Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Exorcist and JTR

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Steadmund Brand View Post
    I have seen the documentaries on the "actual possession" but they don't really interest me... as someone who doesn't believe in "demonic possession" , I do believe in mental illness... and sadly these documentaries never seem to talk about that angle... just go straight in for the religious mumbo jumbo...sorta like the stuff on Anneliese Michel's "exorcism" that killed her... the courts pretty much held the church and family responsible for her unfortunate death....yet still the "documentaries" wanna blame the devil....I love the fact that you never hear of an Atheist being "possessed", you would think they would be an easier target for Satan wouldn't you...put up less of a fight anyway... but no....

    Steadmund Brand
    Absolutely, Stead. One ripsote might be that atheists ARE possessed, but don't know it. Demons keep a low profile in them.

    But of course it's nonsense. Exorcist is a great movie, aside from its entire premise being risible nonsense. If God and the Devil exist (let's deal with the Judeo-Christian version for simplicity's sake) then demons would have as their aim the propagation of sin and the rejection of salvation. I fail to see what the demon would gain from having a child vomit pea soup over a priest. It's really a petulant and childish tantrum rather than an elemental battle between good and evil, and the end result would be the strengthening of faith of anyone who witnessed it. They would be left in no doubt that the spiritual realm exists, and is populated with sentient entities.

    I agree with the earlier comment too, that the film loses a lot of the ambiguity of the novel. When I watch the movie I get most out of it if I see it as an exploration of grief and loss - whether of family, faith, parents - and what can happen if we allow grief to take root too deeply in our psyche.

    Because if we see these things literally.....

    Cases of alleged possession are extremely rare.

    So what do demons do when they're not possessing young girls?

    What do they hope to achieve by possessing people?

    Who created demons? God? Why?

    Or are they the angels that fell with Lucifer? Why doesn't Yahweh just make them not exist?

    Is there a recorded case of "possession" that ends in victory for the demon? I mean, the victims always either make a recovery or else the priests cause the death of the victim, like the Annaliese Michel case. Has there ever been a case of demons actually just "possessing" someone successfully for a long period and doing something tangibly 'evil' with the victim? No.

    Conclusion: demons either don't exist or they're bumbling amateurs.

    Comment


    • #32
      I suppose what I'm saying is that I agree with the Zodiac killer, who wrote,

      "I saw + think "The Exorcist" is the best saterical comidy that I have ever seen".

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
        Thanks cd.
        So the house , steps whole g town setting is BS?
        Hello Abby,

        I am not quite sure what you mean. Scenes from Georgetown were used in the movie. The exterior of the house was used and that is in Georgetown as well as the steps (next to the house). I really can't recall if Georgetown featured in the actual case as in Georgetown University and/or Jesuit priests from there or the church in Georgetown where the desecrations (in the book) took place.

        Hope that answers your questions.

        c.d.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post
          Absolutely, Stead. One ripsote might be that atheists ARE possessed, but don't know it. Demons keep a low profile in them.

          But of course it's nonsense. Exorcist is a great movie, aside from its entire premise being risible nonsense. If God and the Devil exist (let's deal with the Judeo-Christian version for simplicity's sake) then demons would have as their aim the propagation of sin and the rejection of salvation. I fail to see what the demon would gain from having a child vomit pea soup over a priest. It's really a petulant and childish tantrum rather than an elemental battle between good and evil, and the end result would be the strengthening of faith of anyone who witnessed it. They would be left in no doubt that the spiritual realm exists, and is populated with sentient entities.

          I agree with the earlier comment too, that the film loses a lot of the ambiguity of the novel. When I watch the movie I get most out of it if I see it as an exploration of grief and loss - whether of family, faith, parents - and what can happen if we allow grief to take root too deeply in our psyche.

          Because if we see these things literally.....

          Cases of alleged possession are extremely rare.

          So what do demons do when they're not possessing young girls?

          What do they hope to achieve by possessing people?

          Who created demons? God? Why?

          Or are they the angels that fell with Lucifer? Why doesn't Yahweh just make them not exist?

          Is there a recorded case of "possession" that ends in victory for the demon? I mean, the victims always either make a recovery or else the priests cause the death of the victim, like the Annaliese Michel case. Has there ever been a case of demons actually just "possessing" someone successfully for a long period and doing something tangibly 'evil' with the victim? No.

          Conclusion: demons either don't exist or they're bumbling amateurs.
          Several people who have actual documented near death experiences that I have heard about, come back with the knowledge that love is the most important thing in the world, in ours and the next, and that evil is allowed, or necessary, because without it, no one would know what love is, and also to allow us to have free will. Something along those lines.

          Of all the cases I've read, heard or seen about, all involve some form of positive after life " heaven " experiences. A few though, and it's rare, involve people who have said they experienced hell, and only one the devil. Interestingly, these people admitted that they were not living good lives and felt these hell experiences were because of that.

          Now that being said, I'm skeptical of human demon possession, and lean more toward a mental illness explanation, but keep an open mind. how can we really know for sure?
          "Is all that we see or seem
          but a dream within a dream?"

          -Edgar Allan Poe


          "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
          quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

          -Frederick G. Abberline

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by c.d. View Post
            Hello Abby,

            I am not quite sure what you mean. Scenes from Georgetown were used in the movie. The exterior of the house was used and that is in Georgetown as well as the steps (next to the house). I really can't recall if Georgetown featured in the actual case as in Georgetown University and/or Jesuit priests from there or the church in Georgetown where the desecrations (in the book) took place.

            Hope that answers your questions.

            c.d.
            Thanks cd.
            Well when they say based on a true story, I thought it occurred in Georgetown. With many of the same elements. Like the house stairs etc. I guess it's based VERY loosely on the true occurances, but even those seem to be questionable.
            So basically it's almost complete fiction then IMHO.

            Unlike say the amittyville horror movie which is based off the true story pretty closely.
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
              Several people who have actual documented near death experiences that I have heard about, come back with the knowledge that love is the most important thing in the world, in ours and the next, and that evil is allowed, or necessary, because without it, no one would know what love is, and also to allow us to have free will. Something along those lines.

              Of all the cases I've read, heard or seen about, all involve some form of positive after life " heaven " experiences. A few though, and it's rare, involve people who have said they experienced hell, and only one the devil. Interestingly, these people admitted that they were not living good lives and felt these hell experiences were because of that.

              Now that being said, I'm skeptical of human demon possession, and lean more toward a mental illness explanation, but keep an open mind. how can we really know for sure?
              Abby N, I do enjoy discussing this sort of thing. Thanks for indulging me! After a long period of belief in these things earlier in life, including avid and extensive reading about near-death experiences, demonic activity, occult and paranormal matters, and reincarnation, I find myself in the slightly disappointing position of being an adult who does not believe there's a jot of reality in any of it. I too keep an open mind, but that never means accepting as likely the many things for which there is just no good evidence.

              The fact is that near-death experiences are, as the name suggests, not death experiences, and not therefore afterlife experiences. They tell us much about what the brain does as it shuts down and prepares to switch off. Which is why it should come as no surprise that 'near-death' experiences by and large reflect the cultural expectations of the individual.

              The fact that these experiences are so clearly culturally coloured leads most researchers to conclude that they have little or no basis in objective reality, but solely in the selective hyperactivity of a brain preparing for the end.

              The notion that there is a place of punishment after death, and that people leading bad lives get a small foretaste of it IF they happen to suffer heart failure but are revived by medical professionals before their brains die, well, I'm afraid that strikes me as absurd. But the salient thing for me is that these are just not afterlife experiences: the people reporting them did not die. That can't be stressed enough: you can't get information on the afterlife from the still-living.

              And interestingly, during the period when spiritualism was in vogue, and messages were solicited from those who definitely had died, the messages supposedly received were banal in the extreme, trite, vague, and generally gave the impression that the afterlife was more or less the same as the earthly life, but with more sunshine and no queuing.

              evil is allowed, or necessary, because without it, no one would know what love is, and also to allow us to have free will.
              I think this is profoundly wrong. The example of receiving love teaches us what love is, and teaches us to offer it to others. None of this is contingent at all on the existence of evil. We don't deduce what love is from studying evil, we learn what love is when we are loved. Most of us thankfully go through life without coming into contact with anything that could be called 'evil', and yet we know how to give and receive love.

              Free will is such a fascinating idea, and so hopelessly illogical, I don't think we can discuss it here. It needs a thread all of its own. Suffice to say, we do something because we think to do it. But what makes us think to do it? Do we cause the thought to happen? How, by thinking? But what causes THAT thought? Free will is a minor illusion that is necessary to maintain the major illusion of the self, which is a function of the brain. Neuroscientists can actually 'see' thoughts in the form of electrical impulses happening in an un-self-conscious part of the brain and travelling to the conscious "me!" parts of the brain, at which point we feel that we have 'had' a thought. So what, therefore, is 'free will'? And I ask that especially in terms of moral accountability.

              In English our phrases actually have it precisely right: "Something has just occurred to me" or "I've just had a thought" - things occur to us, not from us, we have thoughts, we don't create them. We literally cannot consciously say where our thoughts spring from. We cannot make a conscious decision to have a thought. We are not the authors of our thoughts. It just feels that way, because the conscious parts of our brain have to maintain a consistent 'self' function as a survival mechanism.

              Oh boy. Sorry AbNormal. I'll shut up!

              And I think what I'm saying is that a girl vomiting green gunge over a priest and making lewd potty-mouth comments doesn't teach me about love, evil, god, or the devil. Still, a fine film

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Henry Flower View Post

                The fact is that near-death experiences are, as the name suggests, not death experiences, and not therefore afterlife experiences. They tell us much about what the brain does as it shuts down and prepares to switch off. Which is why it should come as no surprise that 'near-death' experiences by and large reflect the cultural expectations of the individual.
                That's pretty much what I had read, that these 'experiences' are more the result of hallucinations by the brain being starved of oxygen and/or blood.


                The notion that there is a place of punishment after death, and that people leading bad lives get a small foretaste of it IF they happen to suffer heart failure but are revived by medical professionals before their brains die, well, I'm afraid that strikes me as absurd.
                Yep, just sales talk.
                Imagine a belief that survives by threatening its members...


                And I think what I'm saying is that a girl vomiting green gunge over a priest and making lewd potty-mouth comments doesn't teach me about love, evil, god, or the devil. Still, a fine film
                I thought the Exorcist was the best horror film ever made, not because it seemed 'real', but I thought it was very well acted for a horror film. Except the bit you mention above, but the principal characters were all well done, especially Lt. Kinderman (Lee J. Cobb).

                When the movie came out the tabloids were full of claims that the story was based on Shirley McClaine and her daughter.
                You can even Google on that today.
                Regards, Jon S.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

                  Unlike say the amittyville horror movie which is based off the true story pretty closely.
                  Did I miss something here Abby?

                  The last I read was that Amittyville family admitted the whole thing was a fraud to make money because they couldn't afford the mortgage, or something like that.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                    Did I miss something here Abby?

                    The last I read was that Amittyville family admitted the whole thing was a fraud to make money because they couldn't afford the mortgage, or something like that.
                    Yeah wick you missed it.

                    I said the movie is accurate. And it is. Look it up.
                    Ands it's a great ******* movie. But of course you missed that too.
                    "Is all that we see or seem
                    but a dream within a dream?"

                    -Edgar Allan Poe


                    "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
                    quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

                    -Frederick G. Abberline

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                      Yeah wick you missed it.

                      I said the movie is accurate. And it is. Look it up.
                      Ands it's a great ******* movie. But of course you missed that too.
                      The haunting story was a massive fraud, of course. It's been thoroughly debunked. The Lutz couple claimed the door was blown off its hinges, for example, whereas photographic comparisons showed that the original door was still very much in place and undamaged throughout the residency of the subsequent owners. Those subsequent owners, and every owner since, has failed to notice a single odd or paranormal event emanating from the house, which is odd, if it really was a portal to hell. The only trouble comes from freaks like me, dragging my fiance to that little town just to stand and gawp and photograph the house whilst holidaying in NY. (Happy memory - that's where we first discovered Five Guys, now making welcome inroads into the UK).

                      But the fact is, the DeFeo murders were odd. How the hell (forgive me) did Ronnie DeFeo go from room to room shooting his family in the back, one by one, without any of them waking up, getting out of bed, fighting for their lives? They were all found dead in bed, face down, shot in the back. How did that happen?

                      Very odd.

                      And I agree with AbbyN - the movie is just one notch down from being an absolute classic.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        One of my heroes, paranormal debunker James Randi (a.k.a. the Amazing Randi) was involved in a tv show dealing with psychics. They brought a self proclaimed psychic to the Amityville Horror House. The film crew pulled up to the house and started unpacking their gear. The psychic said something to the effect that the vibrations from the house were so strong she could pick them up just standing on the lawn. According to Randi, a neighbor sitting nearby on his front porch asked them what they were doing. They said they were there to investigate the Amityville Horror House. The man told them it was in the next block. So much for psychics unless the vibrations were so strong from the real house that they drifted down the street.

                        c.d.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                          One of my heroes, paranormal debunker James Randi (a.k.a. the Amazing Randi) was involved in a tv show dealing with psychics. They brought a self proclaimed psychic to the Amityville Horror House. The film crew pulled up to the house and started unpacking their gear. The psychic said something to the effect that the vibrations from the house were so strong she could pick them up just standing on the lawn. According to Randi, a neighbor sitting nearby on his front porch asked them what they were doing. They said they were there to investigate the Amityville Horror House. The man told them it was in the next block. So much for psychics unless the vibrations were so strong from the real house that they drifted down the street.

                          c.d.
                          Randi is a legend. Have you seen the routine where he overdoses on homeopathic medicine? He's a fine performer as well as a much needed voice of sanity. His sabotaging of one Uri Geller TV appearance was absolutely wonderful. He advised Johnny Carson's team to provide all their own paraphernalia and items, not to let Geller or anyone from his entourage have contact with them before the show began, so Carson took his advice, the cameras started to roll, and - whaddaya know - Geller started to whinge and whine about pressure, and tiredness, and his powers being weak that night because of the atmosphere. When not allowed to tamper with things beforehand his 'powers' failed. What a sad little fraud he is. And people still fall for that bs.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Randi is indeed a legend and yes, I have seen the video where he overdosed on homeopathic medicine. Hard to believe but he will be 89 next month. Hope he lives a long, long time. he is much needed in this crazy world.

                            c.d.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                              I have seen the video where Randi overdosed on homeopathic medicine. Hard to believe but he will be 89 next month.
                              A fine age to reach, especially considering that he survived that overdose.
                              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                                A fine age to reach, especially considering that he survived that overdose.
                                Nice

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X