It's a bird... it's a plane... it's DEAD HAUNTING SUPERMAN!!!
I thought exorcisms only worked on inhuman spirits (i.e. not ghosts).
Either way, the spirit doesn't seem to be malicious. Most likely it's just a residual haunting and they should learn to live with it.
Hmm. If it's in a tabloid newspaper, I count that as evidence against 
Well, if it's in "The Sun", then it must be legit!
Oh, come on: What did St. Martin cut in two?
If you like this, you might get a kick out of the "Paranormal Pastor" at http://theparanormalpastor.blogspot.com/. An entertaining blog, though the theology leaves much to be desired.
Sigh. Look, a materialist is just a person who thinks that everything is material. There's no creed, and no requirement that one automatically reject anything. Any materialist can, in response to convincing evidence of the existence of the non-material, simply give up on materialism. Materialists can be just as guided by the evidence as anyone else.
Now, in this particular case, surely the mere fact that the story is in The Sun is already sufficient reason to reject it...
Maybe Superman looks like a Roman soldier...
Surprised the ghost wasn't depicted as a homicidal albino monk.
Heard a story recently of a house with all sorts of spooky ghosty stuff going on. Somebody suggested checking for carbon monoxide*. When a faulty furnace was repaired, and the CO went away, so did the "ghosts".
*(With apologies to your faithful reader and commentor Carbon Monoxide.)
As a Catholic, I don't think I can believe in ghosts, in the sense that they're souls of the departed who linger on earth. I don't think God would simply "forget" someone, leaving them to wander the earth after their death.
In York, our tour guide talked about people seeing ghosts of Roman soldiers walking on a level 2-3 feet lower than the present level (so you could only see them from the ground up). The interesting thing was that the description given by those who saw them did not resemble the classic picture of a Roman soldier from the movies - but historians said it was remarkably accurate.
(York was a major Roman base)
There's an interview on YouTube with the plumber who sighted the ghost soldiers in York - set in the cellar where it happened:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4...h?
v=40AQ6A3WWSc
Looked like the Chris Reeve movie version.
Sigh. Look, a materialist is just a person who thinks that everything is material.
Sigh. Han Solo's claim that he made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs does not make the Millennium Falcon the fastest ship in the galaxy. A parsec is a unit of distance, not time. Solo was not referring directly to his ship's speed when he made this claim. Instead, he was referring to the shorter route he was able to travel by skirting the nearby Maw black hole cluster, thus making the run in under the standard distance, he may have indirectly referred to the speed of his ship here because to be able to go closer to black hole and still be able to get out of its gravitational pull you will need to be able to go faster. However, parsec relates to time in that a shorter distance equals a shorter time at the same speed. By moving closer to the black holes, Solo managed to cut the distance down to about 11.5 parsecs. The smuggler, BoShek, actually beat Solo's record in his ship, Infinity, but without cargo to weigh him down.
I'm more likely to believe it's a manifestation of British sentimentalism and superstition - a modern form of 19th century spiritualism - which arose to fill in the gap left when the common man was convinced to reject authentic religious belief, than anything authentically supernatural.
Crop circles, labrynths, druidical spells, krishna consciousness, crystals, and other such rubbish are all given more credance in modern Britain than Christianity. They're safer, because they don't require a conversion of heart, nor a transformation of life.
Scott wins. Hilarious.
Sigh. Look, a materialist is just a person who holds the dogma that everything is material. There's no creed, and no requirement that one automatically reject anything that doesn't contradict this digma. Any materialist can, in response to convincing evidence of the existence of the non-material, simply give up on the dogma of materialism. Materialists can be just as guided by the evidence as anyone else.
There, now that's more accurate, isn't it, A Philosopher? If you have any quibble with the rewrite, please explain.
(Granted, everyone, Scott's as the better reply.)
Well, except for "digma" should be "dogma". These sausage fingers ill be the death of me!
A.S., that looks to me like exactly what I said. I don't have any stake in how the word "dogma" (or "digma") is used, so I have no objection to its insertion.
A Philosopher with no stake in how "dogma" is used? It's kind of like a rancher with no stake in how "heifer" is used.
O.K. so what exactly is a Christain to make of so called "ghosts"? Somebody please tell me what they are!
4 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
