Demonic possession is not recognized as a psychiatric or medical diagnosis by either the DSM-IV as the Religious or Spiritual Problem V62.89 or the ICD-10as F44.3 Trance and possession disorders. There are many psychological ailments commonly misunderstood as demonic possession, particularly dissociative identity disorder. In the early- to mid-20 Century, "mania" or "hysteria" were common diagnoses, but such terminology has generally fallen out of favor. In cases of dissociative identity disorder in which the alter personality is questioned as to its identity, 29% are reported to identify themselves as demons.[9] However doctors see this as a mental disease called demonomania or demonopathy, a monomania in which the patient believes that he or she is possessed by one or more demons.
LOLOL, you should see my spinach! Last night they were all hysterically possessed. Writhing in pain and misery. Today mellow and smiling.
Satan and Jesus are dropping in for tea at noon today, too bad you can't be there.
Someone has caused any semblance of reality to leak out of your balloon. Probably the result of self-pricking.
Did someone on the board ask for an exorcism? I am with SoxFan on this one, it sounds like a textbook case of LSD flashback. Either that or you have had a stroke while sitting at the keyboard and just kept on typing.
rbl100, you will be happy to hear current record November rain in Australia's Sydney (remember you have two) have exorcised dreaded dry demons from my vegetable patch.
These letters to the editor of our SMH were written in reply to a Cardinal Pell comment (see below), but, wow, they could have been written to yours ..
Frightened? No, finding meaning in our lives November 30, 2010
''A minority of people, usually people without religion, are frightened by the future'' (''Faithless are coarse, uncaring and without purpose, says Cardinal Pell'', November 29). Wrong again. Those who are frightened of the future are the religious who cower before the certainty of an after-life in which hell looms large and eternal. It is the irreligious who have twigged that the only thing we need fear is messing up this, our only life.
My fellow non-believers and I revel in the amazing and richly rewarding experience called life that we have been lucky to enjoy. What a sad and unimaginative person you must be if, day after day, you could discern no ''purpose or meaning'' in the sights, sounds and relationships that life offered you, forcing you to invent an implausible next life to find point in this.
Glen Coulton Marmong Point
With respect, I'd like the Cardinal to know that I am not the least frightened of my personal future. My universe has meaning far exceeding my pitiful inability to articulate. And I am at least as manifestly ''constrained'' by my humanism as he by his religion. I will also wager that my caring for others and the Earth objectively equals that of most in his flock.
Am I ''coarse''? My friends can decide that, but its relevance is dubious. As for the ''constructs [we] confect to cover the abyss'', it's hard to see any defensible difference between the covering power of my humanism and his dogma. Equally human constructs, they provide hope, solace and meaning. However, mine are scientifically defensible, while his are suspect. Other than ignorance, what drives the man to insult everyone who doesn't believe in his God?
Lee Andresen East Ballina
I am disturbed by the lack of logic in Cardinal Pell's view that atheists are ''frightened by the future'' and that our lives are ''without purpose, without constraints''.
Pell's religious faith is based on the idea that no evidence is required. In fact evidence, or reasoning contrary to religious ideals, is considered a challenge to faith. As such the rejection of that evidence or reasoning is treated as a virtue.
Unfortunately, by religious logic, reason and faith do live in an ''ideological apartheid''. I assume that when Pell says atheists have ''nothing beyond the constructs they confect to cover the abyss'', he is referring to the evidence-based logic of scientific process that I applied in coming to the conclusion that the God of the Bible does not exist.
Is he really asking me to replace my hard-fought epiphany with the vacuousness of faith? I wish he'd told me earlier. It would have saved me a lot of time and money on education.
Bill Bannister Castle Cove
Cardinal Pell says the faithless have ''nothing beyond the constructs they confect to cover the abyss''. Now I understand his concern. The faithless are making their own lollies at home instead of buying his name brand.
Steve Dawson Kiama
Secularism is a desire to separate governments from churches and religions. So wearing the burqa cannot be an ''attack'' on secularism as Jason Leske says (Letters, November 29). Quite the opposite. Secularism allows us all to engage in our faiths or lack of them without government interference. So any attempt to ban the burqa would be an attack on secularism; and any attempt to ban an artist's expression that he wants the burqa banned would also be an attack on secularism.
Cardinal Pell makes a similar mistake by equating secularism with opposition to religions joining in public discussion. But for secularism there would be no opportunity for public debate about any of these issues.
Caleb Owens Woollahra
Thank you, Cardinal Pell, for your observation that those of us without faith confect constructs to cover the abyss. And may I respectfully reply by pointing to your bright red cardinal's costume, your funny bishop's hat, and the curly stick you heave yourself up the aisle with. We all cover the abyss with our constructs, but some of us do it in more style.