beyond "spirituality" by involving some explicit "signing up" of the individual to some kind of social framework that exists apart from that individual.
Consequently, there will be some people who "follow Jesus" spiritually, but not religiously. One can wonder though whether some of those "spiritual Christians" are not more religiously bound than they think they are. It is probably easier to freestyle a New Age belief than a Christian one, simply because there are so many cultural expectations about Christianity still present.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
IngoB and EE, re the religious v. spiritual, consistency is what I was looking for, thank you.
EE,
My point is simply that all religious beliefs have components that are equally able to be ridiculed from outside of themselves. Be it atheists, non-theists, spiritual people or other religions. If you must laugh and point at others, don't let your knickers twist when they laugh and point back.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
I'm still not clear what answers there are to the OP.
If I become possessed by a demon, will the RCC provide an exorcist? After all training RC priests as exorcists is the subject of the posting.
So is it saying that satanic forces are on the rise within the RCC?
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Poppy
Ship's dancing cat
# 2000
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
If I become possessed by a demon, will the RCC provide an exorcist?
Only if you ask. I can't see anything in the article about the RCC training sniffer dogs to detect the work of the occult and help parish teams keep track on demonic activity locally.
As C of E clergy I get requests for help with deliverance issues usually via the church office from people we have never heard of before. Occasionally those requests are on the street. I'm one of the very few priests locally who wears clericals and a request to drive out demons by someone at the bus stop was one of the weirder parts of my ministry.
Next weekend I'll be at a mind, body and spirit fair and there are a lot of people there seeking for spiritual meaning in some very weird places. Some of them come onto the Christian stands. Oddly enough even the other stallholders seem to see the Christian stand as a place where they can take their worries about the spiritually unhelpful as there is often no framework within new age spirituality for evil which is a bit of a problem when it appears to be present.
[ 15. May 2014, 07:15: Message edited by: Poppy ]
--------------------
At the still point of the turning world - there the dance is...
Posts: 1406 | From: mostly on the edge | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Do you mean "belief in the existence of the devil" or do you mean "personally trusting in and worshipping the devil"?
I mean Belief in the existence of the devil.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I mean Belief in the existence of the devil.
Well, when we say "devil" we typically mean some version of the religious views of Christianity concerning the fallen angel Lucifer. Anybody who believes in that hence at least borrows some religious teachings. But in a more abstract sense of "a particularly powerful evil spiritual entity negatively affecting my life", of course this can be part of a non-religious but spiritual mindset.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
It depends how you define the word 'religious'.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
So is the general opinion here that the devil both is and isn't a religious belief?
We have defined here "religious" vs. "spiritual" basically by the company and obligations that people keep in their search for higher things. A belief cannot keep company and obligations, only people can. In that sense one can say that a belief is neither spiritual nor religious. Rather, a person can be spiritual or religious by having certain beliefs.
Consider a belief like a lego stone. A lego stone can be part of a lego castle (spirituality) or of a lego car (religion). But one cannot therefore say that the lego stone is castle-ish, or car-ish. If we have a peculiarly shaped lego block, which because of this shape usually is used in lego builds of cars but not of castles (say a steering wheel block), then we might be inclined to call it a car-ish stone. That does not however stop a kid from taking that stone and plonking it right onto their lego castle. That perhaps make the castle slightly odd, from the adult's perspective, but doesn't turn it into a car. It's a castle with a steering wheel.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
The argument being put forward seems to be an oxymoron. Thoughts?
Decline in the number of people taking swimming lessons would lead to an increase in the number of lifeguards needed.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
Well. While I'm pondering that I could also mention that If less people believe in God it seems to me that this would also mean that less people believe in the devil. It seems odd to believe in one but not the other.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Well. While I'm pondering that I could also mention that If less people believe in God it seems to me that this would also mean that less people believe in the devil. It seems odd to believe in one but not the other.
Your assumption that one has to believe in God and/or the Devil for one's life to be critically affected by one or the other of them is quite a big one.
It is rather like assuming that people who don't take swimming lessons because they choose not to swim for pleasure will never encounter water. Whereas since, in reality, water is unavoidable, knowing how to remain afloat and get out is rather useful.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot
Well. While I'm pondering that I could also mention that If less people believe in God it seems to me that this would also mean that less people believe in the devil. It seems odd to believe in one but not the other.
If I turn the light off, does that mean that the darkness will also automatically disappear?
The answer is obvious.
But, of course, this analogy will mean nothing to someone who is starting from the assumption that all spirituality is unreal and therefore "made up".
You seem to be asking questions on the basis of your atheistic presuppositions. The discussion won't get very far unless we acknowledge that we are hurling words at each other from completely opposing world views.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
RevMotherRaphael
Apprentice
# 18102
|
Posted
Interesting topic though personally I think there has always been a steady 'dabbling with the occult' which goes in and out of fashion like many other things and it keeps us deliverance ministers (or exorcists if you like) busy. I'm not certain that rising secularism is leading more people down the devil's garden path (though there are some cases of increased occult activity under certain 'secular' regimes, Nazi Germany being one), but the deliverance ministry is still necessary for the Church of England as well as the Roman and Eastern Churches so it is important to train and educate clergy and laity. It is vital that we have deliverance ministers who can offer pastoral care where it is needed and to keep open minds to the important healing Christ brings to people. If you have any questions about the ministry itself there are a few priests lurking in the shadows who will speak about it honestly, just don't expect bleeding walls or a head spinning child to vomit on you. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 42 | From: Why Heaven, of course, with all of you! | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Religion ≠ theism.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
quote:
The abandonment of religion “inevitably leads people to ask questions about the existence of evil and its origins”
Surely it's the other way round?
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
If "religion" is understood as some sort of symbolic system dealing with the human condition; and if the human condition is one in which questions about, at least, the gap between reach and grasp tend to arise then, if the system is removed the question is more apparent?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You are assuming that there is no spiritual dimension, which is, of course, consistent with your atheism.
That is only if the word 'spiritual' is limited to religious beliefs, but it has a much wider definition.
quote:
If it is true that we all have spiritual needs (whether we openly acknowledge it or not), then the lack of a relationship with God may cause some people to look for spiritual fulfilment in the wrong places.
I find spiritual fulfilment in music, reading, activity, walking, understanding more about the world and how it works, etc. Do you think that is not spiritual fulfilment? How would you define it otherwise, I wonder?
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
