More Republicans believe in Demonic Possession than Climate Change

A staggering 68 percent of registered Republican voters stated that they believe demonic possession is real. Meanwhile, only 48 percent of self-identified Republicans believe in another equally if not more scary natural phenomenon: climate change.

via Poll: Most Republicans believe in demonic possession –

A few things… defenders of the myth will say that demonic possession is in Scripture. I would argue that real demonic possession is not. I would also counter that climate change is in Scripture too – you know, Noah’s Ark.

But, the point is – is that there is absolutely nothing you can do with people who are more willing to believe in stupidstition than science.


You Might Also Like

23 Replies to “More Republicans believe in Demonic Possession than Climate Change”

  1. Ah yes, again elevating the conversation.

    I’m curious here, I have a healthy number of degrees from reputable, accredited schools. There are any number of theological topics I can speak on with education and erudition. I am not a registered member of any party and find enormous problems with both and some things I appreciate in both. I believe there is global warming happening, some of which is man made.

    When serving as a missionary in Africa I witnessed and personally encountered demon possession. In the several instances where this occurred I have no doubt it is actual demon possession and not some medical or psychological problem. Of these instances I have twice been part of an exorcism team which cast out demons from a person.

    So, am I a stupidstitonist?

    1. Robert – here is the difference between you and them. You know the difference, via experience, between medical issues and extra-natural issues. Regardless if I agree with you, the fact is, is that you have the knowledge of variables and constants. Further, I would wager you do not think that every little sickness or illness is geared to the demonic.

  2. Again, a poll like this means nothing if you don’t know how the questions were stated. The wide distribution of polls such as this from all points of view are highly disturbing and I believe are designed to confuse. BTW, since when is being prolific a substitute for honesty and accuracy as implied in the subject Salon post.

    1. The demonic possession in the Synoptics begin with Mark – and are thus parables about political oppression. This is not uncommon during the day. Further, while I believe there is one “real” demonic possession in Mark, the focus of the story is not the demon, but the ritual used by Jesus.

      1. Well, exegetically, Mark didn’t focus on Christ’s parables at all, but focused on his deeds. Why do you assume a demon possession is a parable? What are you using to base your opinion?

        1. Other literary metonymy at the time.

          You are confusing focusing on the parables of Christ with seeing the Gospel as the intrusion of history into a story. The best analogy I think I can give at the moment is the Eucharist. It is a deed, but is is a parable as well.

          1. It CAN be a parable, but there is a plainer meaning, and I’ve always read the Bible plainly, as it was meant to be read. Theere is no reason to look for deep hidden esoteric meaning if one reads it plainly. Reading the Bible plainly is hard enough, don’t you think? I don’t see the first century Jews as seeing a hidden meaning, because Jesus didn’t even imply it.

          2. “as it was meant to be read” – Who said? Not even the New Testament writers used that philosophy… not even the early Church writers… not even the Reformers. Tell me, then, where do you get this heretical philosophy?

            Jesus didn’t write the bible… his theologizers did. Big different.

            And, if you don’t think the first century Jews read deep into Scripture, you obviously have no clue as to what you are talking about.

          3. The Reformers are too far from the source for them to be authoritative. Even modern evangelicalism is too far from the source. And I take the church fathers with a grain of Salz. The rules of hermeneutics and exegesis don’t allow for esoteric and allegorical readings. If I were to say “This is a Peanutbutter sandwich”,it isa fuly meaningful statement with no hidden overtones.. The 2 biggest hermeneutic errors modern Bible readers make are totality transfer and allegorization.
            The church fathers were known to allegorize everything.(especially Augustine). They did this mainly because the gospel was simple, and its hard to justify an advanced degree in the simplicity of the gospel. So it’s fun to pontificate about one’s deep insights into scripture.

          4. In other words – you and you alone decide what the rules are, what tradition is, and what the meaning is.

            Ant, you aren’t God.

            Again, this is heretical and a bunch of bunk.

          5. I alone? I think not, it seems YOU are the one to decide what the meaning is or whatever author you’re reading this week. Could it be because you AGREE with them that you they are not heretical? The gospel is simple, and it doesn’t take a seminary degree to understand it (although I have one), it’s just not simple to follow.

          6. Oh?

            So i can show where other authors of the time used the same style – but you without any evidence, reason, or example claim that the NT writers were writing in a post-Enlightenment “plain sense” style. Yes, you alone.

            Plain sense is a gnostic fabrication designed to allow everyone to become the final interpreter and therefore destroy the real inspiration of Scripture. Also, it is passively anti-semitic.

          7. Wow, that’s a lot of accusations, Joel. In fact, the Gnostics were the ones to allegorize everything! I learned exegesis and hermeneutics from Bible school and seminary. Look up Gordon Fee, he can learn you some.

            But, what have I said so far that makes my interpretation of scripture heretical? I haven;t said an doctrine, I have just said that I read the Bible plainly, and everyone who reads the Bible plainly and uses proper exegesis, comes to the same conclusion. When you allegorize, EACH person comes up with their own theory. Give me an example of how my exegesis is wrong.

          8. Actually, I like Gordon Fee – but he is not always correct.

            The Gnostics relied on super-secret revelation that was plain to only the mature. Yup… modern fundies.

            If you base your interpretation outside of Scripture itself and then outside of Christian Tradition, it is heretical.

            I never spoke about allegory – although Paul did. As a matter of fact, Paul was a master of allegory and would detest plain sense.

            When you start with the point that Scripture was written out of context, you are already wrong.

  3. I guess I’m just not smart enough to read everyone’s thoughts so I wish blog commenters would say if they are commenting on the blog or one of the comments and if so which comment. Just to be clear, this is intended to address comments in general on this blog.

    1. I put Joel’s comment in quotes, so as to remark that I was commenting on his comment. I was not quoting you Skid. Maybe the comments don’t nest very well on

  4. Joel, Thanks for the reply. I didn’t see anything directed toward me, I just couldn’t figure out the intended target. This is not an uncommon situation for me. Saw you this morning but we were greeting so had to stay in place. Hope to see you on Thur. before too long.

  5. AW— I had no problem with your post except that I did have to go back and find the quote to be sure. I was really making a generalized post as this seems to be a recurring situation. The problem may be that brillent minds often don’t realize that everyone doesn’t possess their mindset.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.