It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Origins and functions of demons within different ideologies.

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 10:43 PM
The idea of who demons are and what they do seems to differ widely depending on religion, culture and personal point of view. For instance, in certain Buddhist teachings they are seen are judges, teachers and expiators of sin; whilst in other religions they are seen as purely malevolent tormentors.

In this thread, I am interested in hearing your ideas on the subject, what you believe to be true, and maybe creating some intelligent debate? Anyone up for that?

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 10:46 PM
i've always liked to think of demons in the arab djinn sense. sort of like you don't have a clue what to expect but you know it's gonna suck.

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 11:18 PM
I dont beleive of demons in the traditional sense. Perhaps their just really, really bad spirits.
However I do have a theory, .... that different demons are simply different aspects of the human psyche. Intentions, and ideas, Incarnate. .... they say thoughts exist forever, radiating out into space, energy doesnt die. .... well what if the very thought of something, ... gave it a life on its own, then you multiply that into the millions for every person thinking it. and there you have it.

If prayer can have a profound positive effect ?? .. can simply the beleif in something give it life on its own ?

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 12:01 AM
reply to post by IntastellaBurst

The old beliefs of my people would be seen as somewhat similar.

Thought gains embodiment.

But, to be more specific in that: Thought, when spoken gains embodiment.

The concept of which is held within an old saying we have "Kei roto i te kupu te oranga" (Within the [spoken] word is the healing/life).
While that saying certainly refers to the more positive nature of also carries within it some acknowledgement of the power of the spoken word.
Essentially the desire and the internal focus needs to be verbalised in order for it to more readily find embodiment.

More clarity/background to that concept:
In some ways the concept could draw similarities to a more biblical understanding of embodiment and imbuing with life via breath.
The breath of the Creator placed within the previously empty vessel (first human being).

Our Creation mythology can be seen in a similar fashion...the forming of the first human being, the breathing of life into that form and so thus awakening Human life into this world.

Perhaps what is also interesting is that concept was in existance within our culture well well wellllll before the first bible-holding Missionary placed their feet upon our shores.

...but anyway, to bring it back to the subject of Speaking = Enlivening.
Via speaking we literally empower our thought with breath...and so that thought is embraced within and carried forward by our breath.

In some ways too is the perception that within us all remains, even in some form, some residual *breath* of that first breath by our Creator which started human the concept also acknowledges/suggests that by *tuning in* to that original breath within us we may also in some way imbue life into thought, into our creation...

Does that mean every single one of us - by my cultures understandings - could create life/whatever through speaking it??

Well...probably not...

How so?

Well...that *ability* (and sooo hate to use such terminology as it sounds so egotistical and overdone these days) was often seen as residing within specific lineages and families. Members within those lineages were seen as carrying within them, being born into, those *abilities* passed down from our tipuna/ancestors who in turn received them from theirs and so on and so on.

So while perhaps something like that Thought/Breath/Life concept may be available in some way to was also very much seen that it was perhaps just more readily available/accessible to a very select few.

Now - another concept in line with that is our cultural concept of Makutu or Curses.

Some Makutu were essentially the sending of plaguing entities towards the target of the Makutu.

Some believe that there were those who had the *ability* of Makutu who not only were able to call up and dispatch various types of 'Entities' (and indeed in some ways perhaps the nature/intent/activity/form of the Entity may well in some ways cause them to be seen as 'demonic') but also had the ability to conjure up new entities...ones that were embodiments of that desire/intent of the sender of the Makutu. in that regard...from my culture...the old understandings would suggest a level of conscious creation of new 'demonic' entities...


posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 12:11 AM
Within Christianity there is an ambiguity about whether demons are rebellious figures or else are actually serving god in some way, as executors of divine retribution, etc. Bible passages and traditions can be found to support both views.

This is because it is logically very difficult, given the presence of evil, to suppose a God that is both A) almighty and B) all good. Either he's not totally in control of the show, or he actually created things we experience as "evil" (or at least highly unpleasant).

In Zoroastrianism, Manicheanism, and some of the Gnostic religions, a sharp dualism is supposed: There is the world of light and good, and a world of evil. This worldview allows for demons and devils but at the price of omnipotence for God: it supposes a dark "shadow realm" where the supreme being is not fully in control. The early Orthodox and Catholic religions roundly rejected this kind of fundamental dualism (perhaps to differentiate themselves from their gnostic competitors, or as a selling point: "our God is all powerful; theirs is not"). But this comes at a price: it means God has the ability to stop evil, but for some reason does not. "Divine retribution" is one explanataion under this condition; there are others, but the point has always been hazy and problematic in Christian theology.

Far-eastern religions (Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism, etc.) don't go in for moral absolutes to begin with, so the entire issue is sidestepped. In Buddhism, there is a moral code (the eightfold path and, in more detail, the entire Vinanya corpus of ethical writings, for example) and there are certainly many hell-worlds. But morality is explained not in absolute terms, but more along the lines of "you shouldn't do this because its bad karma will make you suffer for it later somehow."

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:32 PM
Speaking from a Judeo Christian background:

I do know that many spirits were "rounded" up (If you will) by Jesuits in order to gain control of the Pagans in the Inquisition. The pagans belived many spirits to be either neutral or even beneficial to man.

Jesuits injected their own theology by labeling all those spirits as "Demon" and therefore "Evil". "Dangerous" and created falsehoods to instigate control through fear over the population.

Anything not understood or that didn't fit the Catholic mold was labled "Demon".
Even epileptic seizure was definite proof of Demonic activity requiring exorcism.

Take the Demon Succubus for example.
I've had two of these interacting with me for over three decades.

The Wiki definition is almost 100% false, misleading folklore according to all of us who actually experience them:

Main source of the Wiki report is straight fro the Inquisision days:
Funny all those views survive almost intact even in popular society today.

More proof it's still popular belief is a Google/Yahoo search on Succubus or Incubis which only emulates the Wiki report.

More proof:
Fact: Some Demons like Succubus/Incubis are immune to religious rituals such as exorcism, smudgings, prayers, fasting etc.
Why is this?
Those techniques work against melevolant evil beings but not those which are good or neutral. Makes sense to me. How could good cast out the good?

It's my view there was a great war of lesser spirits (Angels) against a superior power (God). The warring angels were cast out and exist as the melevolant, evil hateful and destructive beings we know as "Demon".

There were also a smaller group of angels who chose not to take sides and ended up cast out as well but lack the evil traits of the others. Some were assigned single roles of existance. For example Succubus/Incubus live for, exist for sex. It's all they do or have interest in.

There's also entities mistaken as "Demon".
A benign spirit might appear as a black human shape and desperate to get your attention. They might open a door, make noise, toss something etc.
The person might read the intent falsely out of fear, thinking they have an evil "Demon" present.

That's my take on the matter anyway.

[edit on 15-6-2009 by FormerlyConfused]

[edit on 15-6-2009 by FormerlyConfused]

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:35 PM
In my thread a Guide to Exorcisms. I cover a lot about this. You maybe interested in it. Just click the link my signiture.

But, stating that one religion demons and the other religions demons are different is most of the time wrong. Infact demons basically have the same ideaologies amongst all religions.. Go figure...

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:45 PM
I have to agree with what TheMythLives says.

"God, Angels, Spirits, Ghosts and Demons" are probably all the same from religion to religion, although some may manifest themselves differently.

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 04:44 PM
These replies have all been very interesting, thank you!

TheMythLives: thanks for the link to your thread, I will read it now

As to demons being viewed differently in different religions, I would say that the perspective is different. For instance, for some Buddhists, they are seen as necessary and performing a vital function, judging and expiating the soul so that it can ascend. But I do study comparative religion for the reason that you stated, that there can be seen a thread that ties them together.

top topics


log in