But the boys weren't afraid of the camp worker who yelled and drew crosses in water on one boy's forehead, or the staff members who were present. Parker said he and the other boys wanted to escape the demons that had infiltrated the camp.
"It was all real.… we all believed he was possessed by multiple different demons," Parker said of the July 13 exorcism.
"They said it was a spiritual hotspot. That's why there had been all that demonic activity there."
Quote:
Parker and his mother say the exorcism was traumatic. They're also angry about the four days of indoctrination, sleep deprivation and exhaustion that led up to it, and that it appears to have been promoted, or at least sanctioned, by multiple top Redberry camp officials, they say.
I asked my Dad about this when I was young, I remember the mental gymnastics. The context was slightly different, but it was after an aunt and uncle had separated and notably could not be around each other. My question was: When kelly (their daughter) dies, will they be together with her in heaven? Even if they still don't want to be together? So they'll be together there forever? Etc.
Unless everyone lives in their own bubble universe filled in with memory generated replicas of people they knew in real life, then it's going to be patently impossible for everyone to be permanently happy in heaven.
The good place does a good job of looking into this to. good show.
Imagine the joy of being in Heaven, but your child is condemned to Hell for some mortal transgression. You can spend eternity worshipping a God who created your child to be imperfect and then judged them absolutely and eternally for that imperfection.
Sounds delightful.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
There's certainly less existential dread believing that you'll exist forever vs facing your own mortality and that the universe will continue without you forever.
It's also a lot easier to just follow a set of right vs wrong rules that someone said you have to follow or suffer eternally vs having to figure it out for yourself and do it because it's right (and not to avoid eternal damnation).
I think there could be non-religious grounds to believe in the possibility of after life, next-life, or post-life existences. It's something I think about all the time.
There is so much we don't know about consciousness. Is it possible to reproduce consciousness? Like if the physical elements and structure of the brain replicate in another being with enough similarities and in the parts that are responsible for consciousness, will the same consciousness emerge in that being? We know it can happen once, because we are here and conscious, so maybe it could happen again. Or if we figure out how consciousness forms, could we artificially replicate it? Maybe there there is a way for an advanced human civilization to create a simulation that can produce the consciousnesses of every human that has lived or will live.
This is some of the stuff that keeps me up at night. It's a little meta, sure. But I don't think it is necessarily incongruent with science, at least based on the things we know now. It makes some assumptions though, so accepting those assumptions as possible or true probably counts a little bit as faith I suppose.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
He certainly didn't come across as a nice relatable person the few times I met him, it felt more like meeting an aloof celebrity.. but he was a celebrity.
I've met other big preachers who definitely had that charisma that made you feel like they cared for your soul more than they cared about their own.
But do they believe what they preach? The ones I've known better certainly do, the pastor of the church I was in that I met KC through actually died of cancer because he said taking cancer drugs/treatment was a lack of faith in God's power to heal him... He believed to his core.
But those were very much smaller time pastors.. smaller churches, maybe some travel, nothing like the mega rich ones.
I mean the mega rich ones COULD actually believe what they say, they're living proof of what they preach aren't they? But some probably are actors, though that seems exhausting, I can't imagine having that much energy.
How many set out to be scammers? How many start out with good intentions but get pulled in by success? How many live in little universes where everyone tells them they're amazing so they think they're amazing?
Good questions...
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Could it be that the fetters of religion and power corrupt by necessity? No matter what your intention, these engines of human organization mold the wielder as much as the wielder is able to mold them.
Could it be that the fetters of religion and power corrupt by necessity? No matter what your intention, these engines of human organization mold the wielder as much as the wielder is able to mold them.
Any organization that concentrates power without over-site will become a haven for abuse.
It’s an interesting question whether the organization creates the abusers out of good people.
I think the aspects that relate to rules for thee but not for me are functions of a lack of over site and all people put in these positions will push boundaries to some degree. The make up of the individual determines how far and unethical it becomes.
When it comes to pedophiles and rapists I don’t think these power structures create them, they attract them instead. You see it in every place where there is easy access and little oversight. Church’s, coaching, Boy Scouts, sports, schools .
Where there is unquestioned respect for a position of authority people will move in and take advantage.
I think there could be non-religious grounds to believe in the possibility of after life, next-life, or post-life existences. It's something I think about all the time.
There is so much we don't know about consciousness. Is it possible to reproduce consciousness? Like if the physical elements and structure of the brain replicate in another being with enough similarities and in the parts that are responsible for consciousness, will the same consciousness emerge in that being? We know it can happen once, because we are here and conscious, so maybe it could happen again. Or if we figure out how consciousness forms, could we artificially replicate it? Maybe there there is a way for an advanced human civilization to create a simulation that can produce the consciousnesses of every human that has lived or will live.
This is some of the stuff that keeps me up at night. It's a little meta, sure. But I don't think it is necessarily incongruent with science, at least based on the things we know now. It makes some assumptions though, so accepting those assumptions as possible or true probably counts a little bit as faith I suppose.
I think the concept of a Boltzmann brain is completely different from an after-life / next-life / post-life.
The concept of natural mind/body dualism is purely religious in nature be it deist or some other form of spirituality. The evidence is clear that if you do something to the body it impacts the mind, there is no space between the two to exist separately. If an identical consciousness arose elsewhere in space/time it would not be an afterlife or rebirth.... it would be more akin to a twin with an identical starting point and a vastly different future in front of it.
That said, I do think if you were able to sever a consciousness from a body (say downloading a brain into a computer), I am willing to accept the duality of the mind in "unnatural" case. Everything that came before the cloning of the mind would be a perfectly valid portion of that minds experience. But I don't think that is related to an after-life or or next life... it is more like cloning but for a mind rather than a physical form.
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Meet the Apostle of Right-Wing Christian Nationalism
Quote:
Dutch Sheets stood behind Marjorie Taylor Greene, the palms of his hands held up to God.
Revered by followers as a modern Christian apostle, Sheets told a packed crowd at Gas South Arena, outside Atlanta, to pray with him for the GOP congresswoman, who touts herself as a Christian nationalist, and appeared onstage in a bright-red dress.
“We say she is covered by the blood of Jesus,” Sheets said. “She will not be taken out by evil forces,” he insisted, adding: “We take authority over that in Jesus’ name. And we cover her now with a shield of prayer and faith and say, ‘Be strong! Be blessed! You are highly favored! You will not fail,’ in Jesus’ name.”
Quote:
The right’s new hunger for theocracy is creating an opening for figures like Sheets, who has long preached that Christians cannot only impose their morals on society through the levers of government, but that doing so is Jesus’ most ardent desire.
Quote:
Inside the arena, Sheets was soon leading the spirited crowd in a recitation of a new document he co-authored called the “Watchman Decree.” It reads like a Christian nationalist pledge of allegiance.
“As a patriot of faith, I attest my allegiance first and foremost to the Kingdom of God and the Great Commission,” Sheets began. (The “Great Commission” refers to the instruction by the resurrected Jesus to his followers to “make disciples of all nations.”) He then led the crowd in a series of theocratic declarations, including:
“We, the Church, are God’s governing Body on the Earth.”
“We have been given legal power and authority from Heaven.”
“We are … delegated by Him to destroy every attempted advance of the enemy.”
The audience then read aloud, with Sheets, a list of 13 decrees, including that the three branches of U.S. government will “honor God,” “write only laws that are righteous,” and only “issue rulings that are biblical.” The congregation continued, in unison, “We declare that we stand against wokeness, the occult, and every evil attempt against our nation.”
They concluded with Sheets’ trademark spiritual battle cry: “We decree that America shall be saved!”
Why is it when the crazies use their religion like this in such an obviously horrid way, all the "good churches" aren't out there saying "not in our name. This isn't how we do things"? Shouldn't they be strongly denying these people? Otherwise it looks a lot like they think it is OK to be associated with it.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Why is it when the crazies use their religion like this in such an obviously horrid way, all the "good churches" aren't out there saying "not in our name. This isn't how we do things"? Shouldn't they be strongly denying these people? Otherwise it looks a lot like they think it is OK to be associated with it.
Why, the churches are clearly not associated with each other. This sounds like blaming all Muslims for 9-11.
It’s has as much to do with you as any other person not affiliated with this religion.
A conservative federal judge in Texas ruled Wednesday that requiring employers to cover PrEP HIV prevention drugs in their health insurance plans, as the Affordable Care Act does, violates their right to religious freedom.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, decided in favor of Braidwood Management, a Christian-owned, Texas-based company. He ruled that it shouldn’t have to cover the cost of Truvada and Descovy—drugs that hundreds of thousands of Americans take daily to prevent HIV transmission—because Braidwood’s owners have religious objections to gay sex. O’Connor cited the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the same law that the Supreme Court ruled in 2014 protects employers’ right to refuse to cover birth control.
