Talk:Demonic possession

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Demonic Possession / Spirit Possession / Possession (Spiritism) Pages[edit]

Would it not be more beneficial to just combine all of these pages together? They all are different cultural views but isn't that the point of this page? Demons are even referred to as spirits in the bible. Mysticalresearch (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone every been possessed by an evil spirit Annjean1985 (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

No, but Bigfoot has a page too. Lipsquid (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Obsession vs Possession[edit]

Obsession is the OUTWARD torment of a demon or spirit while posession is the INWARD torment. This is discussed both in King James' Daemonologie, Calmet's Treatise on the Apparition of Spirits and many other ancient texts or exorcism rites. Some of the content on this page should either be relayed to a seperate page Demonic obsession or be seperated into two categories. Mysticalresearch (talk 01:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Objectivity[edit]

This page doesn't seem to really be talking about demonic possession so much as the belief in demonic possession per charismatic Christianity. Where is kolera perspective? And, as mentioned below, what about demonic possession in other cultures? In literature other than the Bible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.242.112 (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Culture specific[edit]

LUHOD SA TEXT!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.18.250 (talk) 06:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This page seems to be focussed entirely upon the christian take on demonic possession. This is curious seeing as the vast majority of cases (and sincere belief therein) are found in buddhist cultures like those of Thailand and China. Christian demonic possession is more or less an entire subject of unsettling fancies used to populate low grade movies. Asian demonic possession is so accepted in it's veracity that it is actually accepted in modern day courts of law (specifically Thailand). Yet, no mention. [/anonymous bitch] 60.242.175.202 16:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree! A (as yet rather sketchy) Jewish viewpoint on possession at DybbukMr FFB 00:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The prevolence of Demonic Possession on western culture is more than "an entire subject of unsettling fancies used to populate low grade movies" if you are unaware of its cultural impact thats fine, but it is a far more relivent subject.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Demonic possession is more of a western cultural phenomenon due to the etymology. Demon is derived from the Greek daemon, meaning evil spirit. This forces demonic possession to be more of a western and christian based perspective as Spirit possession tends to be much broader in terms of various other religions. Demons are a western concept and inherently christian because the new testament was written in Greek as the Hebrew old testament instead used the word meaning evil spirit. So, for references to other cultures, you have to go to the spirit possession page. I will add this to the article intro and remove the western culture warning. Mysticalresearch (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Article POV[edit]

Maybe I'm just too sceptical, but this article seems to be pretty NPOV on the existence of stuff like telekinesis. I don't have time to fix this now, but I'll mention it anyway. - S

I think you mean POV. NPOV=good, POV=bad. And yes, we need a sceptical person who knows what they are talking about to fix it. -- Tim Starling 12:25 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It seems that a NPOV is not so neutral because it depends on the POV of each person, so many people prefere to consider all the stuff of "mysterious movements" as demonic action and so on. NPOV seems to depend on the personal belief and formation of people, but... it is only another POV, trying to be a NPOV. Just an opinion. A not NPOV is "thanks, S, for not signing your concept of NPOV providing a link to your user name, and so nobody can know who thinks so", it does not seem to be so neutral; it is easy to criticise when your identity remains hidden. As another explanation (to you and any other person who thinks so), if I do not know what I am talking about, I just do not talk, it is neutrality as I think (another POV), but this will become a Bizantine discussion, so, the end... for now, and forever, I'd wish. And if you want a sceptical person, you can be sure that I am one. My conclusions, dear S, were based on scientific American, British and Russian studies, studies made at the University of Palo Alto, California, and the studies of the late Spanish Jesuit Francisco Gonzalez Quevedo, who was so sceptical that laughed when explaining religious POVs on "demon possession" and refuted them with a so scientific NPOV that many eccesiastical authorities were about to forbid him to participate in televised interviews. Have a nice day, the day you read this. The Warlock 06:22, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Oh, and dear S, if you only have a user number, not even a name, just besides of writing hear, I do have a user name, you could have written this and drop some lines to me too. It would have still been more neutral. The Warlock 07:36, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Warlock, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view carefully. --Robert Merkel 07:42, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)


Telepathy & Telekenisis[edit]

Warlock, I've made an edit to the page. Most notable is probably the added introductory paragraph to place the rest of the article in context, and the removal of the paragraph discussing scientific views of telepathy. telekenisis, and premonitions. You state that telepathy and telekenisis are accepted facts and the subject of extensive scientific study. I don't think that's accurate. In any case, I don't think the discussion of it actually added anything useful to the article (which is about demon possession rather than telepathy or anything else), so rather than rewriting it I simply truncated it. --Robert Merkel 23:51, 8 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Should we include a section explaing the views of those who accept demonic possession in the present day? I'm from a pentecostal/charismatic background and have seen what I would describe as possession as well as exorcism, and I do not see these views represented here, but rather a naturalist viewpoint seems to predominate.

Title of Article[edit]

Shouldn't this article be called "Demonic posession" as demonic is the adjective form of demon? RedWolf 22:16, Dec 19, 2003 (UTC)


Superstition[edit]

To call the belief "superstition" is to put a point of view label on the whole article. It can be argued later in the article that demonic possession or the belife in it is supersticious through a scientific view possibly. But to label the belief as "superstition" is POV which would go against Wiki policy. Dwain July 5, 2005 15:39 (UTC)

  • Nonsense. There is no scientific basis for demonic possession, and therefore belief therein is unambigously superstition. Labeling it so is certainly not POV, only the factual truth. Fawcett5 5 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
Power corrupts eh? This is your opinion and it is not needed the article is NPOV how it is, "Demonic possession is the belief in a form of spiritual possession..." That works fine without your personal beliefs or opinions. Dwain July 5, 2005 17:24 (UTC)
"an irrational belief arising from ignorance or fear" is pretty NPOV to me, superstition does not mean "it has no scientific basis."

According to one of the definitions from dictionary.com

superstition - A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance. Sounds pretty biased, and POV to me
Superstition is the first word that comes in to mind. How about a paraphrasing "Demonic posession appears in cultural traditions and superstitions as well as in literature and culture". The word superstition needs to be here. -Maucca — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maucca (talkcontribs) 21:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Biblical Links[edit]

All the biblical links were broken, so I rerouted them to the necessary verses at Biblegateway.com, and I added 2 new ones out of Acts. I didn't read them all through, though, so I'm not taking any responsibility towards the content/context of the verses; only that the links work. Cyril March 5, 2006 19:23 (Central Time)

Demonomania[edit]

I was thinking there needed to be a full section on Demonomania, which gives a little more of a scientific explanation. But, then again, that might give it more of a POV. Anyone agree or disagree?

Demonic possession in modern society.[edit]

Maybe a section entitled 'Demonic possession in modern society' should be included on this page. --Alan Алан アラン 21:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

New Age view of demonic possession[edit]

I added a section on Carlos Castaneda, and some references and links. Where materialism views demonic possession as a symptom of mental illness, this New Age view is that the reverse is the case; and that we’re all mentally ill. It is because of our collective demonic possession that modern humans are so self-destructive and mean to one another. According to Castaneda’s teacher Don Juan, modern human civilization is essentially demonic in origin. Humans’ constant inner dialogue of self-reflection is a post-agricultural invention. Ancient humans, like infants, couldn’t think very well; but on the other hand they had magical powers which we moderns have lost: “Man must have been a complete being at one point, with stupendous insights, feats of awareness that are mythological legends nowadays. And then everything seems to disappear and we have now a sedated man … trite, conventional, and imbecilic.” (p 223). According to this view, freedom from slavery to the demons can only be obtained by mastering inner silence, which starves the demons of their food. TimRey 17:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Demonic possession in Medicine[edit]

The phrase "who are facing a collective hysteria" taken in context was not grammatical (it appears to have been intended as the main clause). I have replaced it with "we are facing" which seems to best fit the intent. I also respelled "parts" as "parties". Shannock9 09:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Demonic possession in Fiction[edit]

I've added this heading where I think it goes: separating existing material; and added a reference to Hex (TV Series).

I patterned this edit on the Exorcism entry. However I am new to editing so please excuse (and fix it) if I have not got it quite right.

Shannock9 10:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Simon Magus a case of demonic posession?[edit]

Would someone explain to me why the case of Simon Magus offering to buy miraculous abilities from the Apostles counts as a case of demonic posession. Frotz661 07:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Demonic possession in Islam[edit]

I think someone should add Possession in Islam to the article. Demonic possession in Islam is a part of the faith, and believing in it is a must to be a Muslim. I think some should add that and thanks. --Stormingace 21:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI for those interested in this -- Exorcism has a section on Exorcism in Islam -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 15:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Demonic possession in Christianity[edit]

I have revised the Christianity section and the Bible section to better reflect the controversy about whether 'possession' is an appropriate term for use in relation to Christian understandings of the demonic. Eagleswings 10:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Missing luke 8:verse 30 When Jesus asked the demon what his name was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.182.64.124 (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Demonic possession in Hinduism[edit]

Exorcism has a section on Exorcism in Hinduism -- Something on this should be added to Demonic possession. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 15:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Bias[edit]

202.154.128.137 deleted a section that he or she considered biased, assumedly against the Catholic Church. I've reverted the edit, as I don't think it should go wholesale, but I feel that it probably could be said better. Many parts, i.e. "looking to expand its ever growing sphere of influence" seem pretty POV. Does anyone have the knowledge to re-write it? Masterofpsi (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Tone[edit]

Certain parts of this article seem to go against the standards of an encyclopedia tone. For example, "From another point of view, those who accuse others of being demon-possessed have to be mentioned too" and "Certainly the language of "possession", like other mistranslations, has gained a life of its own, as is reflected in the title of this article." These aren't the type of statements I usually see in wikipedia articles.--24.255.171.220 (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality and Accuracy Disputed[edit]

Although there are numerous issues with this article (see below), I placed the "neutrality and accuracy" dispute tag specifically because the sources used for the section on Christianity are not valid. If anything these sources give an example of what one particular, contemporary, American group of Christians believes, but they are far from being representative of Christian beliefs throughout history. I'd like to request that someone re-write this section completely drawing on more neutral and factually verifiable source material.Yonderboy (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

REC[edit]

The line on the movie REC needs to be reworded, as the sequel indicated that the reverse is true, and demonic possession was the true cause. I'm unsure of how to reword it precisely without spoiling the second film, and preserving the idea that the original leaves it ambiguous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.101.224.248 (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Introduction[edit]

I just had to modify the introduction after getting here to find some information. It's probably not the best modification possible but i had to add "alleged" and "presumed" referring to "control over a human form by a demon" and "other forms of possession" because reading the previous introduction it was clear that who wrote it treated possession by a demon as a matter of fact that happens everyday. I guess that a better job can be done but just treating the idea that demons control human beings every other day as a fact doesn't really fit an encyclopedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.66.170 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

i see it's been reverted i guess that this article is in the hands of some christian "editor" who actually believes that demons take control of humans on a daily basis. i still think that presenting this as a given is just unencyclopedic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.178.66.170 (talk) 13:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

There was no reason to change it, it was merely defining "Demonic Possession" not stating whether it is real or not and by definition a demonic possession is a demon taking control over a human being not a demon allegedly or supposedly we may as well change the word "is" to "allegedly" in the inroduction in every page on religion, psychology, philosophy, and science (not considered law) which would be unnecessary and present a POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.199.113 (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Demons as fallen angels is not an agreed position in Christianity[edit]

Protestant Christianity seems divided on the idea that demons are fallen angels.

Evidence for this includes Jude 1:8-9 In the very same way, these dreamers...slander celestial beings. But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you" (Jude 8-9)

Demons are routinely cast out, but angels (even fallen ones) may be beyond our control.

Eph 6:12 talks about "powers of this dark world" AND "spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." Demons may be limited to earth (until cast into the abyss) while angels are given access to heaven as well.

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. (Ephesians 6:12).

The Book of Enoch makes a case for demons being the offspring of angels (sons of God) that were written about in Genesis 6.

Genesis 6:1-4 (NIV 1984)

1 When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with[a] man forever, for he is mortal[b]; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.” 
4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Thanks - Gordon James — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.166.190.229 (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

History[edit]

Some coverage of the phenomenon over time would be interesting; apparently reports have been more common in certain periods. One author was saying Germany (in I forget which era) had an outbreak, similar to the outbreak of witches in Salem. -- Beland (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Formatting is messed up and there is gonna be an educational assignment on this article![edit]

Oh my gosh! There will be an educational assignment on this article and the formatting in the lead is all messed up! --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demonic possession. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)