Re: no ghosts nowhere
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "sdavies0" <sdavies@...> wrote:
> John wrote: >Actually, Steve, your logic does not stack up
> :Oy weh. Ich bin verloren.
Ohne Gnade Sind wir alle verloren! :-)
> >. The fact that one
> believes in spirits/the Holy Spirit/or whatever, does not mean one is
> >required to believe in every supposed manifestation of the same.
> Let me put the proposition more carefully. The fact that one believes in real spirits active in culture X causing people to behave in certain ways does mean one is required to believe in real spirits active in culture Y when they cause people to behave in observably similar ways. My problem (apart from denying the existence of supernatural beings of all sorts especially in regard to what is supposed to be secular historical study) is with people who affirm that their particular sort of spirit is real but the spirits of Korean shamanesses and Voodoo Erzuli priests aren't real. I do think that when you have religions appealing to the presence of spirits in people causing those people to speak (prophets) or heal or gibber, for one's logic to stack up one must affirm that all of those spirits exist.
As you acknowledged in your original message, many of these believers do accept the reality of these spirits, but regard them as of evil origin. That does not, of course, mean what they do or say is evil - merely that an evil force has raised them up to create confusion. However, it remains the case that it is possible to believe in the existence of spirits without believing in every spiritual being anyone might propose. I do not, of course, make any judgement on the instances you cite above. I am making a general case.
John E Staton