Talk:Demon

scope

The article should probably restrict itself to demons in Judeo-Christian (or "Abrahamic", including Islam and Western occultism) tradition and delegate "demons" in other cultures (East Asia, South Asia, Shamanism, Sub-Saharan Africa, Americas, etc.) to disambiguation. What we need to expand upon and figure out how to present are the coverage of psychoanalytic aspects and comparative mythology. --dab (𒁳) 14:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• There has been no support for splitting the article. However, developing the article in the manner indicated by Dbachmann seems feasible, and if the article is developed in such a way that there is a distinct section on Judeo-Christian and/or Shamanism, etc, which grows too large for the parent, then it can be split out per WP:Summary style. SilkTork *^YES! 10:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nephilim as the origin of demons

Before the Flood

Genesis 6:4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of humans and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

After the Flood

Numbers 13:33 "We saw the Nephilim there (the descendants of Anak come from the Nephilim). We seemed like grasshoppers in our own eyes, and we looked the same to them.”

It is my understanding that the early Christians believed that what we think of as demons are not fallen angels but are actually descendants of fallen angels, before and after the flood. According to those beliefs when Goliath the giant died his spirit would have no where to go.

After reading the above scriptures it would seem that Goliath the giant was not quite man and not quite fallen angel. So the contention is that those who were descendants of Anak would not have a place in Abraham's bosom or hell. So they would be force to wander the earth until the day of judgment.

Looking from that perspective makes the behavior of demons in the new testament much more logical. Carnal spirits in search of a human host, then in turn looking to seek out sinful pleasures.

I'm not sure if their is source material for these ideas but it would be interesting to find out where they come from. I am fairly certain that this is an old idea that dates back to early church. I do know that there are some pastors that believe it but I'm not really interested in the new stuff. If some one could have some old source material on it i would love to look at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.s.mcintyre (talk • contribs) 21:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

You may want to look at our guidelines restricting original research, identifying reliable source, and writing in a neutral fashion. The connection between demons and Nephilim is one idea among many, but also requires specific secondary sources to attest to this being a historical idea. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Right That was the point of discussions. I hope that someone may be able to make that connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.s.mcintyre (talk • contribs) 03:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Questionable Reference to DSM IV

This citation is not actually of the DSM IV, but rather a news article which makes a passing reference to the DSM IV, with no immediately apparent attribution. Furthermore, I'm not sure that the assertion using this reference is accurately portraying the article's meaning, or intent. The source material says this:

"It is hardly novel for ideologues to press alleged demonic phenomena into service, beginning in the late Middle Ages and reaching a climax in the witchcraft trials of the 17th century that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocents. The trials and executions at Salem, Mass., in 1692 still provide an instructive case in point. Dr. Peck seems oblivious, on the other hand, to the persuasive role played by suggestion and especially hypnosis in inducing dissociative states. In his enthusiasm to enter the lists as an exorcist, he too easily dismisses dissociative identity disorder (formerly known as multiple personality disorder) as a simpler explanation and more easily treated condition. Far from being discredited, moreover, it is still listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (IV) of the American Psychiatric Association."

In this context, the article seems to be suggesting that it is the theory of "dissociative identity disorder (formerly known as multiple personality disorder)" that is listed within the DSM IV of the APA--not Dr. Peck's studies on the subject, much less his theories on the psychology of demonic possession. As a result, I think the citation as used in the Wikipedia article is misusing/misinterpreting the source material's assertion.

But even then, since the source material is itself a business news article (not a peer-reviewed psychology/psychiatry journal), and only makes a passing, unsourced reference to the DSM IV, it seems like a questionable citation no matter which way you interpret it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkamouflage (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The article is from (and probably copyvio) National Catholic Reporter / April 29, 2005. Having said that, it isn't referring to Peck but as you say, disassociative identity disorder, and I've removed it. In fact it's a criticism of him, and we could use it for that but give the source as the NCR. Well spotted. Dougweller (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)