Evil Spirits

by LizLA 294 Replies latest jw experiences

SweetBabyCheezits

Shelby: Ever wonder how many people thought the earth was flat... because "science" said so? (And it did, if we're talking what was discernable to the senses... and absent a boat.)
Uh-oh - we're assigning arbitrary meaning to the word "science" now. Science is a well-defined method of discovery, not just whatever is "discernable to the senses." And using scientific principles, Eratosthenes of Cyrene was able to closely estimate the circumference of our spherical earth as far back as the third century BC.... without ever leaving Egypt.
"Science, at bottom, is really anti-intellectual. It always distrusts pure reason, and demands the production of objective fact." - Mencken
strymeckirules

Schizophrenic Canada bus beheading man found not guilty
(AFP) – Mar 5, 2009
OTTAWA (AFP) — A Chinese immigrant who beheaded and hacked to pieces a Canadian bus passenger in front of horrified travelers was found not guilty of murder Thursday after being diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.
Vince Weiguang Li, 40, had been charged with murdering 22-year-old Tim McLean on a Canadian Greyhound bus on July 30, 2008.
Li had repeatedly stabbed McLean, who had been asleep on the seat next to him, sawn off his head, removed his internal organs, pocketed his nose, tongue and an ear, and taunted police and bystanders with the severed head.
Police said in court documents Li "appeared to smell, and then eat parts of Tim McLean's flesh" and "lick blood from his hands" as they surrounded the bus on a desolate highway 90 kilometers (55 miles) west of Winnipeg, in western Canada, soon after the attack.
Authorities found body parts littered throughout the bus, some in white plastic bags. McLean's eyes and a third of his heart were also missing, and it is presumed Li ate them, said a pathologist in court files, though Li denies this.
The other 35 passengers and the driver were jolted by "blood-curdling screams" and fled, said witnesses, bracing the door after their escape to trap Li inside the bus. He was subdued by police after a three-hour standoff.
Justice John Scurfield of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench described the killing as "grotesque" and "appalling," but ruled Li was not criminally responsible for the murder because of his mental disorder.
During a three-day trial, psychiatrists testified Li suffers from schizophrenia and did not know what he was doing when he killed McLean.
The court heard Li had auditory hallucinations on the day of the attack, that he heard God's voice telling him to board the bus from Edmonton to Winnipeg, and kill McLean.
Li dismembered McLean's body, psychiatrists testified, because he feared McLean could otherwise resurrect from the dead and seek revenge.
His mental health is to be evaluated within 90 days, the judge ordered. Thereafter, he may be released or confined to a secure psychiatric hospital for treatment.
Outside the courtroom, McLean's mother Carol Dedelley expressed her disappointment at the verdict and her fears for public safety.
"This isn't the right result," Dedelley told reporters. "Knowing that that killer might get out sometime soon is very hard."
"A crime was still committed here, a murder still occurred, and (this) ruling seems to negate that fact."
"A major illness took my son's life, and he was never sick," she said.
"Mr. Li should be held accountable for it," she said. "Whether he was in his right frame of mind or not, he still did the act. There was nobody else on that bus holding a knife slicing up my child."
McLean, according to his family, was on his way home to Winnipeg from a job as a carnival worker in western Canada, when he was attacked.
He "struggled and tried to escape" his attacker, but "eventually either fell or was thrown to the floor of the bus," said court files.
Investigators said friends described the former computer programmer who had immigrated to Canada in 2001 as having had mental problems since 2004, but said they never knew him to be violent.
Li was admitted to a mental hospital in 2005, where he was diagnosed with schizophrenia, according to court testimony.
Doctors identified his auditory hallucinations and offered him medication, but he declined treatment at the time.
"Unfortunately, he appears to have left the treatment facility without permission," the judge said.
Copyright © 2011 AFP. All rights reserved. More »
Twitch

strymeckirules
Where in this do you see proof of evil spirits?
Band on the Run

The length of this thread is very curious. I find it amazing that after leaving the Witnesses, one would seek to believe in evil spirits. It wasn't about evil spirits but hawking some dumb DVDs. If anyone is interested in meditating (I used to do it and was amazed) google "Meditation." There are no secrets. It is a biological response.
AGuest

Science did not say so---people did.
Curious why you left out my next statement, dear NC (peace to you!). I mean, I did put "science" in quotes... as well as explained what I mean by "science." But, ah, well...
Aristotle knew the earth was a sphere. Astronomers had been studying the night sky and understood we weren't flat. I believe Aristotle even managed to hypothesize on the size of the earth---and he was very, very close. Columbus and everyone else knew the earth was round and they weren't going to sail off the edge.
People long before Aristotle KNEW it, dear one. Aristotle lived 384 BC – 322 BC. Yet, a writing that supposedly dates to more than a 1,000 years before him "knew" that, as well. The "commonly held" belief, however, based on the empirical "science" at the time in question (when people, including the "educated," thought so) was that world was flat.
And this is a scientific theory. It is out here for anyone who can to falsify it. A few months ago, some researchers claimed to find particles that move faster than the speed of light---I haven't heard anything lately, but if that is true, this theory will need to be revised.
Yes.
When was the last time a religious person opened their beliefs up to falsification and adjusted their views?
Since I am not a religious person, I truly don't know. For me, it was when I came to understand that the WTBTS was not only not the "truth," but didn't have a shred... well, okay, it has a shred... of truth IN it. This really isn't about religious views, though, and so I would ask... when was the last time religious AND non-religious folk (such as, perhaps, yourself) opened THEIR beliefs... as to the spirit realm... up to falsification and adjusted THEIR views? I have offered, many times, on this forum to help people obtain the "evidence" they demand. Only those who've taken me up on that have either gotten it... or moved on from denial of it.
Look if you have faith simply because you have faith, and you don't need for things to be proven and you reject anything that falsifies those beliefs---fine.
But that isn't the case at all... and I would have thought you'd do a little more research as to me/what I believe so as to know that... rather than jump on the "I don't understand, either, so it must be as those who think like me say it is" bandwagon.
But don't drag science into it, mix it up, misrepresent it and try to use it to prove those beliefs.
I didn't drag science into it. Science was thrown into it... thrown at "us", actually... and then we were commanded to respond to the assault. Which we did. Which was met with: "Oh, you stupid people! How DARE you try to fend off an assault from us! Who do you think you ARE? You TAKE what we throw at you... and EAT it... because you're STUPID!" Sorry, love, but been there, done that. Lots of it with the WTBTS.
We apply science to the natural world. You apply faith.
I apply science... and faith. To both the natural world... and, where it applies, the spirit realm. How do you not KNOW this... so as to make the assertions... which are actually erroneous assumptions... you do? I can't even imagine myself "going there" with you like that.
We think that is shortsighted and even blind denial---
That's totally fine, dear one. You are entitled to think as you will. You are NOT entitled, however, to verbally assualt me because I don't AGREE to every level that you do. And you are mistaken if you think I will deny what I know to be true... simply because YOU don't agree with it.
you think we simply lack faith or the capacity to truly accept things on faith because we say prove it.
Nope. Not me. Please... reread the thread. I responded to specific statements... as I always do. I didn't accept what I have on blind faith. I was given EVIDENCE... which evidence is available to ALL... should they desire to avail themselves OF it. If YOUR way of believing (or disbelieving) stops YOU from doing that (availing yourself) how is that MY fault?
It baffles us that even when proven wrong, ideas stick around and gain credence with time.
It baffles some of us that ideas that may BE wrong are offered as absolute truth because it's all "we" have/know NOW... or, short of that, those who don't accept them as ultimate truth are considered... well, idiots. Stupid. Even worthy of being burned at the stake.
It baffles you that we can't throw reason to the wind and just take god's word for it.
No. NO. It does NOT baffle me, at ALL. It baffles... no, actually ANGERS... YOU... that I say I know... and ACCEPT... WHY you can't do that. I don't give you folks very much thought, dear NC, truly. Someone asked a question here. I gave HER thought. And some, like perhaps you... took exception to ME. It was NOT the other way around. Please... let's keep it straight, shall we?
You say you know what god says...
Nope. I don't say that. Well, rarely. QUITE rarely. It would be a lie, for the most part... because I don't know what He says. And please... don't go "Well, you know what I mean..." because you all don't give me that same accommodation, so...
and which god says it,
Well, seeing as there really is only one God... and One Son... yes, that I can and do say. Now, whether you AGREE with that is... what? Again, someone asked a question... I responded... and "you all" took exception with ME. I did not take exception with your positions... not a one.
and how to get that information.
Yes. But it's no big mystery, dear one. The same information is available to everyone. From the same One. That I access it is a crime, how? That you don't is my fault... how?
And you are right about that regardless of the myriads of ways that billions of people access this god, you have found the truth in the matter.
Ah, yes, the "majority rules" rule. Since billions of other people do so "this" way or "that" way... makes it more credible. Even if the "fruits" of their "way" is murder, persecution, war, torture, abuse, oppression, etc. Okay...
We say that is not reasonable. So it's an impasse.
It is an impasse... which I have tried on many occasions to concede to, dear one. Again, I only responded to the OP's question. I didn't say "Those other folks don't know what the heck they're talking about." Didn't say "Don't listen to them; they're stupid. Listen to me." Didn't say to THEM, "You're stupid and delusional and arrogant and no one should listen to you." I simply responded... based on what I know... to what the OP asked. In an effort to help. Which I may or may not have done. But I didn't sit on my laurels and tell her to figure it out for herself... nor did I tell her she was "batshitcrazy" (yeah, stuff like that always helps...), or similar. I responded in truth and from a sincere place. Unfortunately, not everyone was able to "receive" that.
Just try not to misrepresent science and try to understand that we work with theories that we fully understand can one day be falsified---
I DO, dear one. Did you not read my comments regarding "c"? I vehemently believe it can... and WILL be falsified. You'll find NO argument from ME, there. It isn't ME who has a problem with that, not by ANY stretch!
which is exciting because it means more knowledge and more benefits.
Ahh, I see: only "you" folks can be excited about "more" knowledge... but not "us"... because our "knowledge" is outside the realm of what "you" know/accept/understand. Do I have that right?
So enjoy your computer, and your lights, and your modern world while refusing to understand the brains and methods that went into providing those things for you.
What are you TALKING about??? Where in the WORLD do you get that I refuse to understand the brains and methods... even have no regard for such... do anything except APPRECIATE such? Where are you GETTING that?? I absolutely have regard AND respect for science. The very scientific equation we are discussing helped me to SEE something spiritual! YOU think there is no correlation between science and spirit. I... disagree. As dear tec (the greatest of love and peace to you!) pointed out... and we both have on MANY occasions... WE not see it as an "either or". YOU do. We accept both.
Thank your god instead.
I DO! I thanked Him... and my Lord... for the recent surgeries I had that improved my health... and my live that continued after. I ALSO thanked every one of my doctors, my surgeon, the surgical teams, the pre- and post-op nurses and technicians, and everyone involved. I have just as much regard for the "instruments"... as I do for the One who uses them, dear one.
It will still be there for you.
I read "Atlas Shrugged", dear NC. And I get... as well as agree with... Ayn Rand's point. I don't know HOW you assume that I don't. Again, it's not either/or with ME.
Again, peace to you!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
Twitch

Yet we can see their effects on the world around us, measure them, theorize, prove/disprove and share the results for all to see.
That hasn't always been the case, though, has it, dear Twitch (peace to you!)? I mean, have we reached the "end" of all that is to be known... about what we can experience with the empirical senses... as well as what we can't? Have we even reached the "end" of what senses we actually possess? Sure, we have 5 physical senses? Are you TRULY certain that that is all... and that if there are others they are physical, as well?
I was speaking to how science has provided a universal and proven pool of knowledge of what is, not subjective speculation without verifiable proof on what isn't. Also, to the idea of burden of proof, which our mutual friend does not seem to understand or perhaps coveniently discards in favour of preferred worldviews.
Have we really... TRULY... reached the "end" of all that is to be known as to such matters? Just askin'... 'cause if so, that truly saddens me. Means in only a couple/few more decades we've got nowhere else to "go," nothing else to learn. Tends to jibe more with what many "doomsday" proponents believe, though... that the "end" is near. Perhaps it is, after all...
Interesting logic. I don't see how end times factors in here at all. On the contrary, there is much yet to learn and our understanding of our world and the universe is unfolding faster than ever before. We can conceive of, theorize and prove things beyond our basic senses but not our minds.
BTW I like how you capitalize TRUTH and TRULY from time to time. Classic reinforcement in action.
and say he doesn't exist but can't prove it
Well, I mean, you COULD make a trek to his "home"... the North Pole... and knock on his door. Right? And if he's not home, then maybe he doesn't exist. Christ, however, does not reside at the North Pole... or any other physical place... except perhaps the "temple"... which is your body, above the "ark" of YOUR "covenant" with him. Perhaps if you looked for him THERE...
If I really believed in Santa Claus coz he gives me the warm fuzzies and brightens my day with the hope of a special gift if I'm a good boy on a special day in the future, what's the difference really? Metaphyscial shell game for all relative intents and purposes.
The idea of looking inward to find one's truth is good advice. I have looked inside and am relaying to you what my voice is telling me is the truth, nothing more nothing less.
tec

And this is a scientific theory. It is out here for anyone who can to falsify it. A few months ago, some researchers claimed to find particles that move faster than the speed of light---I haven't heard anything lately, but if that is true, this theory will need to be revised. When was the last time a religious person opened their beliefs up to falsification and adjusted their views?

Nearly every single person on this thread has done so. Every single person who has ever 'dropped' their religion and faith, or investigated it, or switched it, or after an investigation and 'opening to falsification' has decided to remain.

Religious people do this all the time. Some lose faith. Some find or gain faith.
Look if you have faith simply because you have faith, and you don't need for things to be proven and you reject anything that falsifies those beliefs---fine.
No one... not one single person or thing... has falsified God. If something did, then I would have to adjust my view. But nothing does. And no, I don't need it to be proven true. But my faith is based on something. It is based on evidence, as it is for most people of faith.
But don't drag science into it, mix it up, misrepresent it and try to use it to prove those beliefs. We apply science to the natural world. You apply faith.
... and science. Because as I said, science and God are not in conflict. We can (and do) have both.
We think that is shortsighted and even blind denial---you think we simply lack faith or the capacity to truly accept things on faith because we say prove it.
Yes, I know what 'you' (in general) think... not so sure you know what 'we' think. (especially since 'we' covers a broad spectrum of all sorts of people, who think and believe differently)
It baffles us that even when proven wrong, ideas stick around and gain credence with time.
That would baffle me too. But then, if something is proven wrong, then obviously my 'belief' must change.
It baffles you that we can't throw reason to the wind and just take god's word for it.
It baffles 'us' that you think we have thrown reason to the wind, and are just running on blind, unsupported faith. When 'we' have stated otherwise, but 'you' don't hear that.
You say you know what god says, and which god says it, and how to get that information. And you are right about that regardless of the myriads of ways that billions of people access this god, you have found the truth in the matter. We say that is not reasonable. So it's an impasse.
Nothing wrong with an impasse. People can agree to disagree. Better, imo, if people can agree to disagree without derision, insults, etc... especially when such faith cannot and has not been 'falsified'.
Just try not to misrepresent science and try to understand that we work with theories that we fully understand can one day be falsified---which is exciting because it means more knowledge and more benefits. So enjoy your computer, and your lights, and your modern world while refusing to understand the brains and methods that went into providing those things for you. Thank your god instead. It will still be there for you.
And this is what I mean when I say 'you' don't understand 'us'.
Science does not have to be rejected in order to believe in God. Not at all. It does not have to be one or the other.
But 'you' do get offended if we say just what you said above (that I bolded). Because you seem to think that means we reject science altogether, and think it is unreliable.
Scientific findings (even long accepted ones) CAN be wrong... but to some of 'you' this is the equivalent of blasphemy from us, lol. No reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater though... but at the same time, no reason to limit oneself to only what we know can be proven right now. We can look beyond. Especially since we know that in the grand scheme of things, we barely know anything at all. And if our faith tells us something that is not yet proven - but also possible and not disproven - then what reason do we have to reject it, truly?
Peace to you NC,
Tammy
outsmartthesystem

I am not saying there are....or there aren't evil spirits......but THIS line of reasoning (or lack thereof) is maddening:
"the point is, just because YOU can't see it, doesn't mean it's not still out there. and until YOU can prove it doesn't exist, YOU look foolish for saying it doesn't."
This is the same type of reasoning that the Watchtower uses to try to refute 587BC as the date Jerusalem fell. In fact, here is the quote from the appendix of the "Let Your Kingdom Come" book:
"Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period."
The Watchtower is using something that has never been found as the basis for refuting the validity of something that DOES exist! What they are saying is "you cannot prove that artifacts showing OUR chronology to be correct don't exist somehow, someway, somewhere. Maybe they are buried a mile beneath the earth's surface. Maybe aliens came and stole all the proof. Who knows? The point is.....you cannot PROVE that NOTHING supporting our methodology will EVER be found....therefore.....WE ARE CORRECT"
It is this kind of reasoning that allows a human being to believe whatever it is they want to believe. Very few things in life can actually be PROVEN. Can I PROVE that Bigfoot does not exist? Well.....by my reasoning yes. There is no true evidence (bones, live capture, etc) to support that he lives in the woods in Canada. Yet if I put a different spin on it....I can say that there COULD be a mass of undiscovered evidence out there supporting his existence.....or that just because YOU cannot see him does not mean he doesn't exist.......therefore keeping alive the possibility that he does exist
ProdigalSon

Why is it that hallucinogenic drugs can cause a person to experience the "paranormal"? Do these drugs make a person "crazy", or do they perhaps break down a partition in the mind that prevents such contact?
Is every single one of the millions upon millions who have had communication with the dead "nuts"?
Does "science" have all the answers as to what is on the other side of the mysterious "veil"?
Galaxies are sentient beings, as are the individual parts. They must be able to "think", on some level, to bring forth matter, and to bring forth life. And then there is intelligent life.
It all starts inside the "Black Hole". All the information that programs a particular galaxy starts with the black hole.
For you resident psychogists with attrocious bedside manners, can your "science" explain a black hole?
http://armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Genesis-Singularity%281886319%29.htm
The R = 0 Universe

Black holes are objects where gravity is so strong that light itself cannot escape the gravitational pull. They are the most mysterious objects in the universe and hold the key to the nature of reality. They open the door to understanding the fundamental composition of the universe.

Their hypothetical existence was first predicted in Einstein's famous theory of General Relativity, but Einstein himself believed it was impossible for them to become real objects in the universe. The reason for that is that they exhibit a feature that physics cannot cope with or comprehend.

Einstein's equations contain a term that involves dividing the mass of the black hole by the distance "r" from the black hole. The question is what happens when r=0? Division by zero gives a result of infinity. To physicists, it is impossible for infinity to appear in the real world, so they consider r = 0 to be the point at which physics breaks down. At r = 0, the centre of a black hole, gravity is infinite and time itself stops: all of the mass of the black hole is contained within an infinitely small point where the concept of space no longer makes any sense. The point takes up precisely no space at all. Since this point is outside space and time, it is dimensionless. The physical universe collapses into an ineffable twilight state at this point. This apparently impossible object of infinite density and infinite gravity is known as the singularity. No predictions can be made about it, or about what might emerge from it. At the singularity, physicists' understanding of nature fails completely. Therefore, they believe that there is a fatal flaw in the formulation of Einstein's theory of general relativity, despite its immense success.

The one thing no physicist has ever contemplated is this: there is no flaw whatsoever. The reason why physics seems to disintegrate at r = 0 is for the extremely simple reason that r = 0 is not in the physical universe. It is in the mental universe, the universe of mind, as we have described in the previous section.

Physicists, so blindly and irrationally wedded to materialism, have never taken their own equations to their logical conclusion. What their equations actually point to at the limit of r = 0 is a different aspect of existence - mental rather physical, dimensionless rather than dimensional, outside of space and time. Rather than face up to that, physicists would prefer to futilely search for a new theory. But they have nowhere else to go. They will always run up against exactly the same problem: that the universe of dimensions, of space and time, coexists with another universe of no dimensions, outside space and time. Reality can never be comprehended if either aspect is ignored.

As already mentioned, to talk of "two universes" is convenient but technically incorrect. The true nature of existence is that it has two aspects coexisting in a single continuum. The r = 0 (dimensionless, mental) universe and the r > 0 (dimensional, physical) universe are both part of a single universe r >= 0 (r greater than or equal to zero).

If you want an equation for everything, you could choose r >= 0 because that encapsulates the true dual nature of reality; physical and mental.

There is a black hole at the centre of every galaxy. At the centre of ours is one that is four million times more massive than our sun. Such black holes are called supermassive. They are essential for galaxy formation, and hence for life itself.

Black holes shape the evolution of the universe. They are everywhere in the universe, millions upon millions of them, and in every place where they occur Einstein's equations catastrophically break down (as far as physicists are concerned).

Black holes are real objects in outer space that lie beyond current scientific understanding. A new theory beyond Einstein is required. It already exists - it is that of the Illuminati. It is that of the r = 0 universe, the "within" of things, the inner aspect, the dimensionless reality that science chooses to ignore even though their equations point directly to it.
NewChapter

For you resident psychogists with attrocious bedside manners, can your "science" explain a black hole?
Well this may be the problem right here. Psychologists don't actually deal with black holes. Unless there happens to be one where a brain should be. Hey--it's happened!
Why is it that hallucinogenic drugs can cause a person to experience the "paranormal"? Do these drugs make a person "crazy", or do they perhaps break down a partition in the mind that prevents such contact?
Hallucinogenics, as the name would indicate, cause hallucinations.

hal·lu·ci·na·tion
/ h??lus?'ne???n / Show Spelled [ h uh -loo-s uh - ney -sh uh n ] Show IPA noun 1. a sensory experience of something that does not exist outside the mind, caused by various physical and mental disorders, or by reaction to certain toxic substances, and usually manifested as visualorauditory images. 2. the sensation caused by a hallucinatory condition or the object or scene visualized. 3. a false notion, belief, or impression; illusion; delusion
Now it might be appropriate to ask a psychologist exactly how a hallucinogenic works. They'd probably be much more up to the task than the black hole question. Does "science" have all the answers as to what is on the other side of the mysterious "veil"? Maybe you could help "science" out and point them to this mysterious veil. Is every single one of the millions upon millions who have had communication with the dead "nuts"? Nope, but nuts or reality are not the only two options.
Galaxies are sentient beings, as are the individual parts. They must be able to "think", on some level, to bring forth matter, and to bring forth life. And then there is intelligent life.
Sentient beings? Are you just making this up as you go along?

Evil Spirits

hal·lu·ci·na·tion

Share this