Graham Hancock Says He Now Believes in Conscious Universe and Reincarnation

5/2/2018

Today I learned that no good deed goes unpunished. As most readers know, I maintain a growing library of important texts related to fringe history and pseudo-archaeology. Since there is no full public domain translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh, and I certainly wasn’t going to pay thousands in licensing fees to use a modern one, I put together my own version from public domain material and my own editorial emendations and additions based on more recent translations. I started from the base of William Muss-Arnolt’s translations, published in 1904, and added in translations of fragments that were discovered and translated in the 1910s and 1920s. Because Muss-Arnolt’s material was in the wrong order, incomplete, and often wrong, I took a pretty strong editorial hand, and about 50% of the text is mine, though I tried to echo Muss-Arnolt closely enough that it isn’t always easy to tell. I don’t claim it as my own translation because, obviously enough, I don’t read cuneiform to work from the primary sources. That’s also why I don’t sell it for a profit; I don’t feel it is enough of my own labor to charge for. But it also isn’t in the public domain. I wrote half of it.

So imagine my surprise to discover that after generously making this available for free online that Wikisource copied the whole thing to their site, and from it, dozens of booksellers have created eBooks and print-on-demand volumes featuring my translation, attributed to Muss-Arnolt. (I licensed it, once, to a non-profit for educational purposes.) Basically, everybody is making money off of it but me.

But if my work had managed to find a second, third, and a two-thousandth life at the hands of long-tail e-book mass producers, this unauthorized reincarnation pales before Graham Hancock’s latest pronouncement. This past weekend, Hancock announced that he now believes in reincarnation: “Maybe we are meat robots, all matter, no spirit. A lot of people believe that. But its only a belief, not a fact. I think we’re all spirit and these bodies are the avatars we need to function in the material realm. Reincarnation makes a lot of sense to me.”

It is clear that Hancock sees himself as a spiritual guru in the making, and now he has a dogma to complement his theology. Over the past few years, he has described how he has come to believe that divine beings lurk on the other side of the veil of consciousness, gods accessible through drug use, particularly the herb ayahuasca. But now this belief in a polytheistic pantheon is tied to a pantheistic belief that the universe itself is a divine agent and invested in each individual’s spiritual development: “Why would the universe invest in creating this incredible ride if we only get one chance to learn the lessons it teaches? I think we come back, again, and again, and again until, maybe, finally… we get it.” Basically, Hancock is now a Buddhist with occult and hippie tendencies.

I am somewhat intrigued by the notion Hancock has developed of a teleological purpose to existence. While, yes, this is a common enough philosophical conceit, it also seems to reflect the same set of faulty ideas he brings to his study of ancient civilizations. He genuinely seems to have difficulty with randomness, chance, and fallowness. He, for example, finds it impossible to believe that humans could live a hundred thousand years without constructing cities filled with high technology, and in this light, it becomes obvious that the reason for this is that he believes that humanity has a specific purpose. And if that teleological purpose is to achieve a certain level of culture, then it is inevitable that he must project that into the past.

Similarly, he has difficulty with the concept of cultures rising and falling on their own, the victim of internal and external forces with no grand plan behind them. Here, too, he sees teleological plans at work. A conspiracy of guiding gurus—the Shemsu Hor or Atlantean priests—must be behind it. And he is especially unnerved by the randomness of natural disasters. That must be why he has become obsessed with the idea of a comet destroying Atlantis. It is the shattering moment of randomness that explains the failure of his teleological ideology, and he is attempting to render that random, soul-shattering horror safe by suggesting that the ancients were able to predict the return of the same comet cloud and the date of the next disaster. By making random events into part of a well-documented divine plan, something that can be predicted and accounted for, he can restore his own faith that there is a guiding force beyond a material world that he seems to fear might be home to no god.

How long will it be, though, before he claims to know (or to be) a reincarnated member of his lost civilization?

50 Comments

Machala

5/2/2018 10:22:41 am

" How long will it be, though, before he claims to know (or to be) a reincarnated member of his lost civilization? "

What day is this ?

Only Me

5/2/2018 08:01:03 pm

I wonder if we should start a pool on when this revelation will take place. I give it six months, tops.

Scott Hamilton

5/2/2018 11:46:31 am

If Hancock does claim to be a member of the ancient civilization, wouldn’t that mean he would finally describe what that civilization was? Because I’ve read a bunch of his books and I still have no idea.

Shane Sullivan

5/2/2018 12:52:08 pm

I know, it's very disappointing. I want to know about their aesthetic sensibilities, their economic structure, their policy on homelessness. I want to know about a day in the life of the average Atlantean. Instead, all we get is, "They made maps. And radioactive arks. And voice-activated levitation manifolds." What the hell am I supposed to do with that?

RobZ

5/3/2018 07:39:27 am

@Shane

Fly from A to B, glowing, in the dark?

A Nuddhist

5/2/2018 12:07:27 pm

Of course most people get reincarnated as worms or insects so it's not that great. The short sharp life of a rabbit seems like heaven by comparison. Ow! A shark just ate me! Here I go again. Damn! Just eaten by another shark! Hey I recognize this place, it's the Hell of Ice Knives. Drat and bother!

5/3/2018 07:40:46 am

To quote one of my favourite bowls of Petunia's: "Oh no, Not again!"

Aaa

5/2/2018 12:16:42 pm

Read Neale Donald Walsch and it will all become clear. Hancock is right, of course.

Dunior

5/2/2018 12:29:36 pm

I have personally seen very similar things to what you are describing with Hancock. All of this may begin with something they perceive to really explain history or even a minor aspect of it. This is the basis for the New Age breaking down traditional ways of thought. Then they are forced to resort to using faith based narratives that can't be proven such as reincarnation to explain their madness. We do see one our most popular subjects of conversation on this blog beginning to go down the very same pathway that Hancock is. In fact I think the alterna-gossip last year stated that the two had even spent some time together. I research odd history. Since I have been doing this two people who I became acquainted with simply went bat shit crazy and were institutionalized. This genre also breeds people with Christ complexes who now feel they can minister to the world because they figured out some ice age settlements may now be under water.

Doc Rock

5/2/2018 12:48:50 pm

Is it any wonder that some fringe producers develop a Christ-like (if Christ was an arrogant asshole) attitude given the level of commitment and devotion by some of their followers and a certain degree of semi-celebrity status that they attain. The followers are generally operating entirely by faith and confirmation bias and attack anyone whose objective criticisms challenge their faith or the standing of their prophets. Doesn't take too many people like that who back you to the hilt to get an over-inflated sense of importance about yourself and your message. Just look at any fringe message board and how people react to even polite, well-reasoned, and objective criticisms of whatever topic is under discussion.

Shouldn't be any surprise that some of these folks have to "go away" for a little while from time to time, and probably have an entire pharmacy in their medicine cabinet.

Americanegro

5/2/2018 01:06:16 pm

Says Captain Drinky-poo of the SS Chug-a-lug.

Hal

5/2/2018 05:24:27 pm

Americanegro: angry, old, gay white male pretending.

5/2/2018 05:33:20 pm

Okay, you hate gays. We get that. Message received.

5/2/2018 06:24:00 pm

Americanegro: Wrong as usual Goober. You are Goober and that’s what you’ll be called. Goober.

5/2/2018 02:03:22 pm

Actually, its Doctor Drinky-Poo. Based on your comments here in general, it is quite obvious that unfortunately there are no meds in your cabinet. I would encourage you to rectify that.

OK, you got somebody to pay a little attention to you. Golf clap. Now back to the kiddie table for you and off to a warm up for Happy Hour for me.

5/2/2018 02:50:19 pm

You seem fascinated with this fantasy Kiddie Table. Do you understand the concept of "where the bathing suit covers" and "no toques la cosita"? I'll wait for your reply because I know you gotta get your drink on. Of course after that nothing you do or touch is your fault; that's how it works, right? You're a One Note Norman, Nelson. You think you're Walter White but you get the line wrong: "I AM the Stranger Danger!"

5/2/2018 06:46:08 pm

Goober, AKA Americanegro is angry, old, gay white male pretending. Goober’s comments are designed to inflame. He’s just a Goober wanting what he doesn’t earn or deserve. He’s a Goober.

T. Franke link

5/2/2018 02:54:27 pm

Pseudo-science by its very nature often tends to work like a belief system, or religion. With prophets who know the revelation.

Sometimes, established science tends to work the same way. Then this is a sign that a given paradigm is dogmatized, and legitimate (!) alternative views are outruled, and scientific progress is hold back.

5/2/2018 05:34:57 pm

Sort of. Certain positions can become ingrained in "mainstream" science to the point that deviating viewpoints can be viewed as approaching heresy. Or, there can be competing schools of thought, each of which is so set in its paradigm that they view the other schools of thought as heresy that should be marginalized.

However, when it comes to mainstream science, there is generally some basic mutual understanding in most areas of research. It can generally be accepted that, no matter the sharp theoretical differences, the disagreements occur among well-trained and competent professionals. For example, in American archaeology of the 80s and 90s, there were significant divisions between the students and fans of Lewis Binford and Robert Dunnell. Each thought the other to be heretical, or approaching it, in terms of theory. But they were all respected in terms of their ability to conduct archaeological investigations and basic lab analysis. It was often only in the areas of theory that they really clashed to the point of it getting ugly. Up to that point they got along well and were all viewed as credible scholars.

When it comes to the fringe, however, all bets are off. You tend to have fringe archaeologists proposing baseless wackjob theories that are thought to be wackjob by ALL objective standards. Often put forth by those without any formal academic training and not much, if any, firsthand experience in the area where they want to be taken seriously. So, at pretty much every level their credibility depends on faith rather than any firm academic training or empirical database.

Kiddie Table

5/2/2018 04:15:14 pm

Mr. Docrock lets us drink and shows us pictures on his phone, then we play games. He says not to tell our parents.

Henry

5/2/2018 05:40:42 pm

Jason, angry, old, gay white male desperate to get Hancock to notice him.

Clete

5/2/2018 06:34:51 pm

Henry, angry, young, gay white male desperate to get anyone to notice him.

A Buddhist

5/2/2018 07:01:43 pm

Jason: Why do you call Hancock a Biuddhist? believing in a cycle of reincarnation/rebirth that can be escaped is not unique to Buddhism. Jainism and many forms of Hinduism also have this belief. Moreover, Hancock's apparent elevation of the universe to the role of intelligent, planning, creator is contrary to Orthodox Buddhism, which outside Indonesia (for legal/constitutional reasons) rejects the idea of a supreme creator deity. So does Jainism, but Jainism accepts souls unlike orthodox Buddhism.

5/2/2018 07:05:51 pm

Jason: Why do you call Hancock a Biuddhist?
should have been
Jason: Why do you call Hancock a Buddhist?

5/2/2018 07:45:18 pm

It sounds like Hancock is suggesting that we *will* eventually "get it", i.e., some kind of enlightenment, which suggests a sort of universalist soteriology like we find in the Lotus Sutra. I can't recall, off hand, any religious denominations outside of (some forms of) Buddhism espousing this kind of guaranteed liberation by way of reincarnation.

5/2/2018 08:08:38 pm

The difference between the soteriology posited by the Lotus Sutra and that posited by Hancock is that the Lotus Sutra's soteriology (which I do not agree with, but you acknowledge that it is not universal) is placed within a Buddhist context, whereas Hancock's soteriology is placed within a pantheist context. And pantheism is not the same as Buddhism. So many people associate reincarnation with Buddhism to such an extent that upon gaining evidence that someone teaches or believes reincarnation, they assume that such a person is a Buddhist or influenced by Buddhism.

The Ājīvikas, based upon what little we know about them, have taught that all people would inevitably reach salvation/an end to the cycle of births and deaths - but then, they may not have, given how fragmentary the sources about them are. They did teach, contrary to Orthodox Buddhism, that souls exist.

5/2/2018 08:21:37 pm

"The Ājīvikas, based upon what little we know about them, have taught that all people would inevitably reach salvation/an end to the cycle of births and deaths"

That's actually something that what you call "Orthodox Buddhism" teaches. The timescale may not be to your taste, but that's a problem on your end.

A little less "scholarship" and a little more focusing on the nature of your mind, if you don't mind.

5/2/2018 08:53:07 pm

Americanegro: You cite, I presume, the Lotus Sutra in defence of the view that "all people would inevitably reach salvation/an end to the cycle of births and deaths" - yet my Buddhist tradition, the Theravada, rejects the Lotus Sutra and even the forms of Buddhism that accept the Lotus Sutra as authoritative in some sense do not necessarily accept the idea that all people will inevitably reach Nirvana.

If one were to limit Orthodox Buddhism to those schools that accept the Lotus Sutra and accept its teaching that all beings will reach nirvana, then one would exclude the Theravada and Tibetan Buddhist traditions from orthodoxy. I prefer to define Buddhist orthodoxy as opposed to the Pudgalavāda and Jonang schools of Buddhism, as well as in opposition to the authority of the Vedas and the existence of a Supreme Creator God/Ishvara.

I wish that I could engage in Buddhist meditation, but my disabilities make such difficult. So I study it as best as I am able (which would be better but for my job and life) and develop faith in the three jewels.

Many thanks for not insulting me. It would be best if we could all avoid insulting each other all the time.

5/2/2018 09:40:09 pm

I don't know no Sutras but Theravada accepts Buddhuahood, therefore it accepts an omniscient being committed to liberating limitless beings over a limitless period of time. You are limitlessly uninformed.

Not really interested in this "I can't meditate" nonsense. If you're anti-Jonang that's fine, it's a Sharks vs. Jets move. You don't like swapping the figure for the ground, you don't like the Uttaratantra, one of the basic texts of Mahamudra. You are limitlessly uninformed.

I don't want to hear about your effin' disability dude, pay attention to your mind and stop trying to prove you're a scholar, that ship has sailed, with a capital Z. You are limitlessly uninformed.

5/2/2018 10:21:50 pm

Americanegro: If I were truly limitlessly uninformed, I would be lacking even the information through which I write answers that you respond to.

Where do you get the idea that I deny Buddhahood or claim that Theravada Buddhism denies Buddhahood? This conversation is not about any assertion by me that Buddhahood does not exist, does not benefit innumerable beings, and does not take time. Rather, I am asserting that it is possible to be an Orthodox Buddhist without believing that Buddhahood is inevitable. There is too much scriptural and common-sense evidence revealing that attaining Buddhahood or any stage of attainment down to stream-enterer requires effort as well as proper causes and conditions.

As for my not liking the Uttaratantra and/or Mahamudra, that is no contradiction with my position as a Theravada Buddhist, given that the Uttaratantra is a Mahayana text and Mahamudra is a Vajrayana technique derived from Mahayana Buddhism. But to clarify, I would not place any Mahayana or Vajrayana Buddhist school outside Buddhist orthodoxy unless it were to assert a permanent self, a truly-existing Buddha-Nature, or, when not compelled by law, a supreme creator god/ishvara. The buddhas who create universes cannot be regarded as supreme creator gods because the Buddhas were themselves the creations of karmic forces and gained the ability to create universes rather than being inherently able to create universes and unarisen/uncreated (as a supreme creator god/ishvara would be).

I apologize for angering you with my mentioning of my disabilities, but they are a constant restriction on what I can do so I often have to mention them in other circumstances.

5/3/2018 12:36:36 am

Let your imagined rules not be your purpose. Calm the heck down.

If you can type you can meditate, in fact you're overqualified.

There is a Sutra tradition of Mahamudra. This is not news.

The timescale may not be to your taste, but that's a problem on your end.

Don't know what your deal is on "orthodox" but everything I said was straight-up orthodox Buddhuism.

It's like you weren't in class the day the rangdong shendong debate took place. Sound like you no likee Dzogchen. No moogoo for you!

5/3/2018 03:37:57 am

Actually Nyingma asserts a "truly-existing Buddha-Nature", not just sat, but satya-sat.

As confirmed by the D Man himself, the Dalai Lama in a 1981 lecture.

So really you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Am I telling you to shut the eff up and not pretend you are a spokesperson for Buddhuism? Interesting question.

5/3/2018 08:04:47 pm

Americanegro: I would not deny that becoming a Buddha takes kalpas of preparation, but that was not what we were arguing about. Rather, we were arguing about whether all Orthodox Buddhist sects teach that Buddhahood is inevitable.

Given that you said in an earlier post that you do not know Sutras, I prefer to refrain from believing, based upon your word alone, that Mahamudra originates from Sutras. Ironically, I have no trouble believing that Mahamudra derives from Sutras, perhaps even sutras/suttas that Theravada Buddhism accepts. I just would rather gain such information from someone who was not saying just yesterday that "I don't know no Sutras".

If the Nyingmas assert a "truly-existing Buddha-Nature", then this is another reason, in addition to their heavy use of termas, for me to mistrust them. That having been said, I am not willing to trust your claim about this because the Dalai Lama is a head of the Geluk Buddhists, who historically were rivals to the Nyingmas. So he may be merely quoting from an anti-Nyingma tradition within his Geluk tradition. Furthermore, the Dalai Lama is largely irrelevant to Theravada Buddhism - certainly, he is not as important to Theravada Buddhism as the Pope is to Catholics.

I am aware of the whole Rangtong-Shentong debate, but it is too philosophically dense for me to understand or follow, just like many Catholics do not understand the nuances of the trinity or nature attributed by Catholicism to Jesus.

I make no claim, either on this website or others,of being a spokesperson for all Buddhists. My user name is "A Buddhist" rather than "A Representative of True Buddhism."

You do not seem to be disagreeing with me anymore about what we started arguing about: whether all Orthodox Buddhist sects teach that Buddha-hood is inevitable for all beings. I do not deny that some orthodox Buddhist movements, based upon the Lotus Sutra and possibly other texts that I have not studied, teach this, but the fact that other Buddhist sects teach otherwise means, as I see it, that it is an error to say that "Orthodox Buddhism teaches that all beings will inevitably become Buddhas"; rather, it is more accurate to say that "some forms of Orthodox Buddhism teach that all beings will inevitably become Buddhas"

5/4/2018 01:41:00 am

"Americanegro: I would not deny that becoming a Buddha takes kalpas of preparation, but that was not what we were arguing about. Rather, we were arguing about whether all Orthodox Buddhist sects teach that Buddhahood is inevitable."

Dear Sir/Madam, you come in here giving your views on your version of Buddhuism, call yourself "A Buddhist" YOU MAKE yourself a spokesperson and representative.

"Given that you said in an earlier post that you do not know Sutras, I prefer to refrain from believing, based upon your word alone, that Mahamudra originates from Sutras."

Again I refer you to the current Dalai Lama, the D Man, on the sutric Mahamudra tradition. Not your researcher dude.

--- I still don't know know Sutras ---

If the Nyingmas assert a "truly-existing Buddha-Nature", then this is another reason, in addition to their heavy use of termas, for me to mistrust them. That having been said, I am not willing to trust your claim about this because the Dalai Lama is a head of the Geluk Buddhists

--- Yeah uh, not accepting that nonsense. That is simply not true and I'm leaving to you to find out how wrong and uninformed you are.

-- Wow you are limitlessly unaware of the Great Fifth, the 13th and current Dalai Lamas. And you clearly know nothing about Nyingma thought, which is admittedly abstruse. But I don't go around pontificating.

-- Oh, wait, here's another place where you are being a silly bugger and completely wrong. You said

"I am aware of the whole Rangtong-Shentong debate"

--Yeah, no you're not. Step 1, learn to read Tibetan.

"I make no claim, either on this website or others,of being a spokesperson for all Buddhists. My user name is "A Buddhist" rather than "A Representative of True Buddhism." "

-- But you throw around that word "orthodox" like you own it.

You don't know the difference between sat and satyasat but you throw out all this "Pittita Tittita" STUFF

5/4/2018 08:44:51 pm

Americanegro: Your words, being full of venom and lacking information (aside from simple negations), are barely worth responding to. That having been said, I will reply, because you deserve some thanks. I will have to look into the link between the Dalai Lamas and the Nyingmas. I was mostly familiar with the connection between the Nyingmas and the Kagyus, but I know little about the history of the Geluks (aside from their suppressioin of the Jonangs and their marginalization of non-Geluk traditions, especially during the 19th century CE).

On what ground do you assert that I am unaware of the Rangtong (Wylie: rang stong) Shentong (Wylie: gzhan stong) debate? Is it because I use a different transcription system? I have read about the debate in, for example, Karl Brunnholzl's commentary to Nagarjuna's "In Praise of Dharmadhatu," although I understand little about the nuances of the debate.

I am a Buddhist, and through my readings of various Buddhist texts (not as many as I would like, I admit), I have gained some knowledge of what Buddhist sects hold in common (aside from the Three Jewels), in the same way as many Christians have ideas about what separates Christianity from heresy. I welcome correction and new information where and when I can find it. But it is not necessary nor wise to engage in insults and namecalling.

Finally, I fail to understand why my use of Pali terminology for Buddhist scriptures written in Pali that I hold to be sacred (such as my use of the Pali term tipitaka) is worthy of ridicule. Do you think that only Sanskrit Buddhist terminology is legitimate?

5/5/2018 02:04:41 pm

Oh, you don't like negation? Yet you cite (actually "mention" as if you were citing) Nagarjuna? NETI, NETI, NETI. What you call "venom" I call calling you on your constant setting yourself up as an authority and your infliction of your Buddhuism which is just as bad as Gunn's demon infested Xtianity. Give it a rest dude. As Groucho said "I love my cigar too, but I take it out once in a while."

5/5/2018 02:29:16 pm

Americanegro: There is difference between your negations and Nagarjuna's negations. Nagarjuna was refuting metaphysical understandings of the world by revealing their absurdities through logical arguments (and there are some Theravada authors who quite respect Nagarjuna - I can list some if you want), but you are asserting that my factual claims are wrong (something that I am willing to accept) while often not telling me how I am wrong - instead you resort to simple insults about my general competency. A naked assertion that another person is wrong is easier to dismiss or ignore than an assertion clothed with evidence (whether factual or in Nagarjuana's case logical), especially when the naked assertion is accompanied by insults.

Finally, I fail to see where Gunn errs in his understanding of Christianity. Certainly, Christianity is absurd, but its scriptures present a world in which demons are everywhere and causing all manner of troubles and the only solution is calling with faith upon Jesus. If you want, I can cite scriptures supporting this.

5/5/2018 07:06:02 pm

Aside from the Gadarene swine I think you'll have trouble coming up with demons in "Christian Scriptures" so again I negate you, denying both the allegation and the allegator.

5/5/2018 08:00:23 pm

Americanegro: Thank you for asking me to provide Christian scriptural texts discussing the commonness of demons in the world. You have mentioned the Gadarene swine, but I can provide other Christian scriptural references to demons. Off the top of my head, and in no particular order:
Matthew 9:32-34: demonic possession is portrayed as causing muteness, but exorcism cures it.
Matthew 10:1: Jesus grants his disciples the power, among other things, to expel demons [see also Matthew 10:8]
Matthew 12:22: demonic possession is portrayed as causing muteness and blindness, but exorcism cures it.
Matthew 1714-21: A boy’s lunacy is said tro be caused by demonic possession, and Jesus is portrayed as instructing his disciples about how to properly exorcise demons that cause lunacy.
Mark 9:17, 25: Some people are shown to be made blind and deaf by evil spirits, but are cured by exorcism.
And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils. Mark 16:17
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Matthew 7:21-23
And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us. Mark 9:38
And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. Luke 9:49
Mark 1:32-34: Jesus is portrayed as having exorcised many people of evil spirits.
Acts 10:38: Jesus is spoken about as an exorcist.
Acts 19:12-16: exorcists who are not Christian are portrayed as trying to use Christian exorcism formula, but the demon rebukes them for not being Christian and strips them naked and wounds them.
Ephesians 2:2 Satan is described as the "prince of the power of the air", and the spirit that guides non-Christians.
And as an excellent concluding texty from Christian scripture, I cite Ephesians 6:11-12, which is self-explanatory: Put on the full armor of God, so that you can make your stand against the devil’s schemes. For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this world's darkness, and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
If you want more in the way of commentary about the Christian Bible’s demon-infested understanding of the world, feel free to ask me.

5/5/2018 10:13:11 pm

You've vanquished me at last... or have you? You say pittita I say tittita.

"Concluding reflections
a) The New Testament neither contains nor is interested in a fully
worked out demonology. When the New Testament talks about
demons, its concern is to describe various manifestations of spiritual
bondage. Such bondage can be described also as 'having an unclean
spirit', or being dominated by Satan, and is essentially of a piece with
being 'enslaved by the elemental spirits', being 'blinded by the god
of this world', being afflicted by 'an angel/messenger of Satan', or
being inspired by 'the spirit of antichrist'. 'Demon-possession' was
one way of understanding and representing such bondage, particularly
when more disturbing physical manifestations were involved,
but it was not the only way.
b) On the other hand the New Testament does give a consistent
portrayal of evil as having a unified personal centre, organized on a
cosmic (not merely social) scale, and essentially characterized by
hostility to the good purpose of God in creation and redemption. Seen
from this perspective, the manifestations ofthis power of evil are very
diverse-from the corruption of a cosmos subject to meaninglessness
(Romans 8:20), to the particular enticements of sin working through
the weakness of the flesh (Romans 7). Within this range, all iJlness
and every defect can be reckoned as a manifestation of the corruption
of the cosmos and the mortality of the flesh, and can be attributed
directly t6 Satan (Luke 13:16; Acts 10:38; 2 Corinthians 12:7). And
in cases where the evil power dominates an individual completely, he
can quite properly be spoken of as possessed-possession by 'an
unclean spirit' as in the Gospels being cases in point, though
presumably not all cases of possession will display such obvious
physical disturbance.
c) Some of the cases of demon-possession in the Gospels can be
'demythologized', at least to some extent. In particular, in the case
of Mark 9:14-26 it may well be that we should recognize the signs of
epilepsy and recategorize it accordingly. That is to say, Mark 9 is
probably a good example of 'pre-scientific' man attributing to demonpossession
a malady whose physical mechanism we have since learnt
to identify and largely control. But such demythologizing should not
go so far as to eliminate the spiritual dimension from that, or indeed
from any, illness. Even more important, we should recognize that
many maladies are rooted in man's spiritual being. We recognize,
after all, that mental disorders can have physical symptoms-that is,
222
Demon-Possession and Exorcism in the NT
that many physical ailments are rooted in man's mind. As soon, then,
as we recognize that man is also spirit as well as body and mind, it becomes
equally obvious that physical or mental illness can have
spiritual causes. The label 'demon-possession' never was particularly
specific (a] above}, and if on one side it needs to be more carefully
delimited to take account of our fuller knowledge of the working of
man's body and man's mind, on the other side it needs to be given
more scope to take fuller account of the evil active in the spiritual
dimension, which is one aspect of all illness and the source of many
particular ailments.
d) It follows that the continuing significance of exorcism should not
be bound to a particular conceptuality of demon-possession. Exorcism
can be understood in a narrow sense as the treatment for
spiritual bondage when conceptualized as demon-possession, or in a
broader sense as treatment of disordered humanity on the spiritual
dimension appropriate to the disorder. The important point is that
treatment of illness must take serious account ofthe different levels or
dimensions of illness, and to be effective may well need to operate at
all levels. It is equally foolish to treat a spiritually rooted malady
merely as a physical or mental illness, as it is to treat an illness which
may be primarily mental as a case of demon-possession.39 Nor should
it be assumed that successful diagnosis of a complex illness and
multi-level treatment will inevitably result in a cure. If illness is part
of this world's fallenness, life in this world will never be wholly free
from it. So long as it is God's will for this age to continue, illness will
be an inevitable concomitant.
e) On the other hand, Christians can expect that ministry to a
spiritually rooted malady (ministry of exorcism) will be effective on at
least some occasions. Where, for example, a condition is the result of
some particular bondage (that is by Satan}, then one who is empowered
by the Spirit of Christ should be able to minister
deliverance, as Jesus did. Individual Christians should be open to the
possibility of such ministry, and the church should encourage those
whom it discerns to have such ministry in its exercise. A healing
which extends to the whole man is still a characteristic of God's
kingdom. Release of the captives is still a sign of what God wills

5/6/2018 09:46:50 am

Americanegro: The book that you quote to me, although asserting that some (if not most) diseases are caused by physical and mental issues, also asserts that some are caused by Satan and related spiritual forces and that Christian ministers should be able to cure such illnesses through exorcisms. So your source, although not as willing to claim demons as the cause for many problems as Gunn or the Christian Bible, acknowledges it as a possibility. The Christian Bible, Gunn, and the book that you cite all agree that evil spirits, whether Satan or in thrall to Satan, are problems that Christians can deal with through faith in Jesus.

I am glad that you are now recognizing, albeit flippantly, that one thing may legitimately be called different things according to different customs. Thus, Mahayana Buddhists, using Sanskrit, call Buddhist scriptures sutras and the compendium the Tripitaka, but Theravada Buddhists, using Pali, call Buddhist scriptures suttas and the compendium the Tipitaka.

I hope that these types of conversations between us have been a learning experience for both of us. I have learned that people may have genuine knowledge despite their frequent uses of insults. Maybe you have now learned not to judge people as utterly incompetent and completely unworthy of respect despite their having made mistakes.

5/2/2018 07:48:55 pm

Yet Buddhuism accepts that Buddhus can emanate complete universes.

Let your imagined rules not be your purpose. Calm the heck down.

5/2/2018 09:02:31 pm

Goober, angry, old, gay white man makes more inane comments.

Every Random Nazi Ever

5/3/2018 12:40:37 am

Your hatred of homos completes me.

5/3/2018 07:52:58 am

Many, many people have problems with concepts such as randomness and lack of purpose. Not just religious people, although they are most prone to assign purpose and reason, where there is none.

Arby

5/3/2018 08:05:22 am

My how this conversation sounds like a Jr. High School locker room ranking cut low session. What bunch of intellectuals were are here. Everyone wants to read you guys hating on each other. Kind of makes the rest of us look like idiots for even commenting here. I'm afraid to say anything about the article. Off to my safe space I suppose. Thanks to everyone who posted a comment germane to the subject at hand!

5/3/2018 12:13:10 pm

Abby,

I've seen this happen with other blog discussion boards. You get a couple of people who are intent on harassing anyone who posts a comment. They often try to make major issues out of semantic minutiae rather than the actual points being raised in order to get the discussion side-tracked. The discourse tends to get increasingly vulgar and ad hominin to the point that few people bother to post because they don't want to have to deal with the grief. Kind of like the once quiet bar that turns into a violent scene to be avoided because a handful of violent drunks are allowed to pretty much dictate the tone of the place

I'm not afraid to give it right back to them when pushed, but that is just playing into their game. Best thing to do is to just ignore them and focus on the people who are interested in rational discussions. Hopefully, at some point after a critical mass has been reached there will be some "adjustments" made to how things operate here.

5/3/2018 12:26:32 pm

Always nice to hear from Captain Drinky-poo who pregames for happy hour at noon EDT.

Riley V

5/3/2018 11:37:12 am

Until Hancock can channel an Atlantian warrior who can debate Ramtha I have no use for him.

Jason's Mom

5/5/2018 11:52:27 pm

Uh oh, someone made Jason mad by thinking for themselves again...but good to see Jason is there to make fun of and bully them again to satisfy his cult members. I'm not sure why Hancock's beliefs matter to Jason, I don't accept 80% of what Hancock says, but if he wants to believe in the fairly logical premise that the universe is conscious and reincarnation is likely, well so what? Science has data that states the might be right, this isn't mumbo jumbo...well I guess it is for some that need it to be.

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.