You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
vampcommander 's review for:
Dr. Gallagher certainly is a contradictory kind of man.
Well... I went into this wanting the factual stories of real possessions and demonic attacks.
What I got was... personal accounts of some possessions and some desperate individuals looking for reassurance. What gave me the impression that I may not like the author's narrative was the fact that he stated his intentions to explain these stories to the general public, but used many fancy terms in the introduction alone. Very clinical and rambling. The general public, so to speak, would be overwhelmed by all the nonsense.
Two stars for the incredible stories of possession and attacks. The rest was boring and condescending.
He also says he will not provide descriptions of the people mentioned (and will not talk about previous patients) but goes on to describe the first priest in a rude way. Then continues to describe attacked individuals. Some of the cases he would mention that he had permission to discuss the individuals and their stories. Yet he started out with that introduction.
My biggest gripe for the whole book is that he gave a few cases here and there that were broken up by monologues on religion or clinical studies. He stated multiple times that he was doing his best not to lean into his religion during these cases and when describing them in the book. He did just that. He obviously looks down on "occult" practices or people dabbling in such practices. Thankfully, he did make a distinction between the radical, delusional Satanists and the rational ones. For a whole chapter beforehand he made it sound like all Satanists or people who practiced anything other than Christianity were bad and participated in bad acts.
He loved to put quotations on several words as well. I guess to make it known that those aren't the terms he would use himself. One that I found quite alarming is he mentioned that ancient cultures referred to multiple "gods". He used quotations around the word gods, but that is exactly what the cultures were worshipping. If your god isn't proven, what makes you think you have the right to question other religions? Religions and practices older than the Christian god, by the way.
Since the doctor loves quotations, let's share some of his own words during these religious history chapters.
He claims, on the topic of neopaganism, "Modern regression to such beliefs often seems to arise primarily out of a personal rebellion against monotheistic religions, along with some of their moral codes and demanding creedal systems." These beliefs and practices of paganism were present and thriving before religious crusades came along. Neopaganism is what people have found to connect to the roots and history of paganism. It will never be the same due to all of the work Christians did in condemning and erasing its history. To say that all of that is out of rebellion against another religion's god is asinine.
Also, as a doctor who claims to be open-minded, he said that astrology is a "New Age-y belief."
Where did his fancy words go for that sentence? He has seen evidence, so he says, of the existence of demonic entities and possessions. Yet, he is condescending toward magic, witchcraft, any other religious practice besides Christianity.
I did notice his ploy to encourage everyone to not stray from the religion with each story. These poor people ended up confessing to dabbling in "occult practices", using the doctor's favorite terminology. Dabbling in things like that, while it should be taken seriously, does not make you susceptible to possession and demonic attacks. Those people in some way have most likely thoroughly offered their spirits to forces they shouldn't have. In some cases, they were offered up by others around them. The doctor mentions spiritual armor. Christianity is not the only spiritual armor one can use. You do not have to turn to the Christian god to save you from demons. An armor of one's own making and mind can keep you safe. You are powerful on your own as well.
Well... I went into this wanting the factual stories of real possessions and demonic attacks.
What I got was... personal accounts of some possessions and some desperate individuals looking for reassurance. What gave me the impression that I may not like the author's narrative was the fact that he stated his intentions to explain these stories to the general public, but used many fancy terms in the introduction alone. Very clinical and rambling. The general public, so to speak, would be overwhelmed by all the nonsense.
Two stars for the incredible stories of possession and attacks. The rest was boring and condescending.
He also says he will not provide descriptions of the people mentioned (and will not talk about previous patients) but goes on to describe the first priest in a rude way. Then continues to describe attacked individuals. Some of the cases he would mention that he had permission to discuss the individuals and their stories. Yet he started out with that introduction.
My biggest gripe for the whole book is that he gave a few cases here and there that were broken up by monologues on religion or clinical studies. He stated multiple times that he was doing his best not to lean into his religion during these cases and when describing them in the book. He did just that. He obviously looks down on "occult" practices or people dabbling in such practices. Thankfully, he did make a distinction between the radical, delusional Satanists and the rational ones. For a whole chapter beforehand he made it sound like all Satanists or people who practiced anything other than Christianity were bad and participated in bad acts.
He loved to put quotations on several words as well. I guess to make it known that those aren't the terms he would use himself. One that I found quite alarming is he mentioned that ancient cultures referred to multiple "gods". He used quotations around the word gods, but that is exactly what the cultures were worshipping. If your god isn't proven, what makes you think you have the right to question other religions? Religions and practices older than the Christian god, by the way.
Since the doctor loves quotations, let's share some of his own words during these religious history chapters.
He claims, on the topic of neopaganism, "Modern regression to such beliefs often seems to arise primarily out of a personal rebellion against monotheistic religions, along with some of their moral codes and demanding creedal systems." These beliefs and practices of paganism were present and thriving before religious crusades came along. Neopaganism is what people have found to connect to the roots and history of paganism. It will never be the same due to all of the work Christians did in condemning and erasing its history. To say that all of that is out of rebellion against another religion's god is asinine.
Also, as a doctor who claims to be open-minded, he said that astrology is a "New Age-y belief."
Where did his fancy words go for that sentence? He has seen evidence, so he says, of the existence of demonic entities and possessions. Yet, he is condescending toward magic, witchcraft, any other religious practice besides Christianity.
I did notice his ploy to encourage everyone to not stray from the religion with each story. These poor people ended up confessing to dabbling in "occult practices", using the doctor's favorite terminology. Dabbling in things like that, while it should be taken seriously, does not make you susceptible to possession and demonic attacks. Those people in some way have most likely thoroughly offered their spirits to forces they shouldn't have. In some cases, they were offered up by others around them. The doctor mentions spiritual armor. Christianity is not the only spiritual armor one can use. You do not have to turn to the Christian god to save you from demons. An armor of one's own making and mind can keep you safe. You are powerful on your own as well.