Talk:Exorcism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] "Modern-day" Roman Catholic View of Exorcisms

I changed (and reverted) the Roman Catholic section to note that the Rite of Exorcism was renewed in January of 2000, as the previous versions impressed that the practice of exorcism is outdated in the Church. Quite the contrary - though advances in the sciences have aided in the differentiation between demonic possession and mental illness, as Roman Catholics are aware, it indeed remains a recognized and accepted practice of the Church. For a better flow in the article, I also moved the historical information regarding the position of exorcist.

Also, the Second Vatican Council should be capitalized; it is a title, such as the Council of Trent.

17:17, 26 August 2005

[edit] On the Nature of the Jinn

The Following paragraph in the section.. "On the nature of the Jinn", needs a citation from a reliable Islamic source:

A Jinn might also do it for revenge. Jinn are said to be quick to anger, especially when they believe themselves to have been harmed on purpose (since Jinn are usually invisible to humans, a person can accidentally injure a Jinni not knowing that one is there). --Haroon Nizar--

This section should be removed and any appropriate material moved to the Jinn entry.

[edit] in Islam

The Hanbali sect is the main Sunni sect that believes in Jinn being capable of possessing humans and exorcism. Otherwise, the 3 other sunni sects don't believe in that.

I removed the section on removing Jinn by vising graves and wearing amulets. It is a controversial topic, not adopted by orthodox Islam and has no references attached

[edit] A cross reference is needed

Since the page mentions the movie of The Exorcist, the page of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Hughes

should be cross referenced in my view.

To my knowledge, all the cases of the angry ghosts or devils attacking the worldly human beings are the direct consequece of the inproper human's action incurred to them in the past.

In the case of Edward Hughes encountered in 1949, which I noticed is 4 years after the World War II and I'm 90% sure that the devil is the victim or collective angry consciousness related to the World War II if one closely watches the movie and pay attention to what is scarred on the boy's chest. Again, karma will never stop manifesting what has happened and will happen to the world. As long as human being has ego views on enemies, war will never end.

[edit] Skeptics section

Shouldn't there be a section that goes more in depth about what skeptics would say is behind possessions and exorcism?-August, 16 2006

No, there shouldn't be a section about what "skeptics say is behind possessions and exorcisms". This article should be neutrally written, without any arguments for either side. I like how this article is presently set up, with some cleaning up here and there, mainly in the Protestant section. This article should lay out what exorcism is, not what certain individuals' opinons on the subject are. How exorcism is viewed and performed by different religions is what this article should be about. Please keep the annoying arrogance of the so-called "skeptics" away.

Is it annoying and arrogant because you don't agree with it? No, it is not a neutrally written article, it gives arguments for one side and not another. This article should have a skeptics section. All it would do would be to report what certain skeptics have claimed is behind exorcism. It doesn't have to be a large section, just enough to give an idea of what skeptics would say. I think that makes for a more balanced, interesting article.-November 5, 2006

To the idiot that wrote the paragraph immediately above this one: THESE ARTICLES ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO GIVE ARGUMENTS. THEY ARE ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE PRESENTATIONS ABOUT A GIVEN SUBJECT. If you read any article in an encyclopedia (which, I am assuming, Wikipedia is supposed to be "encyclopedic"), they present what is, in essence, an extended definition on a given subject. Arguments are NOT included; what IS included are the facts associated with a particular subject. What a certain religion BELIEVES about a exorcism, for example, is a fact' whether exorcism actually occurs, however, is different. This should not be included.

The UFO article has an "explanations and opinions" section, which deals with skeptical views of what UFO's are. The Bigfoot article has a skeptics section. A similar section for this article was all I was asking for you. You clearly aren't familiar with wikipedia if you are suggesting that a skeptics section is not appropriate in this article, when such sections exist for many other articles. I don't see how giving a "presentation" of skeptical views on exorcism distracts from the definition or facts about exorcism. But thank you for the ad hominem remark. See you again next year.-8/09/07

[edit] Phrase?

This phase does not sound good at all

"the Holy Water especially is comparable to acid to the demon."

[edit] Exorcism is fake

It's rarely done when there aren't cameras around.63.227.6.37 (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK how does this relate to the page, or do you just want to discuss exorcisms themselves...and what is your source. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DATABASE OF EXORCISTS

I was hoping that my site, a blog, L'Epee De Dieu (Http://epeededieu.blogspot.com/), might be considered and added as a link on the Exorcism page. A database of Exorcists around the world is needed, and the one I am compiling is in progress. Please take a look at what I'm doing and think it worthy. Those who are in need have very little access to true help. I spent a week in Rome trying to find an exorcist, and finally, by luck, was referred to one, who has now referred me to another. I am hoping to build a full and real database, usable by all, and with concrete information for exorcists in all countries. I would appreciate being a part of this page, and thank you for taking the time to consider it...Rebecca Tacosa Gray —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyagray9 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

if you find exorcists from sources that we can use in wikipeida then you are welcome to edit the page and give the origional referance. However, blogs arn't admisable and links to them are considered WP:SPAM, the reason is that they are less reliable than other sources. what you are proposing is a noble goal, however wikipeida dosn't have the means to reliably validate sources such as yours which is the reason that we only allow information that comes from reliable sources and don't allow origional reserch. please don't consider this a condemnation of your work, it is only intended to be a clarification of our policies.Coffeepusher (talk) 06:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)