The idea of invading a living human's body by another spirit is of course
wrong.
With a demon or possession - the human may then do wrong or odd things and
not understand. Phrases like "You are not the person I married - you have
changed" can be put down to this. A human may commence eating vast
quantities of food and become very overweight - the demon or demons enjoying
the food by way of possession.
Crimes and sins and many of the wrongs of humans could be caused by demonic
possession.

"I don't feel myself today" many clues as to character changes caused by
these numerous wandering spirits. They like to enter bodies and experience
kisses and love - and often when love dies it is the demon or demons who
cause this. Relationships change. Again due to this problem.

Angels cannot be possessed - they live way on high and out of reach.
They are aware of this problem.

This is a large problem. Much larger than you would like to think.
Bad language. Many crimes - hearing of voices - all caused by this problem
on Earth among humans.

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:54:54 GMT, "Xarx" neoncity.com> wrote:

Are social norms demons? Colin Wilson wrote a sci-fi/horror novel
called "The Mind Parasites". Might something like its premise be
literally true?* Might social systems constitute a form of 'life',
parasitic on individual conscious human life, but not itself human
or conscious? If so, how (if at all) does this relate to the idea
that we are mere 'gene machines', servants of our 'selfish genes'?
Mere consciousness does not free us, but does it nevertheless have
some potential to do so?

On Apr 15, 2:49 pm, Angus Rodgers bigfoot.com> wrote:

On Apr 15, 1:54�pm, "Xarx" neoncity.com> wrote:

Anything that is "wrong" is the work of the devil.

HTH.

On Tue, 15 Apr 2008 21:21:42 -0700 (PDT), Immortalist
yahoo.com> wrote:

On Wed, 16 Apr 2008 12:40:22 +0100, I wrote:

To be just a little clearer about this (I know I've barely even
started to be clear about it): in my first article in this thread,
I used the phrase "social norms". This fails to convey the moral
aspect, so in my reply to you I changed it to "moral norms". But
this wrongly suggests that I mean only rules which are explicitly
moralistic. I won't try to clarify this any further; I'll just
leave it confused as it is, reflecting my own present state of
confusion. (It definitely can be clarified, but in general I don't
think it's worth struggling to make one's words completely clear
unless and until a real misunderstanding arises, in the course of
a real conversation.)

"turtoni" fastmail.net> wrote in message
news:e29cf616-059f-4937-b078-59f133a00fc9@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

Off the cuff..my retort would be perhaps anything 'hopeless' is the work of
the devil.

On Apr 16, 6:31 pm, "tooly" bellsouth.net> wrote:

you hope that black men wont sleep with white women?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL_RbCGxqsc

On Apr 16, 4:52 am, Angus Rodgers bigfoot.com> wrote: