[steansathtpos]

Journ...yman: Edited by admin.

I just assumed that any poster who mispells his own handle probably satisfies this definition of "journeyman:" def. "any sound, experienced, but not brilliant craftsman or performer (Webster New College Dictionary)." So I decided to keep it simple and provide you easily grasped discussions of ESP theories. Obviously, my post wasn't worded simply enough for you. You reply: "Given that xenoglossy is a made up word (it isn't in any dictionary to which I have access) it isn't really a wonder that I didn't know the church has restrictions on it." You pass yourself off as well read in parapsychology. Xenoglossy is the standard term in the fleld for the phenomenon of speaking an unlearned language, and yet, you were unaware of this.

You handle's implicatlon is confirmed by your simple-minded rejection of Heaney's book simply on the grounds that he us a Jesuit. In fact, contrary to your bigoted preconception, Heaney rejects the notion that "possession cases necessarily involve possession by Satan (p. 40)." Also silly is your trivialization of David Fontana's research on the grounds: "I can't find any evidence of his involvement in experimentation of things psi or psychic." In fact, Fontana has made "significant contributions" to parapsychology on "mediumship, both mental and physical, poltergeists and the Electronic Voice Phenomenon" (quoting Prof. Archie Roy). Among his many distinguished roles, Fontana is the past President and current Vice President of the Society for Psychical Research. He is an expert. You seem to rely on ad hominem attacks and crass assumptions to avoid the hard work of critical engagement.

[Journ...yman:] "I'll believe it when I see it & not before. Too many people have too many reasons for spreading BS stories about what happened. And you brother now denies it all as well?"
______________________

Again, you prove that you can't read. I never said my brother denies the story of his exorcism; on the contrary, he doesn't like to discuss it because the memory of it is so terrifying! Your close-mindedness reminds me of Flat Earthers who reject the Apollo moon landing on the grounds that it must have been faked in a New Mexico hangar.

[Journ...man:] "But my whole point is your screed seems to be saying you already know all this is evil & demon based."
___________________________________________
You seem to be the only reader to come to that conclusion. In fact, my last post explicitly denies it and I have already offered the first of several posts making the case that some channeled material might be genuine. My initial post mainly offers experiments and case studies that call the genuineness of channeled contact with the dead into question. I'm content to offer examples that favor contrary perspectives and let the reader decide. Apparently a New Age Fundamentalist like yourself can tolerate only one perspective. If you really want to pass yourself off as a truth seeker, you need to investigate contrary sides of each question. In the case of possession and exorcism, that means you need to read Malachi Martin's chilling case histories in his magisterial "Hostage to the Devil." You will earn my respect and change my tone if (1) you read that book and discuss it here with me; (2) you actually engage the specifics of the concrete case histories I cite.

Don