Talk:Spiritual possession
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Dune has spiritual possession?
Does the Dune series contain any spiritual possession? The existence of "spirits" is never mentioned of in the series, except by the Fremen in some cases. The state when someone who is an "Abomination" refers to being possessed by an ancestor, the memories in this case pass through the cells of the person in question, not through any "spirits".--Darthanakin 10:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] I wonder whether...
I wonder whether the external link to http://spcdc.saint-mike.org/help.asp is appropriate. Look likes a scam or the like to me. --Edcolins 12:31, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
- I've contacted the monk who runs the non-profit group and it is not a scam. Dwain July 6, 2005 03:10 (UTC)
[edit] Science, encyclopedic?
qouting:
- "Science does recognize that "possession" exists, but only in the sense that some people occasionally behave in a way that fits the expected behavior of a possessed people. However, in spite of many attempts, it has not been able to find any reproducible proof of the existence of "spiritual beings"; therefore, it finds much easier to explain such altered mental state by natural causes"
"Science" is being refered to as a person in this paragraph. Apart from the linguistic issue, I mean, what is the paragraph trying to state? Who's claiming the claims? The 'majority' of scientics? A certain conference? There truely seems to be some entity here, "it has not been able to find" etc, who is this entity? what is it trying to prove or disprove?
[edit] Merge and re-direct of channeling to this page is incorrect
I strongly disagree with the merge between channeling and spiritual possession. They are very distinct subjects. Andries 17:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree channeling (or chanelling, two L's?) is different to spiritual possession. They are both connected to the Divine, but the first, for example, can take the form writing for the Spirit and the second can take the form of being possessed by a spirit for a short time frame, whether that be a deceased love one, Abraham, Jesus etc etc --nirvana2013 18:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merge and re-direct of channeling to this page is incorrect
I agree entirely with the above comment and am concerned to see a primarily Judeo-Christian stance adopted that defies even an anthropological point of view. It is an uncomfortable partnering. Chanelling may actually be the same or similar mechanism as spiritual possession but terminologically is used for different circumstances. Generally, but not always, channeling is benign and can also be purely of impersonal vibrations rather than personal manifestations
But"" should there not be some connection / redirection / merge with the article on Channelling / Channeling (mediumistic)?
User:unregistered 4:57, 1 November 2005 (GMT).
[edit] Large edit was aimed at grammar, style, form issues.
Yeah, I like to edit grammar in my spare time.
It was not my intention to tilt the POV (or NPOV) of the article one way or another.
After my edit, I think the last three paragraphs of the first section are basically just trivia. They are on the subject, but I don't think they are essential. I will leave it for someone else to delete them or not, since I don't like to simply remove things without a trace.
Thanks.
Much of what has been said about denomic possession is only skimming the surface on a scientific point of view. it is explained much more logically and clearly in Dr M. Scott Pecks book people of the Lie: The Hope Of Healing. i would like to add some of he's theorys later when i ahve finished my research.
