Forums | MacLife

Farmerkev wrote:

The Gospels have several references to casting out demons.

Ah, so those would be the ones offering detailed descriptions authorizing physically kicking someone and holding them down on the floor?  Are there pictures too, Ye Ole Great Defender of The Faith?

bedstuy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

The Gospels have several references to casting out demons.

Ah, so those would be the ones offering detailed descriptions authorizing physically kicking someone and holding them down on the floor?  Are there pictures too, Ye Ole Great Defender of The Faith?

No one reads my posts

Farmerkev wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

The Gospels have several references to casting out demons.

Ah, so those would be the ones offering detailed descriptions authorizing physically kicking someone and holding them down on the floor?  Are there pictures too, Ye Ole Great Defender of The Faith?

Just because I know something about it doesn't make me a believer, only informed.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Is assault in the guise of exorcism justifiable?

jerwin wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

Ah, so those would be the ones offering detailed descriptions authorizing physically kicking someone and holding them down on the floor?  Are there pictures too, Ye Ole Great Defender of The Faith?

Just because I know something about it doesn't make me a believer, only informed.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Is assault in the guise of exorcism justifiable?

The question wasn't about the violence, it was-

Pithecanthropus wrote:

I wonder, is exorcism even mentioned in the Bible?

The answer is yes it is but the term used is casting out demons which I think we'd agree is what we call exorcism.

bedstuy wrote:

Nonsense.  I'd call it sorcery.  So would most sane people.

Well duh

Farmerkev wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Just because I know something about it doesn't make me a believer, only informed.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Is assault in the guise of exorcism justifiable?

The question wasn't about the violence, it was-

Pithecanthropus wrote:

I wonder, is exorcism even mentioned in the Bible?

The answer is yes it is but the term used is casting out demons which I think we'd agree is what we call exorcism.

Hmm. So this "casting out demons" involves physically assaulting the supplicant?

jerwin wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

jerwin wrote:

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Is assault in the guise of exorcism justifiable?

The question wasn't about the violence, it was-

Pithecanthropus wrote:

I wonder, is exorcism even mentioned in the Bible?

The answer is yes it is but the term used is casting out demons which I think we'd agree is what we call exorcism.

Hmm. So this "casting out demons" involves physically assaulting the supplicant?

You'll notice I never said or implied that it did, my only response was about the original question with the proper terminology for those that might want to search for specific versus.

If you would like to know about Bible references to violence and approval of, the Old Testament has several examples.

I personally know of nothing saying violence was a part of casting out demons and if that was somehow misconstrued as to be my intent I'm sorry.
In the future I'll endeavor to label each smurfing dumbass person/thing as such to avoid misunderstanding.

Don't forget Tallgeese.

No, for calling all religious people dumbasses!  How dare you!

Oh, yeah, here's the smiley, 'case you thought I was serious:

EDIT: Just out of curiosity, why are black communities so homophobic?

Last edited by Metacell (2009-06-26 9:58 pm)

For the same reason that blacks can only play basketball and Jews have large noses.

Well I already knew white men can't jump.

I suspect that many blacks would be Republicans, were it not for the racist antics of the GOP. I suppose it depends on how well you can generalize identity politics. But see this story in the American Prospect.

There's only one problem: The face of LGBT leadership in D.C. is often black. Nationally, anti-gay-rights activists have had a great deal of success in encouraging black voters to oppose gay rights, partially because LGBT rights are seen -- incorrectly -- as a "white issue." But in Washington, D.C., the diverse composition of the marriage-equality movement means that marriage-equality activists don't have to "reach out" to the black community, because they're already part of it. That doesn't mean marriage-equality activists don't face serious obstacles in garnering support among African Americans, but it makes racial divisions harder to exploit. The lesson is clear -- when the marriage-equality movement is integrated, outreach becomes less of an issue.

Part of the reason some have trouble reconciling black LGBT identity, Richardson says, is a culture of secrecy and invisibility supported by the black church that helps keep people in the closet. "Particularly within the black church, there's an unspoken code; we don't talk about [homosexuality]," Richardson says. "It's like we should be seen and not heard -- you can come to my church, you can be a member, but I only want a part of you; I don't want the whole person." The result of this culture of invisibility is that people opposed to LGBT rights are sometimes unable to recognize those around them who are gay -- even if they're standing right in front of them.