Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Bling

Man Possessed by Gay Demon

93 posts in this topic

Exorcism should not be theater.

In either case they believe this, it is part of their cultural narrative, so perhaps it is not theater but an actual break in the person's personality causing him to act out.

And since it is part of their cultural narrative I don't think making fun of them or saying they are wrong is a very sophisticated way to discuss this issue. I still oppose making a spectacle of it all.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exorcism should not be theater.

In either case they believe this, it is part of their cultural narrative, so perhaps it is not theater but an actual break in the person's personality causing him to act out.

And since it is part of their cultural narrative I don't think making fun of them or saying they are wrong is a very sophisticated way to discuss this issue. I still oppose making a spectacle of it all.

Eh? Who's doing that? I said nothing, merely posted the video, which is interesting.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exorcism shouldn't be an excuse to claim that ones problems or vices are created things by a fictional being.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh? Who's doing that? I said nothing, merely posted the video, which is interesting.

Just general comments regarding the topic.

Edited by I believe you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exorcism should not be theater.

It is quackery, it serves no other purpose than to fuel delusional beliefs.
9 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose mocking the World Wrestling Federation would also be 'unsophisticated', but that aint gonna stop me.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is quackery, it serves no other purpose than to fuel delusional beliefs.

Except in this case the actors might actually believe the roles they play. It becomes modern mythology, a part of the psyche, a bit bigger than your average con.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except in this case the actors might actually believe the roles they play. It becomes modern mythology, a part of the psyche, a bit bigger than your average con.

Where did I imply they didn't? A charlatan doesn't necessarily mean a con artist, just someone peddling foolishness as knowledge. Edited by Rlyeh
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Brian needs to rethink his vocation, he is not a very good actor.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did I imply they didn't? A charlatan doesn't necessarily mean a con artist, just some peddling foolishness as knowledge.

We just can't redefine words on a whim. Charlatan as a word has a very specific context of fraud coupled with profit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We just can't redefine words on a whim. Charlatan as a word has a very specific context of fraud coupled with profit.

Maybe you better get your facts straight then?

http://dictionary.re...rowse/charlatan

a person who pretends or claims to have more knowledge or skill than he or she possesses; quack.

Edit: A fraud or con artist is a charlatan, but not all charlatans are con artists.

Edited by Rlyeh
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have much respect for television evangelists. They are always wanting money.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Geez. So much hair splitting it's a wonder we don't all have split ends.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I laughed. Then I was sad. Then I laughed again. Then I was sad.

I hope this was acting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you better get your facts straight then?

http://dictionary.re...rowse/charlatan

a person who pretends or claims to have more knowledge or skill than he or she possesses; quack.

Edit: A fraud or con artist is a charlatan, but not all charlatans are con artists.

What about quacks? Because that was clearly also part of that definition.

You do know the word charlatan itself comes from people who used to sell medicine in some French village 100s of years ago. So the way you are using has lost it's original sense and is not the way most people use it today. But good to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about quacks? Because that was clearly also part of that definition.

What about it?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/quack

You do know the word charlatan itself comes from people who used to sell medicine in some French village 100s of years ago. So the way you are using has lost it's original sense and is not the way most people use it today. But good to know.

Did you know cretin comes from the word christian?

But really I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, are you unaware that words and language evolve?

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But really I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, are you unaware that words and language evolve?

Certainly you know the point. The one where the argument is weak, so they attack grammar and semantics. It's tried and true, but still doesn't change the fact that this preacher is a charlatan quack.

Edited by supervike
6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly you know the point. The one where the argument is weak, so they attack grammar and semantics. It's tried and true, but still doesn't change the fact that this preacher is a charlatan quack.

Exactly.

Many who practice quackery are just as fooled into the belief as their customers, it doesn't make them a con artist.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/quackdef.html

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly you know the point. The one where the argument is weak, so they attack grammar and semantics. It's tried and true, but still doesn't change the fact that this preacher is a charlatan quack.

Good point.

I am not the one who focused on the word con in post #9. It was such a clever trick it took me away from my original point: Except in this case the actors might actually believe the roles they play. It becomes modern mythology, a part of the psyche, a bit bigger than your average con.

Those were my comments and still are on this issue and had nothing whatsoever to do with his. So when he asks, "Where did I imply they didn't? A charlatan doesn't necessarily mean a con artist, just someone peddling foolishness as knowledge."

You didn't imply it, those were my original thoughts on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly.

Many who practice quackery are just as fooled into the belief as their customers, it doesn't make them a con artist.

http://www.quackwatc...s/quackdef.html

Still hammering the same angle with wanting to introduce and debate the definition of words even providing a link to yet another defintion.

Please, I simply don't believe in all cases there is a profit motive and if this is true then they are not charlatans or quacks in the way most people understand those words, they have something to do with profit while fooling others.

The main point is simply I don't believe in all cases they are trying to fool anyone much less make a profit, they really believe it. A part of their psyche breaks free and becomes a "demon". They are not simply acting in a fake manner in some instances.

Of course there are plenty of exorcism circuses out to make a show and money, this could very well be one. Not going to be definitive except to the fact that I disagree with your quick judgement on the matter, nothing is definitive from our distance.

Edited by I believe you
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Please, I simply don't believe in all cases there is a profit motive and if this is true then they are not charlatans or quacks in the way most people understand those words, they have something to do with profit while fooling others.
Most people who can't read or use a dictionary, apparently.

Continue beating your straw man.

Edited by Rlyeh
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the video.....I think it's incredibly sad that this guy feels he has to go through such an ordeal. Being gay does not equate to being possessed by a demon - any fool knows that, but once in the clutches of fanatical religious folk clearly his mind has been brainwashed. Either that or he has other issues or wants the attention. Either way, it's pretty shocking that these things are even going on in this enlightened world.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main point is simply I don't believe in all cases they are trying to fool anyone much less make a profit, they really believe it. A part of their psyche breaks free and becomes a "demon". They are not simply acting in a fake manner in some instances.

Of course there are plenty of exorcism circuses out to make a show and money, this could very well be one.

I see no strawmen here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.