On 22 Mar, 15:33, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote:
> I knew a priest who claimed to be on a train, going to the exorcism
> that William Blatty's book was based on. As Father Bill tells the
> story (and I had several discussions with him), there were suitcases
> and other things flying on their own across the train at this priest
> before he ever got to the exorcism. Father Bill was a cool guy, a
> family man, a very well known and respected priest in the Chicago
> Archdioceses. I have known (and currently know one) Catholic Priests
> who were exorcists throughout my life. It is kept quite hush hush by
> the church but the men I know are bright and strong and very well put
> together. I guess you would have to be. I think it is true. But
> then again, I think it is all true - and perfect for the level of
> consciousness in operation. In the big picture, there is only
> Brahman. In microcosm, anything is possible.
>
I suppose you're talking about the exorcism at Alexian Bros. Hospital
(and a residence in Bel-Nor) in St. Louis (my home town) in 1949.
Father William Halloran (Jesuit) was the chief exorcist. Was THAT
your Father Bill? The possessed was a young (at the time) black boy
from near Washington D.C. Whilst I COULD give the name of the
possessed, I know the man would prefer to not have it pasted about, so
I'll keep it. They say it was St. Michael himself who, near the end
of the exorcism, entered the boy and cast out the demon (named BY St.
Michael as 'SATAN' himself) from within. Officially, then, St. Louis
was the last known whereabouts of Satan himself. And there are forces
IN the St. Louis community who are counting on there being enough of a
lingering presence to be able to use. Again, if I mention names
publicly, I'd only draw attention to myself, but, rest assured, there
are plans and not very nice ones.
PS all the furniture from the room at the Alexian Bros. Hospital
where the exorcism took place is in a sealed room in Scott Air Force
Base. Why? For future use, of course.
> On Mar 22, 7:54 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I like William Peter Blatty's The Exorcist. Unlike the movie, the
> > book never commits to supernatural forces. The telekinesis part of
> > the story is a little freaky but a smart girl could have figured out
> > how to fool a terrified mom. It's more about a priest's doubt and a
> > neuritic mom then anything else. And fear of the unknown, of course.
> > All in all, a quick, interesting read.
>
> > dj
>
> > On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Lack of exhibition does not substantiate the claim. Evil does not
> > > imply that a newborn should immediately do a 360 headspin, hiss and
> > > spit blood out at you. This in no way indicates that evil does not
> > > exist within a person or that it may manifest at a later date and
> > > time, especially if there is intent, such as may be the case with
> > > little Tim Kretschmer and Thomas Sullivan Jr (link).
> > >http://www.nytimes.com/1988/01/11/nyregion/boy-kills-mother-and-himse...
> > > There are numerous other examples of course and whether or not they
> > > are attributed to evil is speculation without any means of
> > > establishing factual evidence.
> > > The argument of evil, or the evil argument, remains problematic in
> > > that we can only deduce from a set premise only to reach a fallible
> > > conclusion. We cannot prove or disprove the existence of evil but
> > > only present assertions laden with ambiguity and perplexities and
> > > there are no uniform opinions on the matter other than those of
> > > segmented groups within society that deem evil existence as a
> > > necessity to their function. Maybe we can simply eradicate evil
> > > entirely by ruling out its existence through euphemistic tactic and
> > > rid ourselves of it for good and the world can live in peace, and find
> > > closure, of course. lol :-)
>
> > > On Mar 21, 7:04 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> Because they exhibit zero evidence of such. They exhibit only evidence
> > >> that they are hungry, tired, or uncomfortable, and when the
> > >> appropriate stimulus is applied, they become peaceful. Have you ever
> > >> seen behaviour from an infant that you consider to be truly mean
> > >> spirited that could not be more accurately attributed to another more
> > >> common infantile behaviour?
>
> > >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> > Infants aren't mean spirited.<<<CJ
>
> > >> > How do you know this?
>
> > >> > On Mar 21, 10:34 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> >> "Mean Spirited" typically goes hand in hand with either "spoiled",
> > >> >> "neglected", or "abused".
>
> > >> >> Infants aren't mean spirited.
>
> > >> >> On Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> >> > She boiled her baby because a series of
> > >> >> > childhood traumas and negative adult life events led her to a
> > >> >> > crystal
> > >> >> > meth addiction which so impaired her judgement that she quite
> > >> >> > literally lost her mind. Neither of these hypothetical examples is
> > >> >> > in
> > >> >> > any way supportive of the concept of innate evil. <<<CJ
>
> > >> >> > Actually she was a mean spirited little girl whose parents sent her
> > >> >> > off to live in a convent under the loving care of nuns who nurtured
> > >> >> > her into a tender loving woman, so kind and sweet she was, until
> > >> >> > that
> > >> >> > day came, the day that no one understands, the day that she killed
> > >> >> > her
> > >> >> > husband and boiled her baby.................but the scientific
> > >> >> > community said it was just postpartum disorder, a simple hormonal
> > >> >> > mood
> > >> >> > swing, not to worry.
>
> > >> >> > On Mar 20, 11:39 pm, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]>
> > >> >> > wrote:
> > >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 7:04 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]>
> > >> >> >> wrote:
>
> > >> >> >> > How can something be both innate, and learned?<<CJ
>
> > >> >> >> > I see a problem here on the interpretive level.
>
> > >> >> >> > I said clearly......... "As much as we can accept the
> > >> >> >> > (possibility)
> > >> >> >> > that good and
> > >> >> >> > evil are innate qualities embedded in the psyche , we (can't
> > >> >> >> > rule out)
> > >> >> >> > that "forces/energies" beyond our physical space can have or
> > >> >> >> > attempt
> > >> >> >> > influence upon our action.
>
> > >> >> >> > The content is clearly not a statement of absolutes. What is
> > >> >> >> > unrecognized are the variable aspects of innateness, ie; the
> > >> >> >> > degree of
> > >> >> >> > the good/evil personae. Take for example a crime witness quote
> > >> >> >> > "I new
> > >> >> >> > he was bad but I didn't think he was capable of such a heinous
> > >> >> >> > act".
> > >> >> >> > OR "I know she was a bad mother but don't understand what
> > >> >> >> > possessed
> > >> >> >> > her to boil her baby".
>
> > >> >> >> ...and I opened with a reference to Russell's Teapot. "Not ruling
> > >> >> >> out"
> > >> >> >> leaves a wide swath for speculation. I recognized that you
> > >> >> >> specifically weren't making an absolute statement. I'm referring to
> > >> >> >> the concepts of good and evil, which are themselves statements of
> > >> >> >> absolute judgment. The crime witness statements you are talking
> > >> >> >> about
> > >> >> >> are not some recognition of any real quality, but an example of
> > >> >> >> cognitive bias on the part of the witness.
>
> > >> >> >> > So there is a "degree" of innate good/evil but in reiteration, we
> > >> >> >> > can't rule out the forces/energies can have or attempt influence
> > >> >> >> > on a
> > >> >> >> > person.
>
> > >> >> >> You've moved now into a QED follow up without ever having supported
> > >> >> >> your initial statement. I see nowhere where you have demonstrated
> > >> >> >> from
> > >> >> >> the hypothetical witness statements how that supports an idea of an
> > >> >> >> innate good or evil.
>
> > >> >> >> He was capable of such a heinous act because he was a progressively
> > >> >> >> degenerative schizophrenic. She boiled her baby because a series of
> > >> >> >> childhood traumas and negative adult life events led her to a
> > >> >> >> crystal
> > >> >> >> meth addiction which so impaired her judgement that she quite
> > >> >> >> literally lost her mind. Neither of these hypothetical examples is
> > >> >> >> in
> > >> >> >> any way supportive of the concept of innate evil.
>
> > >> >> >> Also as had been discussed early in the thread, the
>
> > >> >> >> > interpretation of good/evil is in how it is defined. So what I'm
> > >> >> >> > trying to get at here is that a person can have qualities that
> > >> >> >> > are
> > >> >> >> > innate and yet be influenced by said other. Might hatred be
> > >> >> >> > innate
> > >> >> >> > but not murder?
>
> > >> >> >> innate
> > >> >> >> Adjective
> > >> >> >> existing from birth, rather than acquired; inborn
>
> > >> >> >> Where would hatred be stored in an infant? Have you seen some
> > >> >> >> research
> > >> >> >> somewhere that suggests a "Hatred Gene"?
>
> > >> >> >> > You state factually "We are taught what good and evil are, not
> > >> >> >> > born
> > >> >> >> > with it." <<CJ
>
> > >> >> >> > That is a matter of opinion, one that I disagree with.
>
> > >> >> >> Actually, no. That is a matter of the preponderance of scientific
> > >> >> >> thought in the psychological, sociological, and anthropological
> > >> >> >> fields
> > >> >> >> based on clinical and field study. You are free to disagree with
> > >> >> >> the
> > >> >> >> conclusions drawn, but understand that the reason I state it
> > >> >> >> factually
> > >> >> >> is because it is accepted as fact.
>
> > >> >> >> I look at
>
> > >> >> >> > people like Dahmer who, during early childhood without parental
> > >> >> >> > knowledge, already exhibited patterns of morbid interests,
> > >> >> >> > defined by
> > >> >> >> > society as evil. You think he was "taught" this but I think he
> > >> >> >> > was
> > >> >> >> > born that way and so are many other children that display similar
> > >> >> >> > (evil) tendencies. The same goes for the "good".
>
> > >> >> >> Interesting speculation, but without the facts, it's nothing more.
> > >> >> >> For
> > >> >> >> the vast majority of sociopaths and psychopaths, there is a clear
> > >> >> >> pathology, typically schizophrenia of some sort, aggravated by
> > >> >> >> childhood trauma. Minus the trauma which triggers the
> > >> >> >> maladjustment,
> > >> >> >> the vast majority of schizophrenics can live a fairly functional or
> > >> >> >> even high functioning life...I'd hope that mental illness isn't the
> > >> >> >> "innate evil" quality that you're referring to.
>
> > >> >> >> > If you spend some time in a room with a large group of one year
> > >> >> >> > old
> > >> >> >> > children, you can easily see the good/bad, which at that age is
> > >> >> >> > hardly
> > >> >> >> > learned. What children "learn" is what aspects of their (innate)
> > >> >> >> > behavior is unacceptable in our/their society and which aspects
> > >> >> >> > are
> > >> >> >> > perceived by our/their society as good and evil.
>
> > >> >> >> I wonder what "good/bad" you are referring to? Being a father of
> > >> >> >> two,
> > >> >> >> and part of a large family, I've certainly had many opportunities
> > >> >> >> to
> > >> >> >> witness large groups of small children at play. One year olds are a
> > >> >> >> perfect example of humans in their natural form...selfish, not
> > >> >> >> understanding of the group
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
