Epilepsy = Demonic Possession!

[floo]

Or maybe it wasn't.
Or maybe someone who argues that Jesus misdiagnosed and did a bogus cure and then says, when challenged, that oh maybe the situation I've just analysed never happened looks as though they have an axe to grind.

As that sort of 'healing' by Jesus or faith healers is not credible, it can be dismissed as having actually happened, imo.

[ekim]

Going back to Floo’s original post where she says, ‘According to Matthew 17 v 14-17 it would appear Jesus believed those suffering from epilepsy were possessed by demons!’  I am interested to know on what basis Floo feels that this passage can be used to allow us to conclude that a) the young lad had epilepsy and b) that Jesus believed epilepsy to be a result of demon possession?

It was the father of the boy who claimed that his son was a lunatic (affected by the moon) and the author of Matthew reported that Jesus rebuked it, and the demon came out from him, and the boy was cured from that hour.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As that sort of 'healing' by Jesus or faith healers is not credible, it can be dismissed as having actually happened, imo.

Im not sure of your warrant that it can be dismissed.
It makes sense that religious issues have religious answers. After all mental health issues are not totally answered by surgical interventions. A true materialist medicine based on New Atheist principles of Dennett and Harris would soon become a golden age of lobotomies, convulsive therapies and chemical coshes. IMO since only physical interventions fit the philosophy.

[floo]

Im not sure of your warrant that it can be dismissed.
It makes sense that religious issues have religious answers. After all mental health issues are not totally answered by surgical interventions. A true materialist medicine based on New Atheist principles of Dennett and Harris would soon become a golden age of lobotomies, convulsive therapies and chemical coshes. IMO since only physical interventions fit the philosophy.

What sort of sense?

[Gordon]

It makes sense that religious issues have religious answers.

Only if the issues involved are exclusively religious ones. Where the religious perspective involves non-religious aspects then these other perspectives (non-religious ones) are relevant.
 

After all mental health issues are not totally answered by surgical interventions.

Nobody suggested they would be.

A true materialist medicine based on New Atheist principles of Dennett and Harris would soon become a golden age of lobotomies, convulsive therapies and chemical coshes. IMO since only physical interventions fit the philosophy.

Leaving aside what 'a true materialist' is and the relevance of Dennett and Harris, I take it psychiatry is something you know little about, hence your hopeless caricature of it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Only if the issues involved are exclusively religious ones. Where the religious perspective involves non-religious aspects then these other perspectives (non-religious ones) are relevant.
 

I don't believe I have voiced any disagreement with that and after all a man viewed as the spiritual father of millions gave his benediction on analysis recently.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What sort of sense?

Perhaps the same sort of sense which drives those with issues about religion to hang with people who are quite happy with it.

[Sebastian Toe]

Perhaps the same sort of sense which drives those with issues about religion to hang with people who are quite happy with it.

Perhaps those people are very similar to those with issues about atheism to hang with people who are quite happy with it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps those people are very similar to those with issues about atheism to hang with people who are quite happy with it?

No..........they would be on Atheistethics.
So where does the happiness in atheism come from? Careful now.

[Sebastian Toe]

No..........they would be on Atheistethics.

Never heard of it.
Why are you here......hanging out with those happy with atheism?
You could always do what you have suggested in the past and leave, indefinitely!

[Sebastian Toe]

So where does the happiness in atheism come from? Careful now.

Possibly from a similar place to where happiness comes from in a-Islamism?
Careful now.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Never heard of it.
Why are you here......hanging out with those happy with atheism?
You could always do what you have suggested in the past and leave, indefinitely!

I'm here because it's called religionethics.

[Sebastian Toe]

I'm here because it's called religionethics.

Perhaps others are here for the similar reasons?
Religion  and Ethics.
There are also many other sites which have the word religion and/or ethics in them. How many of those are you a member of?

[Spud]

As that sort of 'healing' by Jesus or faith healers is not credible, it can be dismissed as having actually happened, imo.

And yet we have three parallel accounts of the healing, each of which give details not mentioned by the others; eg Luke says that this was the man's only child. Three eyewitnesses behind the account, so we can trust it.

[floo]

And yet we have three parallel accounts of the healing, each of which give details not mentioned by the others; eg Luke says that this was the man's only child. Three eyewitnesses behind the account, so we can trust it.

Oh course we can't trust eye witness accounts of things which aren't credible.

[Nearly Sane]

And yet we have three parallel accounts of the healing, each of which give details not mentioned by the others; eg Luke says that this was the man's only child. Three eyewitnesses behind the account, so we can trust it.

That you have eye witness isn't enough but you don't even have that - it's reports from people that weren't there who you don't know about something that you have no method in law or history to establish .

[Nearly Sane]

Oh course we can't trust eye witness accounts of things which aren't credible.

Actually we can't trust eye witness accounts, even if that were what we had, of credible events. Note you are also using the argument by incredulity to say that something didn't happen and given that's a fallacy it's worthless.

[floo]

Actually we can't trust eye witness accounts, even if that were what we had, of credible events. Note you are also using the argument by incredulity to say that something didn't happen and given that's a fallacy it's worthless.

Good point.

[Spud]

about something that you have no method in law or history to establish .

I might be wrong, but isn't this an argument by incredulity?

If the event was a natural one you wouldn't have a problem trusting the three accounts.
The fact that three people have recorded the same core details but added their own extra ones is exactly what you would expect of a historical event, since three people cannot view it from the same angle; they will each record slightly different details.

[Gordon]

I might be wrong, but isn't this an argument by incredulity?

You're wrong.

If the event was a natural one you wouldn't have a problem trusting the three accounts.

I would.

The fact that three people have recorded the same core details but added their own extra ones is exactly what you would expect, since three people cannot view an event from the same angle; they will each record slightly different details.

Good reasons to be sceptical then.

[Spud]

That you have eye witness isn't enough but you don't even have that - it's reports from people that weren't there who you don't know...

Try this:
<<The stories were recorded and read aloud in worship by people who remembered the events and would have corrected any glaring errors. Evidence for this is in Mark 15.21 where Mark records that Simon of Cyrene–who helped carry the cross of Christ–was the “father of Rufus and Alexander.” Mark is probably writing the account for the use of the Church in Rome where history records he ministered with Peter. In St Paul’s epistle to the same Roman church he mentions Rufus as one of the faithful. (Romans 16.13) One can almost hear Peter talking about Simon of Cyrene and saying, “And he was Rufus’ father–who is here with us now.”>>
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/are-the-gospels-historical#SeAoyQdZh9o7JWkX.99

[Spud]

You're wrong.

Pourqoi?

I would.

Would you believe the witness who stated he saw the cyclist shout at the woman he rode into while she lay in the road?

Good reasons to be sceptical then.

How can evidence that is exactly what you would expect if it was true be a good reason to be skeptical?   

[Nearly Sane]

Try this:
<<The stories were recorded and read aloud in worship by people who remembered the events and would have corrected any glaring errors. Evidence for this is in Mark 15.21 where Mark records that Simon of Cyrene–who helped carry the cross of Christ–was the “father of Rufus and Alexander.” Mark is probably writing the account for the use of the Church in Rome where history records he ministered with Peter. In St Paul’s epistle to the same Roman church he mentions Rufus as one of the faithful. (Romans 16.13) One can almost hear Peter talking about Simon of Cyrene and saying, “And he was Rufus’ father–who is here with us now.”>>
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/are-the-gospels-historical#SeAoyQdZh9o7JWkX.99

What has that got to do with the fact that that aren't eye witness accounts, that you have no idea who 'Mark' was or and eye witness even if you had it is unreliable?

BTW given that you claimed this was eyewitnesses, can you admit you were wring to do so, instead of ignoring that?

[Gordon]

Try this:
<<The stories were recorded and read aloud in worship by people who remembered the events and would have corrected any glaring errors. Evidence for this is in Mark 15.21 where Mark records that Simon of Cyrene–who helped carry the cross of Christ–was the “father of Rufus and Alexander.” Mark is probably writing the account for the use of the Church in Rome where history records he ministered with Peter. In St Paul’s epistle to the same Roman church he mentions Rufus as one of the faithful. (Romans 16.13) One can almost hear Peter talking about Simon of Cyrene and saying, “And he was Rufus’ father–who is here with us now.”>>
Read more at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/are-the-gospels-historical#SeAoyQdZh9o7JWkX.99

You seem hooked on these religious sites, Spud. This one contains this gem of contradictory nonsense:

The supernatural elements in a story do not demand religious belief, nor do they demand belief that the supernatural events took place just as said, nor do they demand assent to the whole premise of the supernatural. What they do demand is that the reader accept that they are the record of a real experience by a historical person. So, for example, one may doubt that Jesus walked on the water. One may come up with all sorts of other explanations. However, one must accept that Peter and the other disciples experienced Jesus walking on the water. What actually happened may be open for question and debate, but the one thing we know happened is that twelve men perceived another man to be walking to them on the waves.

I'm sure you can see the problems.

[Spud]

What has that got to do with the fact that that aren't eye witness accounts, that you have no idea who 'Mark' was or and eye witness even if you had it is unreliable?

They were written for people who could verify the details, as seen in Mark 15:21.

BTW given that you claimed this was eyewitnesses, can you admit you were wring to do so, instead of ignoring that?

What I meant was that eyewitness testimony is behind the accounts