Jump to content


- - - - -

What's The Difference Between An Angel And A Demon?


13 replies to this topic

#1 Lazarus Benedict

    One...Two...Three...

  • Old Timers
  • 123 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 05 May 2017 - 11:21 PM

I was raised with the belief that "Angels" are "good" and "Demons" are "bad". Yet, I've always questioned common notions of what is perceived as "Good" and what is perceived as "Evil."

For example, certain of the so called "Demons" of the Goetia seem pretty cool and friendly. Others seem like assholes incarnate based on their descriptions. Yet certain "Angels" seem creepy and freaky. "Azrael" for example.

Where does one draw the line between angel and demon? Is there a difference?

Edited by Lazarus Benedict, 05 May 2017 - 11:40 PM.

It's not the flesh I'm after, but the howling ghost within...

#2 wren

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 890 posts

Posted 06 May 2017 - 07:10 AM

Doesn't matter, need not be;
Draw a line, then look and see.

#3 monsnoleedra

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • 321 posts

Posted 06 May 2017 - 01:45 PM

Realistically it's drawn against whatever theology and paradigm your working in. A demon in one might be an angel in another or simply a spirit / divinity in another. Yet realistically most who are calling them demons / angels are working within an Abrahamic model whether it be Christian / Jewish / Islamic back boned.
I'm Only Responsible For What I Say Not For What Or How You Understand!

#4 Imperial Arts

    Senior Member

  • Old Timers
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,307 posts
  • LocationMusic City

Posted 06 May 2017 - 01:48 PM

The SubGenius people like to say it has something to do with which end of the pitchfork you get.

I prefer to side with Maimonides, and presume that angels are aspects of God, giving a "face" to the mysterious ways in which the divine interacts with creation. It's very difficult for the human brain to grasp the means or motive behind being healed of some deadly disease, but strange as it may seem, we can easily grasp being magically healed by a radiant apparition of some young European boy with a fish in a golden cup who can call Raphael.

There are a lot of nasty things that happen in the world, but the prey and the predators are essentially on the same team, so dividing the universe based on what makes humans happy vs. what eats humans is probably not a very precise way to arrive at spiritual truth. Yeats to the contrary, Satan is not God's opposite, but rather his employee.

The Catholics tend toward the belief that demons, pagan gods, all of them, are fictions ('idols") given the appearance of sentience and power by Satan as a means of tempting humans. Islam teaches that the demons are those from among the angels and the djinn who followed Iblis in refusing to serve mankind. Mormons teach that the demons are those human souls who rejected salvation from before the creation of the world, and that the angels are those humans who have become exalted. It has been said that on one side of the mountain, the asuras are good and the devas are bad, but it's just the opposite on the other side of the mountain. Millions of people fervently believe in any of these contradictory "truths," which have been put together carefully over centuries by people who spend all day studying the stuff, and they all think to have the correct one, so keep in mind that you're probably not going to come to anything like a solid fact of the matter.

Whatever you might believe about God, I personally like to think that any such power must exceed our ability to define its nature and powers, and that such a power would have the ability to relate to us in some way as its creations. We might choose to see it as a nebulous source of goodness, as a father or a brother, or as the way of truth, but it's always going to be something more than what we can really understand. I also believe that it is something which is instantly accessible to us on an intimate level, and that by reference to what we do know of it, that we can easily identify what is not God, and act accordingly.

Edited by Imperial Arts, 06 May 2017 - 01:49 PM.

https://www.lulu.com...ibutorId=588142

http://www.lulu.com/...t-22253942.html

"Only the madman is absolutely sure." - Wilson & Shea, Illuminatus!

#5 violetstar

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 246 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 06 May 2017 - 02:20 PM

View Postmonsnoleedra, on 06 May 2017 - 01:45 PM, said:

Realistically it's drawn against whatever theology and paradigm your working in. A demon in one might be an angel in another or simply a spirit / divinity in another. Yet realistically most who are calling them demons / angels are working within an Abrahamic model whether it be Christian / Jewish / Islamic back boned.
!00% correct.To fine tune that,if we see Negative,Positive and Neutral Forces rather than Demons or Angels we lose the constraints formed by early theologians and philosophers that attached personal names to natural processes.In the middle ages this was further elaborated upon in attempt to form an understandable cosmology and explain the mechanics of nature.
To face a real daemon, you must first look inwards and conquer your own darkness.Luis Marques

#6 Spida

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts
  • LocationTiphareth In Beriah

Posted 06 May 2017 - 02:55 PM

I agree with what IA, and Venus said. Not that I disagree with anything else.

You could also look at Good as Order, and Bad as Disorder. This goes with the concept of Angels as the manifesting Godseed. Creating order through Cosmic Anabolism. Which apparently took many eons. And without these ordered and protective forces the developing Universe could have been destroyed before arriving at anything meaningful. Over and over again. So the Angels as Workman, and preservers of the Universe. And even Messenger of it's destruction when the time comes. Or on a smaller scale Messengers of events pertaining to our Solar System, or Earth.

I tend to think of these beings composed of an arrangement of fundamental forces, such as Electromagnetic Energy, or Nuclear Force like that which binds the Nuclei of Atoms, among other things.
Since no thing defines it's own creation. It cannot be held responsible for it's nature; then there are choices.

#7 R. Eugene Laughlin

    Board Member

  • Moderators
  • 3,499 posts
  • LocationOregon

Posted 06 May 2017 - 03:46 PM

The Pagan recognizes neither as necessary aspects of Nature. The psychologist understands them as linguistic inventions, but born of coping mechanisms, loosely equating to Hopes and Fears.

The cosmo-theorist that happens to be a Pagan psychologists posits that given enough personal investment in the relevant cultural representations, they are real and formative, but in a very personal way: specifically, the individual who adopts those labels and invests the effort to interact with them will naturally attach the parts of their personal experience to each label as seems most appropriate to them. The relationship may then become reciprocal. That's when the experiences sometimes shape the definition and the definition sometimes shapes the experiences. So long as the definitions and experiences continue to evolve in that manner, the individual is a vibrant and creative citizen of the cosmos; and if the definitions ever become static, the individual is, cosmologically speaking, spiritual dead weight, doing nothing at all but waiting for the cosmological phagocytes to clear them away.
Effectiveness is the Measure of Truth
http://neuromagick.com/
https://www.etsy.com...CraftsEngraving

#8 sen

    laughing god

  • Moderators
  • 1,462 posts
  • Locationthe middlemarches

Posted 07 May 2017 - 05:36 PM

The difference is quite simple: It's political

As others have pointed out, the difference varies from culture to culture whether a given being is "good" or "evil" and we all know how arbitrary those labels are. I thought that perhaps one good difference would be intent, but that doesn't work because not all angels are "healthy" for human beings to be around, and not all demons are invested in your suffering (some of them want to see you succeed)..

i love being god; it's my favourite hobby


#9 Spida

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts
  • LocationTiphareth In Beriah

Posted 08 May 2017 - 12:55 AM

So the answer is:

It depends on who you ask.
Since no thing defines it's own creation. It cannot be held responsible for it's nature; then there are choices.

#10 Lazarus Benedict

    One...Two...Three...

  • Old Timers
  • 123 posts
  • LocationCanada

Posted 08 May 2017 - 09:29 AM

View PostSpida, on 08 May 2017 - 12:55 AM, said:

So the answer is:

It depends on who you ask.

"Demons to some. Angels to others." - Hellraiser ;)
It's not the flesh I'm after, but the howling ghost within...

#11 Spida

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts
  • LocationTiphareth In Beriah

Posted 08 May 2017 - 12:01 PM

Part of the issue for me was that. If I think of Angels as Formative beings. Does this in some way rule out possible interaction with them. Or at least this particular kind of Angel. Interaction being beyond their scope.

Then you have other types of Angels who's function is Messenger, or intermediary.

Then Angels with no purpose at all, malevelant, or entropic could be thought of as Demons.

So these beings in substance would be a composition of fundamental forces, but would differ in nature/personality.
Since no thing defines it's own creation. It cannot be held responsible for it's nature; then there are choices.

#12 sen

    laughing god

  • Moderators
  • 1,462 posts
  • Locationthe middlemarches

Posted 09 May 2017 - 02:28 PM

That lines up with my general understanding/beliefs, Spida. Those angels that interact with humanity were specifically created to do so. Other angels embody raw primordial power and concepts that, while not evil, could prove hazardous when in proximity to a human being. Hurricanes, for example, are neither good nor evil, but it's generally not a good idea to try to hug one.

Edited by sen, 09 May 2017 - 02:29 PM.

i love being god; it's my favourite hobby


#13 Spida

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 201 posts
  • LocationTiphareth In Beriah

Posted 09 May 2017 - 11:30 PM

Just a quick comment,

Yeah, so if one was looking to interact with these beings. It makes sense that they would be better off, or would get better results interacting with the "Orders" of Angels as opposed to the Archangels. Being closer to us in the Hierarchy.

But it also seems to be the case that if you spend a lot of time on Archangelic Invocations(I believe they are careful not to hurt you)that you end up garnering the attention of the "orders" below them.

Really, it's like they are superior to us and know how to reciprocate, even when we don't properly. They help us along.

So they know that we are not perfect, but appreciate the dedication.
Since no thing defines it's own creation. It cannot be held responsible for it's nature; then there are choices.

#14 ChaosRose

    Member

  • Old Timers
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 20 May 2017 - 04:54 AM

They both emanate from the psyche. The demons are how you punish yourself.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users