Talk:Spirit possession

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2022 and 11 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zrep67JJ, Freckledbaby, Joseph Carolina, Mli4804, Gremlins874, Friedrice03, Mattlloo (article contribs). Peer reviewers: MXP.J, Amymacd123, Summer21224, Hp85.

Demonic possession vs Spirit Possession

These pages should be put together. Some cultures believe demons and spirits to be the same thing. Demons are also called "evil spirits" in the bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysticalresearch (talk • contribs) 04:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - In traditional African religions (TAR), the two are totally different although sometimes they might be used interchangeably by those who are not familiar with the subject or are just too lazy to differentiate what type of spirit possession they are referring to. In TAR, a "demonic possession" will be regarded as an evil force that has taken possession of someone by force or without their will. "Spirit possession" (note that "Spirit" can mean different things in the African context") may also be used to refer to the same thing if the spirit was not invited to take possession of some one's body. However, when the spirit is invited to take possession, then that is not a demonic possession, but a possession by invitation—from a spirit who is well revered and whose power or energy they are trying to appease. That's why they would spend a long time prior to the possession performing the religious rituals, music and dance in order to create the environment for the desired spirit(s) to enter their realm and take possession of the one who has put themselves forward. usually the one they consider one of the most gifted in their group—who can come around by their own accord, and also have other gifted overseers just in case the spirit is too powerful for the possessed. Therefore, I totally oppose this merge. Also, this section is very messy thanks to the editor above my comment.Tamsier (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Sourced content removed, why?

The following was removed,

In Sudan and certain East African cultures the Zār cult conducts ethnomedical healing ceremonies involving possession, typically of Muslim women by a Zār spirit. This is also found in North Africa.

References

No edit summary was given. Without a reason being given I will likely replace. MrBill3 (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal (implemented)

I propose to merge Spiritual attack and Demonic possession into Spirit possession. I think that the content in the first article is rudimentary, unsourced and can most likely be disposed with, but the redirect to here would be prudent. The overlap of the second article with this article is so high (and differences arbitrary and terms often interchangeable) that a broader article covering all would be unambiguous. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

(sounds of crickets chirping) ...ummm.....@Asarelah, VenusFeuerFalle, Chris Capoccia, LuckyLouie, Mysticalresearch, Edwin trinh14, and Brainape: ....anyone else? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:37, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the merger. The first two articles are kinda redundant to be honest but they contain relevant and insightful information that the third article is missing.Edwin trinh14 (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with merger. The material in those two articles would complement Spirit possession. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me.Asarelah (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the merger for above stated reasons. Spiritual attack is short, entirely unsourced, and POV so a redirect should suffice. Demonic possession has a large overlap with Spirit possession, presumably because one is roughly a subset of the other. The merged Spirit possession would largely stay the same, with some additions. It seems the concepts are not separate enough to warrant articles. I haven't seen a good argument to the contrary.

Part of this merger was proposed before, two sections above. There, @Tamsier: opposed the merge but acknowledged that the two terms "may be used to refer to the same thing", since one is a subset of the other. This is further reason for merging. Since there is a large overlap, the common parts need not be repeated, and the section on demonic possession can focus on "demonic", and what makes that different to the rest, as "possession" will be in context.

I suspect it comes down to how one feels about whether a "demon" is a kind of "spirit" or something else. Given the wide range of cultural and religious opinions and little or no supporting evidence, the best we can do is present these cultural phenomenons in an accessible but not misleading way. Merging seems to be a step in that direction. Brainape (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I have nothing to object.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 15:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Edit: After diving more especially into the English usage of demons/devils/spirits, I revise my opinnion.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Edit: I can agree with the suggestion below and revise my opinnion once again.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Support - I agree with the arguments raised above. Re: whether a "demon" is a kind of "spirit", historically even Christians did not make such a distinction. eg. King James' Daemonologie treats possession, hauntings, and even fairies all as topics of 'demonology', using "demon" interchangeably with "spirit", and making no distinction between "demonic possession" and "spirit possession". My understanding is that this was typical of the era. Going further back, "demon" was a pre-Christian Greek word for "spirit" (hence "eudaimonia" - being "good spirited") until Christian cultures demonised the "demons" making them universally malignant. More recently, if I recall correctly, 19th century spiritualism and spiritism defined "spirit" broadly as all (intelligent) "incorporeal beings", including Christian angels and demons in that category. As far as I know, it's only recently that the word "demon" has become narrowly the Christian 'anti-angel' stereotype and it's even more recently that "spirit" has become more narrowly conceptualised in popular culture as "ghosts" and "spectres" only. Despite that, in present-day anthropology "spirit" is liberally used as a neutral term to refer to various kinds of 'beings' across cultures, most of which don't fall within the pop-culture stereotype. So, I think in context of both history and anthropology describing "demons" as a kind of "spirit" makes a lot of sense. Scyrme (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Move I'm favorable to replacing Demonic with either Supernatural, Mental, or Immaterial. Or Split religious and psychiatrist views. As it's seen as "Trance and Possession Disorder" or "Dissociative trance and spirit possession" in psychopathology. Also, demonic implies there could be an angelic possession, then I agree with Merge (Support). (Disregard) Spirit implies there's a virtudinal integrity, which is the ones' original psyche (intangible to the eyes). Usually a schizomanic episode is immanent in paranormal state (as it's our infranormal/infernormal reality manifesting the supranormal/supernormal world). That's my views (Commentaries) on the subject. Note: mental encompasses both neuronal/neural/neurological and psychological as psychical/psychal (just as thymo-/phreno- prefixes). 8Y0 ^{(she/ey; shey/shem) (user/tlk/ctrbs)} 17:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

also check this item. 8Y0 ^{(she/ey; shey/shem) (user/tlk/ctrbs)} 21:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Since both articles proposed for merging have sections on psychiatric interpretations, think it would be best to merge first to collect everything together then start a new, separate discussion proposing splitting off the combined psychology-focused section into a new psychology-oriented article. Scyrme (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Against In English literature, the term "demon" is usually used to refer to evil spirits and therefore, demons are evaluated negatively. The Wikipedia article "demons" explicitdly distinguishes between "demons" and "Daimons". Spirit possession is usually seen as something positive, increasing the ability of a person, while demonic possession renders an individual insane and is against his will.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC) edit: I think the spiritual attack article could be deleted.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think spirit possession is usually viewed positively. In most cultures, whether spirit possession is viewed as positively or negatively depends on the particular spirit. Good spirits may be willingly "channelled" while evil spirits (such as "demons") may be exorcised or kept away with apotropaics. Therefore, I don't think it matters that demon possession is viewed negatively - it's still relevant, and can be merged into the article. Scyrme (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

But spirits are usually morally ambivalent, while demons are considered genuinly evil as far as I understood? At least regarding scholars, who write about Islam, often distinguish between Demons (Shayatin) and Jinn. Further, while editing the demon article, I often found a note in the introduction, when it is about pagan demons, they are often not the same as the Christian "demons", and not exactly equivalent. My decission strongly depends on the difference between a demon and a spirit. Is a demon an "Evil Spirit", or just "a spirit which does evil"? As far as I understood "demon" is denoting their very essence, not they moral behaviour. So a spirit is not a demon because it does evil, but it does evil because it is a demon. If this is the prefered English definition (the German, my mother language, it is not) I would suggest to use "Demon Possession" explicitly for the Possession of "entirely evil" entities, mainly known from Christianity, but also Manichaeism and Zorastrianism (and partly Islam, although in Islam demons (shayatin) usually do not possess their victims, but only tempt them) and "Spirit Possession" for the phenomena of spirits entering one's mind or body. (the more I read about demons, the more I think they are basically a Christian concept anyways, as only Christianity, Zorastrianism, partly Islam and Gnosticism considers demons as entirely evil, while all other religions/beliefs, there is a not, that the term "demon" is technically inappropriate.).--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 01:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I can see your point but would still maintain the best would be to place all under "Spirit possession" as the broadest meaning one (mostly but not always negatively connotated, while the other two are more exlcusively negatively connotated). The overlap is such that the best way to treat the material is a single broad strongly referenced article I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds like a good idea, if I got it correctly: We merge both and make "demon possession" a sub-section for "spirit possession"? This would be fine I guess. Demons are still a type of spirit. I made a quick research and it seems demon possession is usually linked to Christianity too, and from that point traced to comparable phenomena. A separate section for "evil spirits" its better the actual structure.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's basically what's being proposed. Since demons are still a type of spirit, it makes sense to include the material in one merged article, with a sub-section for demonic possession for each religion listed in Spirit possession which has such a concept. As a note, demonic possession is already mentioned in Spirit possession, so merging would just mean collecting the material in one article which editors can focus their efforts on rather than splitting it between two underdeveloped articles. Scyrme (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Implemented - I've implemented this merger proposal since we seemed to be in favour of it. Scyrme (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Witchcraft

Is there a particular reason why someone decided to put "witchcraft" under the Abrahamic religions section and not source anything on it? "Witchcraft" is also very non-specific, as evidenced by Wicca being mentioned later in a much more detailed and well-sourced way. 129.244.19.78 (talk) 19:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Also why it speaks in the tone of assumption that this is inherently factual? 2600:1008:B124:17B6:CC77:530A:E4F6:3566 (talk) 03:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Sacred Scripture as sources

Sacred scriptures can have a varity of meaning, differing from religion and sect. For example, both Judaism and Christianity share elements of the Old Testamental writings, yet understand them differently. Many Christians think that the Hebrew term "Elohim" is indicating a Trinity, while Judaism udnerstands this as angels at disposal of God. Similarly, even within a religion, there can be different interpretations. For example, just because a Bible mentions Demonic possession, it does not mean that Christianity affirms demonic possession. Christians may think about it as metaphors for psychological influences or whatever. Interpreting Sacred Scripture by yourself requires the proper education and qualifications to do so, thus falling into Original Research.

Therefore, although it is common knowledge that Christianity affirms the existence of demonic possession in general and that the Bible is the central scripture, the source (Bible) cannot be used. Instead, a secondary source should be used instead. Given the common nature of demonic possession in Christian beliefs, it should be easy to find one. VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoughtfulness and thoroughness of this response.

However, I still disagree. Demonic possession itself is an anecdotal, unfalsifiable phenomenon. There are specific passages in the Christian Bible that unambiguously allude to spirits inhabiting or being expelled from human hosts (1 Sam 10:9; Matt. 8:16; Mark 16:9; Luke 9:40; etc). The fact that this is interpreted differently doesn't really matter because the same could be said about literally any other example of alleged possession: since it is unfalsifiable by default, no claim could ever be verified. The Christian community may very well parse the meaning of spirit possession itself differently, but that doesn't change the fact that the words say what they say. I don't want to devalue the practice of religious studies, but the way I read what you're saying is that, effectively, no one could read Moby Dick and then cite Melville's work as an example of scrimshaw in literature because someone else doesn't think "skrimshaw" refers to carving whale bones.

I take your emphasis on linguistic translation (ekbállo for "cast out," for instance), but I don't know of any scholarly translations of the Christian Bible that don't include at least one instance of ruach being interpreted as "spirit."

While I agree that that spiritual doctrine should not be used as a source in almost any other circumstance, it simply can't be true when referencing the book itself. If this were a claim that actually required interpretation, that might also be a different matter; this claim simply states that spirit possession is mentioned in the Christian Bible, and that is incontrovertible. The language is explicit and there's no reason to be so bureaucratic about it, in my opinion.

All that said, it seems like this is a sticking point, so I'm not going to contest the edit again. Dnap2010 (talk) 14:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)