Possesion - What do you believe?

[Sean1875]

Watching this film on channel five just now 'The exorcism of Emily Rose' and just got me thinking about exorcism, possession etc. and still not 100% sure what i really believe. I can understand peoples belief that these people might just be mentally ill but when it comes to such things as being able to speak languages theyv'e never known before etc. I'm not really sure what to believe. So what are your thoughts?

[Lofarl]

I think its a load of tom kite tbh. Not watched the film but I bet its not on par with the exorcist. Speaking about such spooky things, a few nights ago I awoke suddenly from a dream and experienced sleep paralysis.

This is the same thing that people believe are poltergeists or alien abductions. It's a creepy feeling, as it feels like some invisible force is pushing you down. No matter how hard you try to move, you can't move a muscle.

[Pretty Boy]

I think its a load of tom kite tbh. Not watched the film but I bet its not on par with the exorcist. Speaking about such spooky things, a few nights ago I awoke suddenly from a dream and experienced sleep paralysis.

This is the same thing that people believe are poltergeists or alien abductions. It's a creepy feeling, as it feels like some invisible force is pushing you down. No matter how hard you try to move, you can't move a muscle.

:agree:

Absolutely terrifying. I used to suffer it quite regularly and really severely, sometimes for nearly 10 minutes at a time. Horrible feeling and easy to see why it could be mistaken for something more sinister.

As for possession, not a believer. I take the OPs point about speaking foreign languages etc but strange things can happen to the brain as a result of illness/injury. There have been instances of people suffering strokes and suddenly being able to speak French or speaking with a Jamaican accent or whatever.

I don't doubt that a great many people who claime to be possessed truly believe they are and i'm sure it must be a frightening experience for them and their loved ones but as an atheist i just can't buy into satanic possession and excorcisms and such like.

[SRHibs]

Anyone who believes in ghosts in any way/shape or form is pretty deluded in all honesty. I honestly can't get my head around how people can actually believe in something so silly. For hundreds of years there's been this belief that they exist, yet still, there's absolutely no evidence worthy of note. It's always a grainy picture or video, never anything conclusive.

As for possession, well it can easily be attributed to mental illness.

I get sleep paralysis too, as well as wake panic attacks. Not very nice at all.

[bighairyfaeleith]

9/10's of the law:agree:

[Beefster]

I don't believe in possession, spirits etc. However, there's always that irrational 'what if' thought at the back of my head and I love watching/reading about all that sort of paranormal stuff.

I watched The Exorcist and the Evil Dead in a back-to-back session when I was about 9/10 and they scared the absolute **** out of me - to the extent that I didn't sleep properly for about a fortnight! Ever since then I've loved films that involve some sort of malevolent, unseen force (Blair Witch, Exorcism of Emily Rose, The Last Exorcism, Amityville, Paranormal Activity, Rosemary's Baby and so on).

[lapsedhibee]

That 81% is better than 19%.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Shamanic possession is something that African people sometimes show up at psychiatric hospitals with - at least in London. To me, the symptoms are similair to what we call schizophrenia or psychosis.

However, given that we know so little about our medical conditions, I keep an open mind on the subject. There is no more proof for the cause of our mental illness than there is for shamanic possession.

[Twa Cairpets]

Watching this film on channel five just now 'The exorcism of Emily Rose' and just got me thinking about exorcism, possession etc. and still not 100% sure what i really believe. I can understand peoples belief that these people might just be mentally ill but when it comes to such things as being able to speak languages theyv'e never known before etc. I'm not really sure what to believe. So what are your thoughts?

Posession (as in demons or the devil inhabiting someone), is not real. Whether or not it is mental illness is a different question - I'm sure some people are mentally ill, but just look at some of the revivalist/fundamentalist churches in the US for pretty much exactly the same reaction in people - twitching on the floor, speaking in tongues and the like. Footage from islamic countries with people beating themselves on the head in mass demonstrations of religious fervour is another exampmple of a kind of mass hysteria/hypnosis - if you unquestioningly believe something you are open to suggestion.

One way to think about is is why would it be that people are only ever seemingly posessed by demons in line with their own faith. Seems unlikely

[Jay]

I think its a load of tom kite tbh. Not watched the film but I bet its not on par with the exorcist. Speaking about such spooky things, a few nights ago I awoke suddenly from a dream and experienced sleep paralysis.

This is the same thing that people believe are poltergeists or alien abductions. It's a creepy feeling, as it feels like some invisible force is pushing you down. No matter how hard you try to move, you can't move a muscle.

They were talking about sleep paralysis on an episode of ghosthunters last night - they 'debunked' a womans claim of being held down in her bed and she couldnt breathe saying it was just that. Scary stuff - I hadnt heard of it before.

[ArabHibee]

I think its a load of tom kite tbh. Not watched the film but I bet its not on par with the exorcist. Speaking about such spooky things, a few nights ago I awoke suddenly from a dream and experienced sleep paralysis.
This is the same thing that people believe are poltergeists or alien abductions. It's a creepy feeling, as it feels like some invisible force is pushing you down. No matter how hard you try to move, you can't move a muscle.

Don't know how old you are but The Exorcist is one of the worst horror films I have ever seen. Went to the cinema to see it and laughed pretty much through the entire film. Very, very dated.
Same thoughts on Blair Witch Project. Unbelievably hyped up to the point that it was just a really crap film.

Possession - don't think it exists but ghosts etc, definitely. Go to a Spiritualist Church and get the s**t scared out of you!!

[Marabou Stork]

I can't be the only one who thought that we were going to have a debate on Pierre-Joseph Proudhon can I?

[Removed]

Don't know how old you are but The Exorcist is one of the worst horror films I have ever seen. Went to the cinema to see it and laughed pretty much through the entire film. Very, very dated.

Same thoughts on Blair Witch Project. Unbelievably hyped up to the point that it was just a really crap film.

Possession - don't think it exists but ghosts etc, definitely. Go to a Spiritualist Church and get the s**t scared out of you!!

:hmmm: Imagine any evil spirit trying to possess the Arab :faf:

[Lofarl]

Don't know how old you are but The Exorcist is one of the worst horror films I have ever seen. Went to the cinema to see it and laughed pretty much through the entire film. Very, very dated.
Same thoughts on Blair Witch Project. Unbelievably hyped up to the point that it was just a really crap film.

Possession - don't think it exists but ghosts etc, definitely. Go to a Spiritualist Church and get the s**t scared out of you!!

Oh I dont think The Exorcist is a scary film. Far from it. I do think its a great film none the less. Good acting, great pacing etc. Plus you can bet that half the stuff in that film would probably not get made today. Think the crucifix part. No chance that would get put in any shock horror film today.

I do enjoy a lot of horror films. Very few have left a lasting impression on me. One that scared the hell out of me as a kid was a made for tv movie called The Haunted.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102007/
I do have a dodgy copy of it kicking about. Its aged badly or maybe I just grew up, but a few of the scenes are still chilling.

Probably the one to avoid watching with the Mrs is The Entity
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082334/

But one of my all time fav horror film is The Changeling ( not the Angelina Jolie one)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080516/

[Phil D. Rolls]

I can't be the only one who thought that we were going to have a debate on Pierre-Joseph Proudhon can I?

Theft? :greengrin

[Future17]

That 81% is better than 19%.

:agree:


However, "with intent to supply" is a very different matter...

[Twa Cairpets]

Don't know how old you are but The Exorcist is one of the worst horror films I have ever seen. Went to the cinema to see it and laughed pretty much through the entire film. Very, very dated.
Same thoughts on Blair Witch Project. Unbelievably hyped up to the point that it was just a really crap film.

Really? BWP absolutely scared the bejesus out of me. Absolutely kacked masel, and a film I will never, ever watch again.


Possession - don't think it exists but ghosts etc, definitely. Go to a Spiritualist Church and get the s**t scared out of you!! On a partly serious note, do Spirtualist meetings have sings on the doors saying "For entertainment purposes only" on their flyers and posters? They should have.

It's scary in exactly the same way as a scary film is - if you're willing to suspend belief and let yourself get dragged into the atmosphere, then its scary, but it does not make ghosts real. Spirtualism started with the Fox sisters in the US in the 1840s, and since denied, debunked and entirely exposed as a scam performed by charlatans.

Cold reading, hot reading and credulous audiences with a massive tendency towards confirmation bias makes it all seem so real in a "how could he/she possibly know that" type of way.

[Bishop Hibee]

I've met a couple of RC priests who are exorcists. Very thorough training involved and they were both at pains to make it clear that referral for medical/psychiatric help is an early port of call so to speak.

Having said that, they were both clear they believed that extreme evil manifestations of a supernatural sort do happen and gave an example each. As they were both rational blokes and given my belief in supernatural 'good', I'd no reason to doubt them although both stories raised an eyebrow.

[Twa Cairpets]

I've met a couple of RC priests who are exorcists. Very thorough training involved and they were both at pains to make it clear that referral for medical/psychiatric help is an early port of call so to speak.

Having said that, they were both clear they believed that extreme evil manifestations of a supernatural sort do happen and gave an example each. As they were both rational blokes and given my belief in supernatural 'good', I'd no reason to doubt them although both stories raised an eyebrow.

Thats interesting, and its good to see that the first assumption isnt the supernatural.

Did they claim that posession was a genuine manifestation of demonic evil? I realise Im asking a second hand question so if you dont know no problem, but taking the earlier point, how would you think they would explain claims of posession or its equivalent in non-RC christianity or in other religions?

Without being insulting or taking the the thread down a well worn road, those of religion can be absolutely rational in almost every facet of their being, but to my mind there is a blind spot when it comes to areas where evidence does not support an assumption made from faith, such as posession.

There is precisely the same amount of evidence that those "posessed" are in the control of ghosts, aliens or Earth based psychic warrior as they are demons cintrolled by Satan.

[Mon Dieu4]

Anyone who believes in ghosts in any way/shape or form is pretty deluded in all honesty. I honestly can't get my head around how people can actually believe in something so silly. For hundreds of years there's been this belief that they exist, yet still, there's absolutely no evidence worthy of note. It's always a grainy picture or video, never anything conclusive.

As for possession, well it can easily be attributed to mental illness.

I get sleep paralysis too, as well as wake panic attacks. Not very nice at all.

A few years back, I was walking past my house with two of my mates, heard a large bang inside, I knew there was no one in so looked through the window as did one of my pals, we both saw someone sitting at my dining room table at the same moment.

We went into the house and there was no one there, we put it down to a trick of the light, 10 mins later we were sat in the living room and then all three of us saw the same man dressed in a dark suit sat at the dining room table again clear as day (people will say it was perhaps suggestion but I know what I saw)

Nothing illegal had been consumed, we are all perfectly rational people and not one of us has another reason for what we saw, thats 3 people saw the same thing on two different occassions, if it wasnt a ghost then im at a loss for what it was.

That is one of an number of strange things that have happened in my house, so whilest not your average crackpot most of the time, I really believe there is more to meet the eye, not sure I believe in possessions though :agree:

[--------]

Possesion - What do you believe?

I believe that the word is spelled "possession". :devil:

[Twa Cairpets]

A few years back, I was walking past my house with two of my mates, heard a large bang inside, I knew there was no one in so looked through the window as did one of my pals, we both saw someone sitting at my dining room table at the same moment.

We went into the house and there was no one there, we put it down to a trick of the light, 10 mins later we were sat in the living room and then all three of us saw the same man dressed in a dark suit sat at the dining room table again clear as day (people will say it was perhaps suggestion but I know what I saw)

Nothing illegal had been consumed, we are all perfectly rational people and not one of us has another reason for what we saw, thats 3 people saw the same thing on two different occassions, if it wasnt a ghost then im at a loss for what it was.

That is one of an number of strange things that have happened in my house, so whilest not your average crackpot most of the time, I really believe there is more to meet the eye, not sure I believe in possessions though :agree:

Four things.
1) Why would ghosts wear clothes?
2) Having gone to all the effort to appear (thereby breaking every law of physics, biology and chemistry and any number of other scientific disciplines), why would a ghost just sit there. Would a tormented soul really just plonk itself down and wait for some type of non-corporeal dinner to be served?
3) "If it wasnt a ghost I'm at a loss for what it was" Hmm. How do you know it wasn't an alien? Or that what you actually saw was the astral projection of a Russian telepath? Or that you were in a room where a sinister Government agency were secretly experimenting with mind-control drugs? Every one has precisely the same amount of evidence. Just because you cant explain what you saw does not automatically make a default position of "Ghost" correct.
4) Not doubting what you believed you saw, but would it be more likely to think that you all actually saw a shadow/trick of the light that in an atmosphere of heightened suggestion (as you alluded to) was what you wanted/expected it to be. A swift swish of Occams razor would certainly lead one to this conclusion.

[lapsedhibee]

Having gone to all the effort to appear (thereby breaking every law of physics, biology and chemistry and any number of other scientific disciplines), why would a ghost just sit there. Would a tormented soul really just plonk itself down and wait for some type of non-corporeal dinner to be served?

Bit disingenuous. Shirley he/she/it would be just as likely to do that as wave its arms about and go woowoo (or exhibit any other particular behaviour). And why would you think that a supernatural being would need to expend any effort to break so-called laws of nature?

[Sean1875]

Possesion - What do you believe?

I believe that the word is spelled "possession". :devil:
realised after I made the thread, knew there'd be one! :greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

Bit disingenuous. Shirley he/she/it would be just as likely to do that as wave its arms about and go woowoo (or exhibit any other particular behaviour). And why would you think that a supernatural being would need to expend any effort to break so-called laws of nature?

Suspending my own total disbelief for the moment, I suppose anthropologising the behaviour of spectres is a bit disingenuous. But it would strike me as, well, disappointing somehow.

As for the laws of nature, nothing "so-called" about them. They just are. If something appeared in my house that violated everything that is understood about the way the Universe worked on a deeply fundamental level, I'd imagine there would need to be at least a wee bit of effort to make it happen.

[The Harp Awakes]

[QUOTE=ArabHibee;2741671]
Same thoughts on Blair Witch Project. Unbelievably hyped up to the point that it was just a really crap film.

Agree with TC. Seen many so called scary films over the years but the Blair Witch Project was the only one that scared the **** out of me:agree:

[Hibby70]

I think its a load of tom kite tbh.
Shows how much you know about film then. Its Tom Wilkinson.

[lapsedhibee]

Suspending my own total disbelief for the moment, I suppose anthropologising the behaviour of spectres is a bit disingenuous. But it would strike me as, well, disappointing somehow.

Where is it written that reality/the truth has to be entertaining? :dunno:
Take so-called gravity, which I presume you accept as a valid scientific concept. Even the word is dull - it almost means dull!

As for the laws of nature, nothing "so-called" about them. They just are.
Until replaced by another lot of better/simpler/more wide-rangingly explanatory ones. Ken you're on a mission to deny certain groups perceived as charlatans the dephlogisticated air of uncritical publicity, but let's not in the process give the impression that laws of nature are fixed! :panic:

[Twa Cairpets]

Where is it written that reality/the truth has to be entertaining? :dunno:
Take so-called gravity, which I presume you accept as a valid scientific concept. Even the word is dull - it almost means dull!

Until replaced by another lot of better/simpler/more wide-rangingly explanatory ones. Ken you're on a mission to deny certain groups perceived as charlatans the dephlogisticated air of uncritical publicity, but let's not in the process give the impression that laws of nature are fixed! :panic:

Loving the idea of being dephlogisticated. Sounds like the result of a damn fine night out.

The laws of nature/the universe are fixed, although I absolutely accept that our understanding of them continue to be tuned and changed as new evidence presents itself. For a ghost to appear, however - a visible apparition of the soul of a dead person - would require everything we understand about very basic and rock solid science to be completely and fundamentally wrong, and I just don't believe that is the case.

The reason the theory of phlogiston doesnt exist is that when it was investigated by science no evidence was found for its existence, so it was discarded and the very well understood, predictable and repeatable process of oxidation proposed, tested and accepted.

And in fairness to believers in ghosts and spiritualists, I dont believe they are all charlatans. Lots of them are just deluded.:wink:

[lapsedhibee]

Loving the idea of being dephlogisticated. Sounds like the result of a damn fine night out.

The laws of nature/the universe are fixed, although I absolutely accept that our understanding of them continue to be tuned and changed as new evidence presents itself. For a ghost to appear, however - a visible apparition of the soul of a dead person - would require everything we understand about very basic and rock solid science to be completely and fundamentally wrong, and I just don't believe that is the case.

The reason the theory of phlogiston doesnt exist is that when it was investigated by science no evidence was found for its existence, so it was discarded and the very well understood, predictable and repeatable process of oxidation proposed, tested and accepted.

And in fairness to believers in ghosts and spiritualists, I dont believe they are all charlatans. Lots of them are just deluded.:wink:

Where is the bit in bold written? :dunno: Or, if you prefer, where is the "evidence" :yawn::wink: to back up the assertion? :dunno: Genuine question!

[--------]

realised after I made the thread, knew there'd be one! :greengrin

Yup.

Do you know how to edit the thread title? I got one horridly wrong on Monday, ended up deleting and starting again the following day.

Regarding the subject of your thread?

I think it was C S Lewis who observed that there are two fatal errors we can fall into in regard to the devil and all his works - either we don't believe in him at all, which leaves us wide open to attack, or we become obsessed with him and what he does, in which case he has us by the short and curlies.

If you don't believe in God, there's no rational basis upon which to believe in the devil or evil spirits. If you DO believe in God, a supernatural God, then there's no rational basis to DISbelieve in them.

Cheers, mate!

[Twa Cairpets]

Where is the bit in bold written? :dunno: Or, if you prefer, where is the "evidence" :yawn::wink: to back up the assertion? :dunno: Genuine question!

The Universe act acording to a set of rules or laws such as, for example, the First Law of Thermodynamics relating to the concept of the conservation of energy. It is not written as a tablet of stone because its not that type of law - its a set of conditions under which the behaviour of matter is predictable. When our observation of the bhaviour changes, we know our interpretation is wrong, and our definition of the law changes, which is how science works.
Philosophically, it is the concept of Determinism, which appeals to me hugely.

If, as Doddie points out in his quote above, you choose to believe in the supernatural, your default state is to believe that (and I paraphrase hugely here) that physical/chemical/biological/relativity/astronomical/etc laws are all very good and well but they just don't apply when it comes to the supernatural or divine. It's impossible to prove that ghosts/demons dont exist, so you're left with making a decision based on evidence. Some people need what to my mind are astonishingly low levels of "evidence" - i.e. "I know what I saw and it must have been a ghost". Why did it have to be a ghost? Why did it have to be a demonic possession? No immediate explanation simply does not equal supernatural.

Belief in ghosts and demons is a belief in something despite every bit of evidence ot the contrary

[lapsedhibee]

The Universe act acording to a set of rules or laws such as, for example, the First Law of Thermodynamics relating to the concept of the conservation of energy. It is not written as a tablet of stone because its not that type of law - its a set of conditions under which the behaviour of matter is predictable. When our observation of the bhaviour changes, we know our interpretation is wrong, and our definition of the law changes, which is how science works.
Philosophically, it is the concept of Determinism, which appeals to me hugely.

If, as Doddie points out in his quote above, you choose to believe in the supernatural, your default state is to believe that (and I paraphrase hugely here) that physical/chemical/biological/relativity/astronomical/etc laws are all very good and well but they just don't apply when it comes to the supernatural or divine. It's impossible to prove that ghosts/demons dont exist, so you're left with making a decision based on evidence. Some people need what to my mind are astonishingly low levels of "evidence" - i.e. "I know what I saw and it must have been a ghost". Why did it have to be a ghost? Why did it have to be a demonic possession? No immediate explanation simply does not equal supernatural.

Belief in ghosts and demons is a belief in something despite every bit of evidence ot the contrary

I think you mean by the bit in bold that "the law changes" - in other words, laws of nature are not fixed. Which is how science works.

[steakbake]

The Universe act acording to a set of rules or laws such as, for example, the First Law of Thermodynamics relating to the concept of the conservation of energy. It is not written as a tablet of stone because its not that type of law - its a set of conditions under which the behaviour of matter is predictable. When our observation of the bhaviour changes, we know our interpretation is wrong, and our definition of the law changes, which is how science works.
Philosophically, it is the concept of Determinism, which appeals to me hugely.

If, as Doddie points out in his quote above, you choose to believe in the supernatural, your default state is to believe that (and I paraphrase hugely here) that physical/chemical/biological/relativity/astronomical/etc laws are all very good and well but they just don't apply when it comes to the supernatural or divine. It's impossible to prove that ghosts/demons dont exist, so you're left with making a decision based on evidence. Some people need what to my mind are astonishingly low levels of "evidence" - i.e. "I know what I saw and it must have been a ghost". Why did it have to be a ghost? Why did it have to be a demonic possession? No immediate explanation simply does not equal supernatural.

Belief in ghosts and demons is a belief in something despite every bit of evidence ot the contrary

Like you, I am a rationalist as well.

However, I think that when it comes to the paranormal, it is worth shedding the light of rationalism on to all sides.

The Universe works to a set of principles which we (humankind) believe to be the case from observation, experimentation, analysis and retesting our conclusions. However, it is far from definitive and infallible. I think that it is as risky to throw ourselves headlong in to an unshakeable belief of the supernatural as it is to deny any possibility of it.

In terms of ghosts and exorcisms, then I think it is possibly a human's observation of a phenomenon is influenced by their own set of beliefs. I don't believe in the perpetual fight between good and evil, the devil and god etc because I think those interpretations of what is observed is created by the very culture of those who observe them.

[Twa Cairpets]

I think you mean by the bit in bold that "the law changes" - in other words, laws of nature are not fixed. Which is how science works.

No, I dont mean that. I mean that the way we understand and define that law changes. What the Universe does or doesn't do is entirely independent of our ability to define it.

[Twa Cairpets]

Like you, I am a rationalist as well.

However, I think that when it comes to the paranormal, it is worth shedding the light of rationalism on to all sides.

The Universe works to a set of principles which we (humankind) believe to be the case from observation, experimentation, analysis and retesting our conclusions. However, it is far from definitive and infallible. I think that it is as risky to throw ourselves headlong in to an unshakeable belief of the supernatural as it is to deny any possibility of it.
In terms of ghosts and exorcisms, then I think it is possibly a human's observation of a phenomenon is influenced by their own set of beliefs. I don't believe in the perpetual fight between good and evil, the devil and god etc because I think those interpretations of what is observed is created by the very culture of those who observe them.


Spot on, and I dont deny any possibility of it. But I will put it in the same category as Unicorns and the pantheon of Norse Gods until there is any evidence to suggest otherwise. I am accused (probably rightly, to be fair) of being some kind of uber-rationalist and arguing against all kinds of pseudoscience, religion and paranormal/supernatural happenings. I do not believe in any of them, and it is fun to debate with people why I think they are wrong, but I am also 100%, completely and absolutely prepared to back any claim whatsoever if there is real evidence to support it.

The bottom line, fact of the matter is that if things like spiritualism/mediumship, ESP, and hauntings were real, and not the stuff of Yvette Fielding and Derek bloody Acorah it would be part of what we know as science. It would be observable, repeatable and predicatable, and not down as you very rightly point out, down to the "interpretations of what is observed .... created by the very culture of those who observe them"

There is NO evidence at all of the genuine existence of ghosts or demons. None. If there was, it would be trumpeted very loudly (and rightly so), of that you can be sure.

There are lots and lots of things I dont believe in. I dont need to give higher levels of potential credibilty to any of them if they all start from the same flatline base. I've had a discussion in the past where someone has said "of course I believe in UFO's, we've been visited and the government cover it up" "What about ghosts?" "Nah, dont believe in ghosts". Eh? What? People can believe what they want, but should be prepared to back up, at least to a degree, why they believe it, and, I hope, to be able to discuss it if challenged.

[steakbake]

Spot on, and I dont deny any possibility of it. But I will put it in the same category as Unicorns and the pantheon of Norse Gods until there is any evidence to suggest otherwise. I am accused (probably rightly, to be fair) of being some kind of uber-rationalist and arguing against all kinds of pseudoscience, religion and paranormal/supernatural happenings. I do not believe in any of them, and it is fun to debate with people why I think they are wrong, but I am also 100%, completely and absolutely prepared to back any claim whatsoever if there is real evidence to support it.

The bottom line, fact of the matter is that if things like spiritualism/mediumship, ESP, and hauntings were real, and not the stuff of Yvette Fielding and Derek bloody Acorah it would be part of what we know as science. It would be observable, repeatable and predicatable, and not down as you very rightly point out, down to the "interpretations of what is observed .... created by the very culture of those who observe them"

There is NO evidence at all of the genuine existence of ghosts or demons. None. If there was, it would be trumpeted very loudly (and rightly so), of that you can be sure.

There are lots and lots of things I dont believe in. I dont need to give higher levels of potential credibilty to any of them if they all start from the same flatline base. I've had a discussion in the past where someone has said "of course I believe in UFO's, we've been visited and the government cover it up" "What about ghosts?" "Nah, dont believe in ghosts". Eh? What? People can believe what they want, but should be prepared to back up, at least to a degree, why they believe it, and, I hope, to be able to discuss it if challenged.

I saw Odin in Lidl the other day. He totally exists.

[Mon Dieu4]

Four things.
1) Why would ghosts wear clothes? Dunno why when I see something pointy or sharp do I have to touch it to see just how pointy or sharp it is?
2) Having gone to all the effort to appear (thereby breaking every law of physics, biology and chemistry and any number of other scientific disciplines), why would a ghost just sit there. Would a tormented soul really just plonk itself down and wait for some type of non-corporeal dinner to be served? Who said it was a tormented soul? maybe it was quite happy having a wee rest and putting the feet up
3) "If it wasnt a ghost I'm at a loss for what it was" Hmm. How do you know it wasn't an alien? Or that what you actually saw was the astral projection of a Russian telepath? Or that you were in a room where a sinister Government agency were secretly experimenting with mind-control drugs? Every one has precisely the same amount of evidence. Just because you cant explain what you saw does not automatically make a default position of "Ghost" correct. Would agree with that but ghost seemed the more likely explanation
4) Not doubting what you believed you saw, but would it be more likely to think that you all actually saw a shadow/trick of the light that in an atmosphere of heightened suggestion (as you alluded to) was what you wanted/expected it to be. A swift swish of Occams razor would certainly lead one to this conclusion. As I already said lots of other strange things have happened in the house too, so probably jumped to that conclusion


Cheers I feel better now and might actually sleep tonight now :faf:

[(((Fergus)))]

Like you, I am a rationalist as well.

However, I think that when it comes to the paranormal, it is worth shedding the light of rationalism on to all sides.

The Universe works to a set of principles which we (humankind) believe to be the case from observation, experimentation, analysis and retesting our conclusions. However, it is far from definitive and infallible. I think that it is as risky to throw ourselves headlong in to an unshakeable belief of the supernatural as it is to deny any possibility of it.

In terms of ghosts and exorcisms, then I think it is possibly a human's observation of a phenomenon is influenced by their own set of beliefs. I don't believe in the perpetual fight between good and evil, the devil and god etc because I think those interpretations of what is observed is created by the very culture of those who observe them.

How long ago was the radio invented. I say "invented" but it was merely uncovered as the capability had been there all along. If you'd told people in the 1600s that you could talk directly to people 1000s of miles away they may well have burnt you at the stake.

[Twa Cairpets]

Cheers I feel better now and might actually sleep tonight now :faf:

Aye, but watch out for the boogeymen riding the Unicorns through your wall.

[lapsedhibee]

No, I dont mean that. I mean that the way we understand and define that law changes. What the Universe does or doesn't do is entirely independent of our ability to define it.

That's not an empirically established position though, that's a philosophical viewpoint that you've chosen to feel comfortable with. A useful working assumption, if you will. Not in any way scientifically based.

You seem to talk about 'the/that law' in the way that religious people talk about 'the word'.

[Twa Cairpets]

How long ago was the radio invented. I say "invented" but it was merely uncovered as the capability had been there all along. If you'd told people in the 1600s that you could talk directly to people 1000s of miles away they may well have burnt you at the stake.

And your point is?

We dont know what we dont know, and no-one would dispute this. The point is that no-one was claiming that they were listening to people talking thousands of miles away via a speaking box, whereas people do claim to see ghosts.

If your hypothetical person in 1600 had turned up with a box that was broadcasting noise every time a button was pressed, and everyone could objectively hear the same sounds every time, it would have been pretty conclusive evidence that the box was, indeed, some type of noise transmitting device. They may well have hypothesised witchcraft, but then when the burning of a few heretics or the ministrations of an exorcist failed to stop the box transmitting, they would have had eventually to realise that it wasnt witchcraft, so they would come up with another idea.

If your argument is that because we dont know everything yet, and that science (yes, science again) may discover advances and technologies that would be quite literally unthinkable today means that every supernatural belief in ghosties, ghouls, goblins, fairies, elves, spectres, werewolves, vampires, demons, poltergeists and any other mythical spook is somehow validated, then your argument is entirely bunk. Again, it comes down to why you would want to believe in something for which, I repeat, there is not a single shred of evidence that holds up to any critical examination?

[Twa Cairpets]

That's not an empirically established position though, that's a philosophical viewpoint that you've chosen to feel comfortable with. A useful working assumption, if you will. Not in any way scientifically based.

Well it is empircally established insofar as every scientific principle that exists has been tested, retested and used to provide predictions for future events. When a test or a prediction fails the theory needs to be scrapped or reworked until it fails. So I think pretty much every word of the your post is wrong.


You seem to talk about 'the/that law' in the way that religious people talk about 'the word'.
Well, I did quite specifically write a couple of posts ago that: "It is not written as a tablet of stone because its not that type of law - its a set of conditions under which the behaviour of matter is predictable. When our observation of the behaviour changes, we know our interpretation is wrong, and our definition of the law changes, which is how science works."
So please dont lay that one on me. It is a commonly used argument of creationists (in particular the odious Ray "banana man" Comfort) "If there is a moral law there has to be a moral law giver, if there are physical laws there has to be a physcial law creator etc etc". They deliberately mix the meaning of words to create false positions of validity amongst the credulous.

The wiki definition of Scientific law is as good as any. "A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law)

[deeks01]

Personally I think all horror films are class when watched with female company as they all end up **** scared and cuddling in which can lead to me getting my nat king cole which can only be a good thing. :faf:

However the only film ever to give me a sleepless night was the exorcism of emily rose , watched it whilst in myself and found it quite creepy but thought that would be it , the film finished at exactly 3am (those who have watched the film will know what I mean) and that had me diving for the lights but as soon as i flicked them on they fused , every light in the house was out , never been so scared as i was fiddling with every bit in the fusebox with just the teeny-tiny torch at the end of my lighter... christ just thinking back to that night gives me the heeby jeebies!!! :faf: , my dad was rather worried when i was so delighted at him coming home from the nightshift! :faf

[ArabHibee]

Agree with TC. Seen many so called scary films over the years but the Blair Witch Project was the only one that scared the **** out of me:agree:


Really? BWP absolutely scared the bejesus out of me. Absolutely kacked masel, and a film I will never, ever watch again.

I guess for me it was all the hype. I was slightly unnerved before I went in to see it because of all the media attention it had got, only to find a rather boring film with shakey camera shots and snotty nosed kids peering into the camera. Not my idea of a good film, but everyone to their own.


On a partly serious note, do Spirtualist meetings have sings on the doors saying "For entertainment purposes only" on their flyers and posters? They should have.

It's scary in exactly the same way as a scary film is - if you're willing to suspend belief and let yourself get dragged into the atmosphere, then its scary, but it does not make ghosts real. Spirtualism started with the Fox sisters in the US in the 1840s, and since denied, debunked and entirely exposed as a scam performed by charlatans.

Cold reading, hot reading and credulous audiences with a massive tendency towards confirmation bias makes it all seem so real in a "how could he/she possibly know that" type of way.

Have you ever been to a spiritualist church?

[lapsedhibee]

Well it is empircally established insofar as every scientific principle that exists has been tested, retested and used to provide predictions for future events. When a test or a prediction fails the theory needs to be scrapped or reworked until it fails. So I think pretty much every word of the your post is wrong.

When has your claim that Laws Of Nature Are Fixed ever been scientifically tested?


Well, I did quite specifically write a couple of posts ago that: "It is not written as a tablet of stone because its not that type of law - its a set of conditions under which the behaviour of matter is predictable. When our observation of the behaviour changes, we know our interpretation is wrong, and our definition of the law changes, which is how science works."
So please dont lay that one on me. It is a commonly used argument of creationists (in particular the odious Ray "banana man" Comfort) "If there is a moral law there has to be a moral law giver, if there are physical laws there has to be a physcial law creator etc etc". They deliberately mix the meaning of words to create false positions of validity amongst the credulous.

The wiki definition of Scientific law is as good as any. "A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation. A scientific law must always apply under the same conditions, and implies a causal relationship between its elements. The law must be confirmed and broadly agreed upon through the process of inductive reasoning" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law)

Laws are quite clearly created by humans. Laws of fitba by people who are interested in fitba, scientific laws by scientists. The whole idea that science is carried out by neutral, pure-minded people heroically uncovering objective 'facts' seems to me at least as bizarre as believing that there are supernatural forces of Good and Evil continually struggling against each other for possession of human souls. (Slightly more bizarre, if I'm being brutally honest.)

[Twa Cairpets]

When has your claim that Laws Of Nature Are Fixed ever been scientifically tested?
I dont think I can explain it any more clearly than I did above, but I'll try again. If you test and retest something, and it works, and you can use the theory to accurately predict what will happen then that works for me. If what happens isnt fixed, then such predictability would fail.



Laws are quite clearly created by humans. Laws of fitba by people who are interested in fitba, scientific laws by scientists.
You're being deliberately obtuse, I suspect. The meaning of "laws" for football is different to the meaning of "laws" in science. Have a look again at my last post.


The whole idea that science is carried out by neutral, pure-minded people heroically uncovering objective 'facts' seems to me at least as bizarre as believing that there are supernatural forces of Good and Evil continually struggling against each other for possession of human souls. (Slightly more bizarre, if I'm being brutally honest.)

Ah, this old chestnut. Apologies if Im using "science" as shorthand for "scientific method". What we are doing now, for example - communicating via the inernet - is entirely, completely and utterly down to scientists working away, building on the sum of knowledge in existence, researching new technologies and ways of manipulating matter and energy. Scientific laws mean that every time we turn a phone on it we know it will, under given conditions, work. Whether it is driven by industry, commerce or is pure research carried out in Universities throughout the world, whether the scientists are pure minded or not is entirely immaterial. If a hypothesis is proposed, it will very soon be shown to be right or wrong by the scientific community in all of its guises either validating it into a theory or disproving it totally.

I have never said that science operates in the rarified way you infer. If you really believe that everything that has been made possible in the last 150 years since the concept of the scientific method has been in place is less likely (despite you seeing the outcomes and benefits of it every single day) than some demonic/angelic supernatural conflict, then you have a stunningly different view of the world to me.

[Future17]

Where is the bit in bold written? :dunno: Or, if you prefer, where is the "evidence" :yawn::wink: to back up the assertion? :dunno: Genuine question!

Don't get him started - we've been here before! :wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

Have you ever been to a spiritualist church?

Once, about twenty five years ago in Manchester. It was like a low grade cabaret act, and I lasted half an hour.

[steakbake]

I went to a spiritualist church a few times several years ago, just to observe! I think it fulfils a certain need for people. I don't think there is much going on, but it was just very general stuff that could apply to anyone:

"I've got an older gentleman and his name is John or James or Jimmy..."

"Aye - my granda was called Janet"

"Yes - that's him".

"He wasn't feeling too good near the end...."

"Yep, right enough he wasn't feeling too great with the cancer and all that..."

"He's talking about something you used to do - walking in a park, some outdoor activity... football, rugby, fishing etc etc...."

"He hated going outside."

"That's what he's saying - he didn't like outdoor activities...he's sorry about that and wishes he could go for a wee walk in the park with you. I'll leave his blessings with you."

[Betty Boop]

I went to a spiritualist church a few times several years ago, just to observe! I think it fulfils a certain need for people. I don't think there is much going on, but it was just very general stuff that could apply to anyone:

"I've got an older gentleman and his name is John or James or Jimmy..."

"Aye - my granda was called Janet"

"Yes - that's him".

"He wasn't feeling too good near the end...."

"Yep, right enough he wasn't feeling too great with the cancer and all that..."

"He's talking about something you used to do - walking in a park, some outdoor activity... football, rugby, fishing etc etc...."

"He hated going outside."

"That's what he's saying - he didn't like outdoor activities...he's sorry about that and wishes he could go for a wee walk in the park with you. I'll leave his blessings with you."

:agree: I went to the Spiritualist Church at Portobello, a couple of times with my pal, who had lost his Mum. I thought that the congregation consisted of quite a few desperate people, who were looking to make contact with their loved ones who had passed over to the other side, sprinkled with a few 'plants' to make it look good. I think they exploit peoples grief IMO.

[Beefster]

:agree: I went to the Spiritualist Church at Portobello, a couple of times with my pal, who had lost his Mum. I thought that the congregation consisted of quite a few desperate people, who were looking to make contact with their loved ones who had passed over to the other side, sprinkled with a few 'plants' to make it look good. I think they exploit peoples grief IMO.

You're right about it being exploitation and I don't believe they contact the after-life but, however they do it, they can sometimes be very good.

I went to Portobello in the early 90's with my girlfriend of the time because her Gran had not long died. Anyway, my g/friend was pointed out directly (i.e. there was no "I've got a Betty here. Anyone?") and told that her Gran (who was named fully) was watching her all the time but would miss their 'special' time sitting in front of the telly watching some programme of the time (again, named and it was a programme that they made a point of sitting down to watch) and making stovies for the family every weekend.

Needless to say, my g/friend was utterly convinced and I still can't explain it. There were none of the obvious ambiguities or any conversations beforehand that someone could have overheard.

[lapsedhibee]

The meaning of "laws" for football is different to the meaning of "laws" in science.
So you say.


Ah, this old chestnut. Apologies if Im using "science" as shorthand for "scientific method". What we are doing now, for example - communicating via the inernet - is entirely, completely and utterly down to scientists working away, building on the sum of knowledge in existence, researching new technologies and ways of manipulating matter and energy. Scientific laws mean that every time we turn a phone on it we know it will, under given conditions, work. Whether it is driven by industry, commerce or is pure research carried out in Universities throughout the world, whether the scientists are pure minded or not is entirely immaterial. If a hypothesis is proposed, it will very soon be shown to be right or wrong by the scientific community in all of its guises either validating it into a theory or disproving it totally.

I have never said that science operates in the rarified way you infer. If you really believe that everything that has been made possible in the last 150 years since the concept of the scientific method has been in place is less likely (despite you seeing the outcomes and benefits of it every single day) than some demonic/angelic supernatural conflict, then you have a stunningly different view of the world to me.
The only point I am trying to make is that scientific laws are constructs of the human mind, just as much as ghouls, hobgoblins and the offside rule. If ten squillion scientists verify/corroborate/fail to invalidate Newton's laws of motion, that's strong evidence that the laws are independent of Newton, not that they exist independently of the human mind. You are claiming a special status for scientific endeavour and knowledge which is not backed up by anything other than assertion and a circular argument - basically, any endeavour which uses the scientific method is superior to any endeavour that doesn't; science uses scientific method all the time; therefore, science is always the best way to go about knowing.

I'm interested why you choose to believe that proper science started 150 years ago. Do you mean at the time of the UK's industrial revolution?

Certainly a few hundred years ago scientists like Newton applied their talents to much wider areas of human knowledge than scientists do now. Perhaps that's one reason why the last couple of hundred years have been so 'successful' - because the scope of the endeavours is so much more narrowly defined.

[steakbake]

:agree: I went to the Spiritualist Church at Portobello, a couple of times with my pal, who had lost his Mum. I thought that the congregation consisted of quite a few desperate people, who were looking to make contact with their loved ones who had passed over to the other side, sprinkled with a few 'plants' to make it look good. I think they exploit peoples grief IMO.

I'm on the fence about whether the Spiritualists exploit. It's free to go to their services, anyone can go and it's really, I think, all about fulfilling a need like all religion is: whether that is a need for moral codes, a need to believe that there is something more beyond the earthly plain or whatever. A lot of people want to think they are not just whispering into the abyss and that the omnipresent sky wizard is indeed watching and waiting to reward/punish them at a whim.

Personally, from what I saw, it was generally a room of people who had for whatever reason, not been able to come to terms with the loss of a loved one and a few other people who go their regularly because their need to be in a community or have company was fulfilled in doing so.

It was, to be honest, pretty bleak... or maybe I'm deeply cynical.

[Twa Cairpets]

So you say.

The only point I am trying to make is that scientific laws are constructs of the human mind, just as much as ghouls, hobgoblins and the offside rule.

No. Absolutely not, certainly not in any meaningful way. An understanding of the laws governing the relationship between temperature, pressure and volume is a completely duifferent thing to the entirely human constructs you mention. If you are going to simplify everything to the point of "its what we as people do" then thats a pointless catch-all answer to every endeavour that mankind takes part in.


If ten squillion scientists verify/corroborate/fail to invalidate Newton's laws of motion, that's strong evidence that the laws are independent of Newton, not that they exist independently of the human mind. Which is my point precisley. The way the universe works is an absolute, and (excluding diversions into where observation does influence measurement at a quantum level involving messrs Schroedinger and Heisenberg) will exist whether or not anyone is there to see it happen.


You are claiming a special status for scientific endeavour and knowledge which is not backed up by anything other than assertion and a circular argument - basically, any endeavour which uses the scientific method is superior to any endeavour that doesn't science uses scientific method all the time; therefore, science is always the best way to go about knowing.
;

Yes, absolutely, in areas which are relevant. I wouldnt use scientific method to determine what is "right" morally or what makes good art because it would be like trying to determine temperature with a measuring tape, but I sure as hell view it as being infinitely superior to hearsay, supposition, anecdote and ignorance for areas which lend themselves to rational analysis.


I'm interested why you choose to believe that proper science started 150 years ago. Do you mean at the time of the UK's industrial revolution?
Certainly a few hundred years ago scientists like Newton applied their talents to much wider areas of human knowledge than scientists do now. Perhaps that's one reason why the last couple of hundred years have been so 'successful' - because the scope of the endeavours is so much more narrowly defined.

Analyitcal science had no specific start point, but really blossomed when "gentleman scientists" from roughly the early 1800's started codifying, structuring, analysing and challenging what they saw and how it was interpreted. Previous advances had been primarily driven by military endeavours. Science isnt just test tubes, but practical experiments. As far back as the mid 1700's when the cure for scurvy was identified by James Lind by experimenting with what made sailors better (a bit brutal as one of the alternatives tested was sulfuric acid). That science and whilst a crude form, follows scientific methodology.

As for Newton, he believed passionately and completely in alchemy and dedicated years searching for "the philosophers stone". He was wrong, and he is now remembered for what he identified in "Principia" not for changing base metal into gold.

Every argument you have made is essentially founded on the point that science doesnt have all the answers. It would be interesting to see if you have any points that would positively back up and corroborate peoples belief in the existence of the paranormal.

[lapsedhibee]

The way the universe works is an absolute, and (excluding diversions into where observation does influence measurement at a quantum level involving messrs Schroedinger and Heisenberg) will exist whether or not anyone is there to see it happen.
You repeat that scientific laws are absolutely true, entirely independent of human input - but that's all you're doing, repeating your own chosen philosophical standpoint. Obviously, other people choose different philosophical standpoints from which to try and make sense of their surroundings, which don't necessarily coincide with yours.
What's your point about quantum science there? Is it a 'diversion' rather than proper science?


I wouldnt use scientific method to determine what is "right" morally or what makes good art because it would be like trying to determine temperature with a measuring tape, but I sure as hell view it as being infinitely superior to hearsay, supposition, anecdote and ignorance for areas which lend themselves to rational analysis.

Analytical science had no specific start point, but really blossomed when "gentleman scientists" from roughly the early 1800's started codifying, structuring, analysing and challenging what they saw and how it was interpreted. Previous advances had been primarily driven by military endeavours. Science isnt just test tubes, but practical experiments. As far back as the mid 1700's when the cure for scurvy was identified by James Lind by experimenting with what made sailors better (a bit brutal as one of the alternatives tested was sulfuric acid). That science and whilst a crude form, follows scientific methodology.

And all the rational analysis, experimentation and pursuit of knowledge that went on between 2000BC and 1750AD - worth anything at all, or no better than hearsay supposition anecdote and ignorance?


As for Newton, he believed passionately and completely in alchemy and dedicated years searching for "the philosophers stone". He was wrong, and he is now remembered for what he identified in "Principia" not for changing base metal into gold.

He's remembered by scientists for some bits of the Principia. I'd find it hard to conclude that he believed "completely" in alchemy nor "dedicated years" to it as you suggest. I'm not sure the evidence is there for that. I think of his interest in alchemy more as an integral part of his pursuit of greater understanding of the whole of his environment - a holistic approach attitude sadly lacking in contemporary sciencemongers. Some of the alchemy may look a bit far-fetched because he was working before Lavoisier and the modern periodic table, but the possibility of modifying metals, and the desire to do so, wasn't farfetched at all.

Every argument you have made is essentially founded on the point that science doesnt have all the answers. It would be interesting to see if you have any points that would positively back up and corroborate peoples belief in the existence of the paranormal.
No, my point isn't that science doesn't have all the answers. It's that a particular way of looking at the world is held up to be uniquely correct, to the detriment of all other ways. The one true way.
I haven't met any ghosties myself, but I wouldn't necessarily be scorning people who had on the grounds that they couldn't reproduce the meetings, didn't have the meetings peer-reviewed and published in Nature, etc etc etc. I just wouldn't be asking 'where's your scientific proof'? It wouldn't seem, to me, an appropriate question to ask.

[Twa Cairpets]

You repeat that scientific laws are absolutely true, entirely independent of human input - but that's all you're doing, repeating your own chosen philosophical standpoint. Obviously, other people choose different philosophical standpoints from which to try and make sense of their surroundings, which don't necessarily coincide with yours.
What's your point about quantum science there? Is it a 'diversion' rather than proper science?
OK.
Its not a philosophical viewpoint. It is a concusion that allows me and the world to function. Is that better? If someone chooses to believe that gravity doesnt work, they dont suddenly float of into the ether.
As I suspect you know, on a quantum level the act of observation can affect the observation itself. Its understood, its absolutely within the realms of good science (if not bloody hard to get your head around).


And all the rational analysis, experimentation and pursuit of knowledge that went on between 2000BC and 1750AD - worth anything at all, or no better than hearsay supposition anecdote and ignorance? Have I even suggested this? No. Nice straw man though. I would say though that when superstition, fear and ignorance were challenged things started to develop a damn sight faster though.


He's remembered by scientists for some bits of the Principia. I'd find it hard to conclude that he believed "completely" in alchemy nor "dedicated years" to it as you suggest. I'm not sure the evidence is there for that. I think of his interest in alchemy more as an integral part of his pursuit of greater understanding of the whole of his environment - a holistic approach attitude sadly lacking in contemporary sciencemongers. Some of the alchemy may look a bit far-fetched because he was working before Lavoisier and the modern periodic table, but the possibility of modifying metals, and the desire to do so, wasn't farfetched at all.

"A holistic approach attitude sadly lacking in contemporary sciencemongers"

Hmm.

So it would be better if people working in, say genetics research and astronomy meet up to share notes over a coffee, in a kind of Dirk Gently-esque fundamental interconnectedness of all things kind of way.

I'll grant that Newton was working in less enlightened times, but it did become something of an obsession with him, and it is fact that he continued to believe despite all evidence to the contrary. It is partly of course due to the age in which he lived and the info he had available to him, but it was, and still is, far fetched, and (with only slight apologies to keep beating this drum) entirely without evidence to support its possibility.



No, my point isn't that science doesn't have all the answers. It's that a particular way of looking at the world is held up to be uniquely correct, to the detriment of all other ways. The one true way.
I haven't met any ghosties myself, but I wouldn't necessarily be scorning people who had on the grounds that they couldn't reproduce the meetings, didn't have the meetings peer-reviewed and published in Nature, etc etc etc. I just wouldn't be asking 'where's your scientific proof'? It wouldn't seem, to me, an appropriate question to ask.

That's a rather sneering reply dont you think? I wouldn't ask anyone that either if they wanted to talk about it. I would ask them to think if they had any other explanations, to consider other possibilities, to consider if seeing something they couldnt immediately explain automatically meant that ghost was the only or likely explanation.

What would you think would be a an appropriate question? Did it go "whooo"?

[Removed]

Channel 5 tonight 10:55 (http://www.five.tv/shows/the-true-story/episodes/the-exorcist)

Anyone seen this before? Worth a watch?

[MSK]

:agree: I went to the Spiritualist Church at Portobello, a couple of times with my pal, who had lost his Mum. I thought that the congregation consisted of quite a few desperate people, who were looking to make contact with their loved ones who had passed over to the other side, sprinkled with a few 'plants' to make it look good. I think they exploit peoples grief IMO.I also went to that spiritualist church in Portobello, not really for myself but more to support my Wife who was greiving the loss of her Mother, she wasnt "desperate" & neither was I. My Wife didnt get a message but I did, I wont post the details here but you are more than welcome to pm me & I will share.

As "sceptical" as I was I must say I was pretty stunned at the accuracy of the medium. This wasnt just the old baloney that is described above but to the point accurate. If this was guess work then she was bloody brilliant at it.

[Twa Cairpets]

I also went to that spiritualist church in Portobello, not really for myself but more to support my Wife who was greiving the loss of her Mother, she wasnt "desperate" & neither was I. My Wife didnt get a message but I did, I wont post the details here but you are more than welcome to pm me & I will share.

As "sceptical" as I was I must say I was pretty stunned at the accuracy of the medium. This wasnt just the old baloney that is described above but to the point accurate. If this was guess work then she was bloody brilliant at it.

I'm not doubting people such as yourself have exceptionally convincing experiences, but if you've ever watched someone like Derren Brown perform, for example, you can see that accomplished cold readers can get results that just dont seem to be possible, and are clearly nor mediumship or spirits talking.

I'd ask you to consider what is more likely - that you've been in a weird position where you have been subject to confirmation bias (i.e. forgetting the "misses") from an accomplished (and very possibly self-convinced) cold-reading performer, or if you have genuinely been visited by a spirit through a guy on a stage?

It's a book I've mentioned a few times in threads, but "Attack of the Unsinkable Rubber Ducks" by Christopher Brookmyre is a brilliant and funny novel that wpuld be worth looking at given your experience.

[MSK]

I'm not doubting people such as yourself have exceptionally convincing experiences, but if you've ever watched someone like Derren Brown perform, for example, you can see that accomplished cold readers can get results that just dont seem to be possible, and are clearly nor mediumship or spirits talking.

I'd ask you to consider what is more likely - that you've been in a weird position where you have been subject to confirmation bias (i.e. forgetting the "misses") from an accomplished (and very possibly self-convinced) cold-reading performer, or if you have genuinely been visited by a spirit through a guy on a stage?
It's a book I've mentioned a few times in threads, but "Attack of the Unsinkable Rubber Ducks" by Christopher Brookmyre is a brilliant and funny novel that wpuld be worth looking at given your experience.I know you are not doubting my experience mate, you have added much food for thought on this thread that perhaps could even lead to me doubting my experience. However I just cant seem to dis-believe what I heard. I went home & disected what was said & I simply couldnt come up with a reason as to why this Medium was privy to such detailed information.

As I said previously I was sceptical before & if truth be told I am still not 100% convinced, I took great comfort in what I was told so perhaps there is a part of me that just wants to keep that candle burning ..

[Saorsa]

I think it's a load of pish

[lapsedhibee]

Its not a philosophical viewpoint.

Your apparent view, unless I've misunderstood, is that there is an external world which operates according to fixed scientific laws and that the way this world operates is absolutely and completely independent of human investigators. In other words, if there were no humans and never had been any humans, the world would be exactly the same, just without humans. This is what I would call a philosophical viewpoint, as I do not see how any experiment could be carried out which would corroborate, validate or invalidate it.

It is a concusion that allows me and the world to function. Is that better? If someone chooses to believe that gravity doesnt work, they dont suddenly float of into the ether.
But the world functions just as well for people who do not adopt your standpoint, so the functioning of the world does not depend on adopting your standpoint.


I would say though that when superstition, fear and ignorance were challenged things started to develop a damn sight faster though.
Superstition fear and ignorance have been challenged since at least the beginning of recorded history though. I wonder whether your view about this challenging being something that took off in the UK a couple hundred years ago is more to do with how science is taught in the UK (I'm quite sure that French people are taught that French gentlemen scientists were the key, Italians that Italian gentlemen scientists were, etc.)



So it would be better if people working in, say genetics research and astronomy meet up to share notes over a coffee, in a kind of Dirk Gently-esque fundamental interconnectedness of all things kind of way.
I dunno who Dirk Gently is, but it's a relatively modern thing to split knowledge into the particular subjects that are taught today. Shirley this is just for administrative convenience - I don't think that proper scientists actually think that maths and physics have real boundaries between them, do they?


I'll grant that Newton was working in less enlightened times, but it did become something of an obsession with him, and it is fact that he continued to believe despite all evidence to the contrary. It is partly of course due to the age in which he lived and the info he had available to him, but it was, and still is, far fetched, and (with only slight apologies to keep beating this drum) entirely without evidence to support its possibility.

My current understanding, which may be wrong, about metals is that they can be changed into other metals by bombarding them with one or other sort of fundamental particles, and mibbe adding a bit extraneous warming to help the process on its way. The technology wasn't available to Newton, but not sure why you would say his time was less enlightened.


That's a rather sneering reply dont you think?
Not intentional. Apologies if seemed so.

I wouldn't ask anyone that either if they wanted to talk about it. I would ask them to think if they had any other explanations, to consider other possibilities, to consider if seeing something they couldnt immediately explain automatically meant that ghost was the only or likely explanation.

So you would lead them, gently, to the conclusion that they were wrong because they weren't thinking scientifically enough?

What would you think would be a an appropriate question? Did it go "whooo"?
I probably wouldn't, myself, ask any questions. I wouldn't feel the need to convert them either. Think personally there are far more pressing problems in the world to be worried about than whether people believe in demons, poltergeists, saviours, whatever. For example, the number of people in the UK who buy birthday and Christmas cards for their pets.

[Dashing Bob S]

That 81% is better than 19%.

We give it away too cheaply.

Seriously, what an enlightening and fascinating thread this has been, as I knew absolutely nothing about this subject.

Thanks to all who contributed.

[Twa Cairpets]

Your apparent view, unless I've misunderstood, is that there is an external world which operates according to fixed scientific laws and that the way this world operates is absolutely and completely independent of human investigators. In other words, if there were no humans and never had been any humans, the world would be exactly the same, just without humans. This is what I would call a philosophical viewpoint, as I do not see how any experiment could be carried out which would corroborate, validate or invalidate it.
But the world functions just as well for people who do not adopt your standpoint, so the functioning of the world does not depend on adopting your standpoint.

Except for all the evidence we have of what the world was like pre-human existence, the way the solar system operates, the way that uninhabited parts of the planet operates. I'll grant you that no-one has ever proven that when we're not watching, ghosts come out, the wavelength of light changes and gravity switches off. I don't believe this happens, so if this is a philosophical viewpoint then fair enough. The second bit about the world functioning regardless of your viewpoint I think we agree on.


Superstition fear and ignorance have been challenged since at least the beginning of recorded history though. I wonder whether your view about this challenging being something that took off in the UK a couple hundred years ago is more to do with how science is taught in the UK (I'm quite sure that French people are taught that French gentlemen scientists were the key, Italians that Italian gentlemen scientists were, etc.)

I didnt say it was UK based, I said it was broadly a Victorian thing as a timeframe, but I suppose things really took off from the mid 1700's. Pasteur, Medeleev, Curie, Linnaeus, Franklin, not to mention Einstein more recently are a few I can think of off the top of my head from other countries who have had a massive impact on step changes in scienctific development. What is generally indisputable, I think, is that technological/scientific advances have grown exponentially over the last, say 300 years in comparison to the rest of human history.


I dunno who Dirk Gently is, but it's a relatively modern thing to split knowledge into the particular subjects that are taught today. Shirley this is just for administrative convenience - I don't think that proper scientists actually think that maths and physics have real boundaries between them, do they?.
Dirk Gently is the main character of two Douglas Adams books - "Dirk Gentlys Holistic Detective Agency" and "The Long Dark Tea Time Of The Soul" (surely one of the best book titles ever).

The reason why the the various scientific disciplines are distinct is due to the vast body of knowledge that now exists. To be at the cutting edge of, say, telecommunications research you probably don't need a huge knowledge of chemical engineering. Researchers of new vaccines don't need to have a detailed understanding of geology. I think if your mental picture of "proper scientists" is boffin types in white coats comparing notes on ludicrously complex equations (as many people seem to think), then their activity can all be perceived under a kind of generic "sciencey stuff" thing, but it just isnt like that (for the most part anyway).


My current understanding, which may be wrong, about metals is that they can be changed into other metals by bombarding them with one or other sort of fundamental particles, and mibbe adding a bit extraneous warming to help the process on its way. The technology wasn't available to Newton, but not sure why you would say his time was less enlightened.
His time was less enlightened simply because he/they didnt have the tools or body of accepted knowledge to build on. A good example is Darwin (albeit 150 odd years later) - he formed the basic theory of evolution without any knowledge of bacteria or microbiology. The initial theory he proposed was developed and challenged and changed as more evidence came to life, although in broad brush terms he was right. He was certainly less enlightened, but the brilliance of his theory, although changed as more evidence comes to light, is still seen as a step change of scientific progress, as was Principia.

I'm pretty sure that the only way elemental atoms can change from one element to another is through radioactive decay, a concept that would not have occurred to Newton.


Not intentional. Apologies if seemed so.
Nae probs


So you would lead them, gently, to the conclusion that they were wrong because they weren't thinking scientifically enough?

I probably wouldn't, myself, ask any questions. I wouldn't feel the need to convert them either. Think personally there are far more pressing problems in the world to be worried about than whether people believe in demons, poltergeists, saviours, whatever. For example, the number of people in the UK who buy birthday and Christmas cards for their pets.

I'm not out to convert, but I would certainly (depending on the circumnstances, challenge and discuss). And you are right, there are lots of other important problems, but you could apply that argument to any topic and then we'd never discuss anything other than life or death issues. (no pun intended)

However, belief in such things to me is indicative of someone being uncritical or unskeptical in their outlook, which I think is extremely important and is a pressing problem. If you read a newspaper or a website or watch a tv programme, the general rule of thumb I apply is that the wilder the claim the more evidence is needed to suport it. In terms of this thread, it does my head when someone like Derek Acorah or Colin Fry or Joe Power come on a programme and are introduced as the "well-known psychic" or some such. It means that everything that follows is based on the uncritical acceptance that their "powers" are real. They're not. They've been shown to be frauds time and time again, but people still swallow it. If you are bombarded with such uncritical media on these things, I believe it dulls the capacity to think rationally.

Agree about pet christmas cards though. Whats that all about? I did also see a programme that had a pet psychic communicator on. This bloody woman claimed that she could talk with everything from dogs to tortoises. She averaged if I recall correctly 6 consultations a day at £50 a pop. "Tiddles loves you very much and especially likes the fish Whiskas". "Henry says that he'd like a new wheel in his cage". "Bonzo just loves going for walkies". "That'll be £50 please". Does that not just make you fume?:fuming:

[lapsedhibee]

Agree about pet christmas cards though. Whats that all about? I did also see a programme that had a pet psychic communicator on. This bloody woman claimed that she could talk with everything from dogs to tortoises. She averaged if I recall correctly 6 consultations a day at £50 a pop. "Tiddles loves you very much and especially likes the fish Whiskas". "Henry says that he'd like a new wheel in his cage". "Bonzo just loves going for walkies". "That'll be £50 please". Does that not just make you fume?:fuming:

Ach, live and let live I suppose. If they weren't handing over their £50s to psychic communicators they'd be spending them on RRevolution reversible satin jackets, or handing them over to cosmetic surgeons to correct syndactyly, or whatever.

[steakbake]

Agree about pet christmas cards though. Whats that all about? I did also see a programme that had a pet psychic communicator on. This bloody woman claimed that she could talk with everything from dogs to tortoises. She averaged if I recall correctly 6 consultations a day at £50 a pop. "Tiddles loves you very much and especially likes the fish Whiskas". "Henry says that he'd like a new wheel in his cage". "Bonzo just loves going for walkies". "That'll be £50 please". Does that not just make you fume?:fuming:

A fool and their money are soon parted.... besides, sometimes you don't need to be a psychic to see them coming!

[Twa Cairpets]

A fool and their money are soon parted.... besides, sometimes you don't need to be a psychic to see them coming!

I know this is going off topic, but have a look at these

American woman (http://www.petperceptions.com/services.htm) $120/hour for on the phone consulatations, $240 for a visit!!!!!

Scottish woman. (http://www.joannehull.com/readings.html) £45 to look at a photo and get a reading. Suffice to say she is recommended by Derek bloody Acorah and Uri bloody Geller.

They talk about energies, talking to those who have passed to spirit, and claiming to be able to take a reading and consultation over the phone or from a F****** PHOTO!!!!

The questions to ask are stupendously varied. Do ferrets speak in the same language and gerbils. Do foreign pets speak in English? What has a pet spider got to say about the way its owner treated them? For those animals that have "passed to spirit" do they need to be christian pets?

I would guess that even those most willing to give credence to parapsychological/parnormal activity would think these women are at best deluded but more likely just plain frauds. What I would ask is that why would their claims be any more outlandish than those of human spiritualists/mediums when the evidence for each is exactly the same?

[Andy74]

I've met a couple of RC priests who are exorcists. Very thorough training involved and they were both at pains to make it clear that referral for medical/psychiatric help is an early port of call so to speak.

Having said that, they were both clear they believed that extreme evil manifestations of a supernatural sort do happen and gave an example each. As they were both rational blokes and given my belief in supernatural 'good', I'd no reason to doubt them although both stories raised an eyebrow.

A couple of rational blokes who believe a guy sitting up in the clowds created the earth and then sent his son down to get killed before coming back to life and joining him. :greengrin

[Removed]

A couple of rational blokes who believe a guy sitting up in the clowds created the earth and then sent his son down to get killed before coming back to life and joining him. :greengrin

Is not a "guy" though is it?

[Twa Cairpets]

Is not a "guy" though is it?

Except He is Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

...If you're of that theological mind.

[Removed]

Except He is Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness

...If you're of that theological mind.

Sure from that verse God is male but I wasn't disputing gender so apologies for not making myself clear. It was the 'guy in the clouds' quote I was meaning where Andy is making God look like some random bloke in a factory.

If God is really God and not 'some guy' then surely nothing is impossible?

[Twa Cairpets]

Sure from that verse God is male but I wasn't disputing gender so apologies for not making myself clear. It was the 'guy in the clouds' quote I was meaning where Andy is making God look like some random bloke in a factory.

If God is really God and not 'some guy' then surely nothing is impossible?

Ah, I see.

I like the idea of God in a factory clocking off after a seven day shift. The lost verse of Genesis: "God was gagging on a pint, and Lo! he created The Stags Head".

But on the point of the original topic of this thread, demonic possession is generally viewed as being a particularly christian/RC thing, with RC priests being best placed to cast out demons. If God is real, as I think Doddie commented earlier in the thread, then the belief in evil as a real entity is entirely justified. And you're right, if God created the Universe in anything like the way its described in the bible, then nothing is impossible.

Equally, if you're an atheist, it becomes obvious and consistent to take the view that as there are non-supernatural explanations for nature and behaviour, then truly incredible claims need truly incredible evidence.

[Allant1981]

I also went to a spiritualist church and was actually amazed, i do not believe in ghosts etc but some of the things this guy told me had me amazed, he mentioned a person who i had known a few years ago that died very young and there had been no communication at all between the guy and myself, he just turned to me and started coming out with stuff that no one else in that room would have known.

[Twa Cairpets]

I also went to a spiritualist church and was actually amazed, i do not believe in ghosts etc but some of the things this guy told me had me amazed, he mentioned a person who i had known a few years ago that died very young and there had been no communication at all between the guy and myself, he just turned to me and started coming out with stuff that no one else in that room would have known.

Like HappyHibby above, I've no doubt that you've had a very freaky and difficult to explain experience.

But if you take a step back, and consider the possibilities, the apparent options are: 1) The medium has channeled the spirit of the person you knew, or 2) you were cold read, and confirmation bias has made you forget the "misses", only the "hits".

The claim of "they coulnt possibly have known the stuff they did" is extremely common amongst people who have had experience of a spiritualist or medium. When you look into what actually happens (and it's really interesting when you get into it), the number of ways in which spiritualists can get people to believe they have seen something astonishing and seemingly impossible are many and varied.

Again, it comes down to Occams Razor. Which takes the greater leap of faith:

(a)That a spirit has chosen the particular day that you were present in a church to reveal himself to you, and spend the majority of the time presumably establishing their credentials rather than straight away saying "Hello Superhibi1. Remember me. My name is John Smith. I lived at 50 High Street. My phone number was 1234 123 123. I died in this particular manner on 01 June 1990, and on 27 September 1998 I told you and no-one else that I fancied Jane Doe of 13 High Street" without having to go through the whole cold reading fishing exercise of "I'm getting a John" before this vague impression of a spirit drills down into apparently incredible detail through repeated questioning, or

(b) That a cold reader who maybe themselves truly believes they have a gift has pesuaded you that theyve been speaking with the dead.

[sleeping giant]

Sure from that verse God is male but I wasn't disputing gender so apologies for not making myself clear. It was the 'guy in the clouds' quote I was meaning where Andy is making God look like some random bloke in a factory.

If God is really God and not 'some guy' then surely nothing is impossible?

You mean Gods shirley ?

Elohime is a plural.. The GODS said let US make man in OUR image.

[Removed]

You mean Gods shirley ?

Elohime is a plural.. The GODS said let US make man in OUR image.

One God three persons. Fairly fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith.

[sleeping giant]

One God three persons. Fairly fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith.

Please forgive my ignorance but "the son" was not present on this world until 2000 years ago was he not ?

Who were the Elohime before Jesus was included in the Trinity ?

[Removed]

Please forgive my ignorance but "the son" was not present on this world until 2000 years ago was he not ?

Who were the Elohime before Jesus was included in the Trinity ?

Correct, Jesus was not present ON this world before he was born as a baby but in the trinity doctrine there have always been 3 persons to the Godhead.

[Twa Cairpets]

Correct, Jesus was not present ON this world before he was born as a baby but in the trinity doctrine there have always been 3 persons to the Godhead.

Which in the context of this thread means God possessed himself?

The trinity is a difficult thing to get yer head around. It seems a very human interpretation of the bible as I think I'm right in saying it is never refererred to directly in the book nor is it explicitly stated.

[Removed]

Which in the context of this thread means God possessed himself?

The trinity is a difficult thing to get yer head around. It seems a very human interpretation of the bible as I think I'm right in saying it is never refererred to directly in the book nor is it explicitly stated.

:agree: with comment in bold. Not so sure about God possessing himself though but I can see your point from the thread context and human interpretation.

I did a quick google and found this article below. Sure it will generate more debate :greengrin

Is the Doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible?

Some people who do reject the Trinity doctrine often claim that the word "Trinity" is not found in Scripture. Of course, there is no verse that says "God is three Persons" or "God is a Trinity." This is all quite evident and true, strictly speaking, but it proves nothing. There are many words and phrases that Christians use, which are not found in the Bible.

More to the point, opponents of the Trinity doctrine claim that a Trinitarian view of God’s nature and being can’t be proven from the Bible. Since the books of the Bible are not written as theological tracts, this may seem on the surface to be true. There is no statement in Scripture that says, "God is three Persons in one being, and here is the proof. . ."

However, the New Testament does bring God (Father), the Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit together in such a way as to strongly imply the Trinitarian nature of God. Three Scriptures are quoted below as a summary of the many other biblical passages that bring together the three Persons of the Godhead. One Scripture is from the Gospels, another is from the apostle Paul and a third is from the apostle Peter. The words in each passage referring to each of the three Persons are italicized to emphasize their Trinitarian implication:

All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [Matthew 28:19].

May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all [2 Corinthians 13:14].

To God’s elect. . .who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood [1 Peter 1:1-2].

Here are three passages in Scripture, one on the lips of Jesus, and the other two from leading apostles, each bringing together the three Persons of the Godhead in an unmistakable way. But these are only a sampling of other similar passages. Among others are the following: Romans 14:17-18; 15:16;1 Corinthians 2:2-5; 6:11; 12:4-6; 2 Corinthians 1:21-22; Galatians 4:6; Ephesians 2:18-22; 3:14-19; Ephesians 4:4-6; Colossians 1:6-8; 1Thessalonians 1:3-5; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14; Titus 3:4-6. The reader is encouraged to read each of these passages and note how God (Father), Son (Jesus Christ) and the Holy Spirit are brought together as instruments of our salvation.

Certainly, such passages show that the New Testament faith is implicitly Trinitarian. Of course, it’s true that none of these passages say directly that "God is a Trinity. . ." or "This is the Trinitarian doctrine. . ." But they don’t need to. As mentioned above, the books of the New Testament are not formal, point by point treatises of doctrine. Nonetheless, these and other Scriptures speak easily and without any self-consciousness of God (Father), Son (Jesus) and Holy Spirit working together. The writers show no feeling of strangeness in joining these divine Persons together as a unity in their salvific work. Systematic theologian Alister E. McGrath makes this point in his book Christian Theology:

The foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity are to be found in the pervasive pattern of divine activity to which the New Testament bears witness. . .There is the closest of connections between the Father, Son, and Spirit in the New Testament writings. Time after time, New Testament passages link together these three elements as part of a greater whole. The totality of God’s saving presence and power can only, it would seem, be expressed by involving all three elements.

Such New Testament Scriptures answer the charge that the Trinity doctrine was only developed well into the church age and that it reflects "pagan" ideas, and not biblical ones. If we look at Scripture with an open mind regarding what it says about the being we call God, it’s clear that he is shown to be Triune in nature.

We can confidently say that the Trinity, as a truth regarding God’s essential being, has always been a reality. Perhaps it was not completely clear in the dim ages of man, including even in the Old Testament. But the Incarnation of the Son of God and the coming of the Holy Spirit revealed that God was Triune. This revelation was made in concrete fact, in that the Son and the Holy Spirit broke into our world at definite points in history. The fact of the Triune revelation of God in historical time was only later described in the word of God we call the New Testament.

James R. White, a Christian apologist, says in his book The Forgotten Trinity: "The Trinity is a doctrine not revealed merely in words but instead in the very action of the Triune God in redemption itself! We know who God is by what He has done in bringing us to himself!"

[sleeping giant]

:agree: with comment in bold. Not so sure about God possessing himself though but I can see your point from the thread context and human interpretation.

I did a quick google and found this article below. Sure it will generate more debate :greengrin



If you could point me in the direction of the Trinity being referenced before the bible was translated from Hebrew to English i would be very interested !

I think the Trinity was brought to the fore due to the translation of the ancient texts to iron out a few anomalies.
Not trying to disrespect any faith you may hold btw:aok:

[Removed]

If you could point me in the direction of the Trinity being referenced before the bible was translated from Hebrew to English i would be very interested !

I think the Trinity was brought to the fore due to the translation of the ancient texts to iron out a few anomalies.
Not trying to disrespect any faith you may hold btw:aok:

Have a look at this (http://www.biblestudiesonline.info/TGF/topical/trinityOT.htm)and tell me if it makes sense :aok: :wink:

[sleeping giant]

Have a look at this (http://www.biblestudiesonline.info/TGF/topical/trinityOT.htm)and tell me if it makes sense :aok: :wink:

Right , i'm away googling Memra now :greengrin

Am i missing something ? Why does that script assume its a tri plural rather than just plural ?

"Note: angels cannot create de novo; man is not made in the image of angels (but land animals are made in the images of various ranks of cherubim Verse 27 expressly excludes the angels (made in His image) and us/our cannot refer to Adam and/or Eve, since we then have the sin of tautology. Therefore make, image, likeness, etc. refer exclusively to Deity; and so the grammatical rules for the plural of majesty apply to say that God is truly tri-plural in Person since the tri-plural Elohim is the antecedent of tri-plural personal pronouns."

[Removed]

Right , i'm away googling Memra now :greengrin

Am i missing something ? Why does that script assume its a tri plural rather than just plural ?

"Note: angels cannot create de novo; man is not made in the image of angels (but land animals are made in the images of various ranks of cherubim Verse 27 expressly excludes the angels (made in His image) and us/our cannot refer to Adam and/or Eve, since we then have the sin of tautology. Therefore make, image, likeness, etc. refer exclusively to Deity; and so the grammatical rules for the plural of majesty apply to say that God is truly tri-plural in Person since the tri-plural Elohim is the antecedent of tri-plural personal pronouns."

Probably because plural means any number more than one and tri-plural means 3 :dunno:

[Twa Cairpets]

Have a look at this (http://www.biblestudiesonline.info/TGF/topical/trinityOT.htm)and tell me if it makes sense :aok: :wink:

Err, no, not really...

This may be a bit of an odd question, but for all the references that could lend themselves to interpretation as the godhead as trinity, are there not loads of others where Jesus explicitly refers to his Father as a separate entity? Casting the moneylenders out of the temple for example. John2:17.

My take on it is that the variety of interpretation possible is due to the inconsistencies within a script allegedly of divine inspiration and direction actually being solely the creation of man, with all the fallibilities that man has. It's a hell of a leap from the bible as its written and developing a tri-partite construct to explain the nature of the divine.