Talk:Obsession (Spiritism)

Obsession versus possession

Excuse my ignorance here but, in a topic bereft of citations and references, what is the difference between 'obsession' versus 'possession' which I believe it is commonly known. Thanks.

Are these two topics suitable for being merged? --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, spiritists use the term obsession because they don't belive a spirit can actually possess someone else or another spirit for that matter, in the same sense that you cannot possess a friend. What spiritists claim is that a spirit can influence another spirit or a living person. That influence, when negative and against the free-will of the person influenced, is called obsession. Among the reasons for using this term instead of possession, spiritists say that possession has acquired a sense that the possessor spirit enters the body of the possessed person, which is not what they believe to happen, just as you don't enter a pen when you use it to write. I hope my explanation is clear enough, since I am no longer a spiritist. jggouvea (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added refs to the article, cleaned up the organization, and linked it in to other topics that are related to it in various ways. The idea of a merge is not a good one, as this article is not about what is commonly called possession or trance possession, but about a situation in which spirit mediums become subjugated to the will of spirits. Catherineyronwode (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Obsession is the outward torment of a demon or spirit while possession is the inward torment of the same. This Wiki only discusses (Spiritism) but should also include demonic or angelic obsession as well. For example, if a person experiences spontaneous emission it was believed to be from an incubus or succubus and was considered obsession. On the other hand, if a person randomly convulses, moves uncontrollably or speaks in tongues, this would be possession User:Mysticalresearch (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Not scientific

This sounds like a piece of bullshit from occult magazines. If author claims that obsessions are real, he should provide some references. Or else it should be clearly indicated, that only a handfull of people claim these to be happening, and scientific community regard it as a fiction. --213.164.108.136 (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It is your remark that can be classified as bullshit here. Wikipedia is not discussing whether this is real or not, it merely presents the beliefs people have. You are not forced to believe them, though, but if someone ever wants to know what "Obsession" is this article is here to say. According to your point-of-view encyclopedias should not also have entries on God, soul, Zeus, Atlantis, etc. jggouvea (talk) 00:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)