Crucified Nun Dies in 'Exorcism'

[Nightstalkers]

A Romanian nun has died after being bound to a cross, gagged and left alone for three days in a cold room in a convent, Romanian police have said.
Members of the convent in north-west Romania claim Maricica Irina Cornici was possessed and that the crucifixion had been part of an exorcism ritual.
God has performed a miracle for her, finally Irina is delivered from evil," AFP quoted the priest as saying.
"I don't understand why journalists are making such a fuss about this. Exorcism is a common practise in the heart of the Romanian Orthodox church and my methods are not at all unknown to other priests," Father Daniel added.

 

[DarthFerret]

Well now, I was unaware that we had gone back to the old "eye for an eye" mentality in the priesthood. I thought you just got hit on the head and knocked flat on your butt to get exorcised....or maybe you go to a gym?

 

[evan d]

Yah know, I think darwin favors non-religous people. (holocaust, this, inquisition,yugoslavia, hundreds of other events)

 

[Oversoul]

Darwin died in 1882. The holocaust was long after that. The Spanish inquisition was WAY before he was born. I don't think the name "Yugoslavia" was even around in Darwin's lifetime. You are insane.

 

[TomB]

I believe he meant the theory, Oversoul...

 

[Mooseman]

Isn't it interesting that some religions take their leaders genes out of the gene pool. Sort of a self-imposed Darwin Award.......

 

[evan d]

My personal view of religion is that it is a system that was used to control society whitout government. The ten commandmends, not eating pork or shellfish, Quran, and a few more things i can't think of.

 

[Nightstalkers]

Certainly, from a standpoint that is uninfluenced by religion you can clearly see that religion was the very first form of government in the world.

 

[Oversoul]

I believe he meant the theory, Oversoul...

So, he believes natural selection favors non-religious people? In order for that to work, religion would have to be a genetic trait. I'm not sure if that's any more of a plausible assertion than if he really meant "Darwin" in his post...

My personal view of religion is that it is a system that was used to control society whitout government. The ten commandmends, not eating pork or shellfish, Quran, and a few more things i can't think of.

That isn't controlling society without government. It's controlling society WITH government. That's the opposite of without...

Also, while Islam and Judaism are both religions with many followers at this point, they are not the only religions that exist. Some other religions are not organized. How do THEY control society?

 

[Mooseman]

So, he believes natural selection favors non-religious people? In order for that to work, religion would have to be a genetic trait. I'm not sure if that's any more of a plausible assertion than if he really meant "Darwin" in his post...

Actually, behavioral traits are also a key to survival in the theory of evolution.

 

[evan d]

Genetics could also play a role in the susceptibility to believe in religions and other group activities.

Religions did favor certion actions that would help its believers to live, such as not eating pork at a time when you could easily get tricinosis. Also if you followed the ten commandments you would be less likely to be killed out of anger or revenge. Therefore, we could reason that a religion that did not make its believers follow such things would die, and leave only the protecting religions. That folks as evolution at work on religion.

Also, I think people of my generation are less religous.

 

[Oversoul]

Outrageous claims demand outrageous evidence. That's not what I'm seeing for this one.

Mooseman: in order for behavioral traits to matter in natural selection, they must be genetic. You can't pass them down to your offspring if they aren't.

There are also learned traits that you could pass down to your offspring by teaching them, but that's not natural selection at all. It would be more like artificial selection...

 

[TomB]

"demand"?

rofl...

 

[evan d]

There are also learned traits that you could pass down to your offspring by teaching them, but that's not natural selection at all. It would be more like artificial selection...

Traits could apear to be passed down but really have a genetic tendency, such as addiction, which is passed down throw parenting or the lack there of, but also, certain differences in the way the brain develops can cause greater likelyhood of addiction, and this can be passed down geneticly.

Also, couldn't evolution be working when the non-genetic traits that are tought to children gets them killed? Because aren't the people who have the undesirable trait die before having/teaching the children it is removed from the population?

 

[Oversoul]

Traits could apear to be passed down but really have a genetic tendency, such as addiction, which is passed down throw parenting or the lack there of, but also, certain differences in the way the brain develops can cause greater likelyhood of addiction, and this can be passed down geneticly.

Addiction is not genetic. Low tolerance for certain drugs is often genetic. This makes addiction likely to be more familial than random, but it's not like you're born addicted to a drug (unless you were exposed to it prenatally or something).

Also, couldn't evolution be working when the non-genetic traits that are tought to children gets them killed? Because aren't the people who have the undesirable trait die before having/teaching the children it is removed from the population?

I do not understand what you are asking. Could you make that more coherent?

 

[DarthFerret]

I agree, that was a little vague. What I think he meant is, what happens if a non-genetic trait (such as a learned/taught trait) causes an untimely death.

If this is the case, I think I might be able to answer it. If a dramatic occurance happens enough times in the same genetic line, it starts to become a genetic trait. I know this concept sounds a little off, but condiser this. Tracing back to even primitive times, humans have always had "Wisdom Teeth". Dentists are now starting to discover, that in certain families that have always had thiers removed surgically, the newest generations are being born, and grow up without producing some or all of these teeth. Their genetic code is being altered (albiet ever so slightly) over time to produce a lack of genetic teeth. This actually follows a part of darwinism (although it is flawed as a whole). Evolution weeds out the things that life proves are un-needed. In this case, wisdom teeth.

If this is not clear, please let me know and I will try to explain it better.

 

[Oversoul]

Artificial occurences can affect things, if that's what you mean. I've read that it is possible that corrective lenses have increased the instances of myopia, by partially eliminating it as a drawback (corrective lenses have only been around for hundreds of years, but supposedly good eyesight is a recessive trait). This is an interesting concept. If it is true that we are accidently altering ourselves to become gradually weaker, it could have bizarre consequences in the future, although I doubt that this will actually happen.

But it's not as though pulling the wisdom teeth out altered anyone's genes. Correlation does not equal causation.

 

[Spiderman]

Evolution weeds out the things that life proves are un-needed.

What about the appendix then?

 

[evan d]

What about the appendix then?

Doesn't bad things happen when people have thier appendix removed?

 

[Oversoul]

From what I've heard, the appendix is a vestigial organ that in other animals is used to digest cellulose. However, I haven't done any actual research on it, so I could be wrong. Natural selection is not supposed to (in theory) weed out undesirable traits or anything like that. What it is supposed to do is use mutations and the environments effects on these mutations as a mechanism for change. If it were a conscious force striving for genetic improvement, don't you think it should have done a better job by this point? The appendix is a famous example of an evolutionary leftover, but it isn't the only one or even the most important one...

Evan d: Perhaps you're thinking of appendicitis, in which the appendix, if not removed (appendectomy or appendicectomy), will indeed hurt a person...