Jump to content

Talk:Demon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 200.44.74.111 (talk) at 23:59, 6 January 2017 (→‎Demon (also see devil): new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Template:Find sources notice

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

The phrase "a demon is a spiritual entity that may be conjured and controlled." should have a citation. Where in Judeo-Christian theology or any other philosophy is this mentioned?Chryslerfan (talk) 19:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

NoDance3600 (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

Dance3600 (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

File:The Army of Super Creatures.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:The Army of Super Creatures.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:The Army of Super Creatures.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? Are you telling me that if I make a drawing and say you can use it, you still can't, because my grant of permission isn't good enough -- I have to "freely-license" it or something? That's going too far. 172.56.27.19 (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not going too far, you just have no idea now copyright works. "Freely licensed" work is work that the artist has given legal permission to use. Your complaint is nonsensical and honestly a waste of space on this page. Wikipedia can't use stuff that's copyrighted or could be copyrighted (barring some rather restrictive fair use stuff), and "freely licensed" means that the artist has given permission. Please also note that this is not a general discussion forum -- if what you have to say doesn't concern article improvement, please do not post it. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demons in literature

While all demons are fictional, this article concentrates on religious or folkloric concepts. I've added a section where we can list explicitly fictional descriptions. Monado (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that all demons are fictional is an unfounded assertion. Unless you can prove that demons do not exist, it would be nice of you to show respect for the many contributors to this page who do believe in them. Dontreader (talk) 03:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more qualifications

There are a few very bold and ultimately unsupportable statements that imply the existence of demons and gods. As this article is being revised please be clear what book, religion, or organization is professing a particular belief. Even where you think a section title makes it clear all the statements thereunder are "according to something...", qualify each statement for clarity.

I see these qualifications in other articles and they really help the quality of the article. Bold and unqualified assertions implying the existence of supernatural entities reflect poorly on the quality of any article and make it easy to dismiss the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.172.95.186 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame you didn't indicate which statements you were referring to. It's practically inconceivable to discuss a subject sensibly, but in a thoroughly subjunctive mood, as if it must be maintained at all times that it were a thoroughly speculative concept. How much doubt can you insist upon? 208.54.85.146 (talk) 01:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Err...

This article is turning into a disaster. Is anyone (any of the regular editors who have this in their watchlist) planning to do anything about this? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demons are not supernatural.

I had changed "supernatural" to "preternatural," which is more accurate for demons. It was changed back, but I do not think it is right. "Supernatural" applies only to God and the things God does. Demons are natural creatures, albeit not animal and not having physical bodies. They are not properly classed as supernatural beings given a proper definition of supernatural. I recognize that common usage has bastardized the term, but that does not excuse an encyclopedic entry reinforcing this common error.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.215.108.72 (talk • contribs)

What is preternatural does operate by some unknown but natural law: but no scientist has proof of the existence of demons. Their existence has to be demonstrated for them to be accepted as natural creatures. Though the distinction you make would be correct in a strictly theological article, this article is not purely theological. While preternatural would be the correct theological jargon, it is not the common parlance, which is what this encyclopedia uses when it does not damage the meaning (see WP:JARGON). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

so it must be proven for it to not be supernatural? Does that mean bigfoot must be labeled as a supernatural creature? Supernatural doesn't just mean unproven. 204.12.166.197 (talk) 17:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said that supernatural and unproven were the same thing, try actually reading what I said. There is no evidence that demons exist, much less as natural creatures. Most of the texts concerned with demons speak of them as unnatural (either supernatural or preternatural), but that is a different matter from the fact that there is no scientific evidence of their existence. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demon is a supernatural being used as argument to explain a paranormal behavior. Hxyp (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is preposterous: "Supernatural" applies only to God and the things God does.

"Divine" refers to The Divinity, but "supernatural" is a vastly broader category. Consider, if you will, the heavenly host, or the powers of Hell. Are they divine? Are they supernatural? You might consider the latter "subnatural", but "supernatural" in common parlance is used to refer to just about anything that is extraordinary in a way. Whatever is paranormal can be considered supernatural, not just above nature, but outside of nature. I wouldn't call demons supernatural, but I don't argue against doing so. It makes sense to consider them thus. 172.56.26.0 (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Word Meaning

Hi,

I think that before greek mentioning in Hebrew language Demon is related to "Red One" which is related to Esaw. I think this meaning is used very often for describing the red "devil" with horse legs and horns. The red one is transliterated "HaAdmon" A different interpunctuation can then really fast lead to "demon" based on the missing vocals in bold hebrew. Since I didnt find this meaning in the whole article I found it necessary to mention here for further notice.

130.75.183.229 (talk) 13:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)Monday 20.01.2014[reply]

Nice fiends

"A demon, daemon or fiend, is a supernatural, often malevolent being...."

I don't think "fiend" is ever used in a sense which isn't malevolent. It shouldn't appear in the subject of this sentence, this way. 172.56.27.39 (talk) 00:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Demon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

uhh

The Girl or Women she looks like naked or something can somone ask to me please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkiepiemlp24 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Demon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:08, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Demon (also see devil)

Devil, is france, de ville (from the village). Demon, is france, de mon (from man).

Devil is usually female, demon, well, usually male.

A girl went to the city to take the farms produce to market.

All asked, from wence did that come? And the reply: de ville (from the village).

After many a trip, months later, she placed the farms produce in the village market, the trip having become a tad too ardeous, her belly clearly showing.

All asked, from wence did that come? And the reply: de mon (from man).

Clearly, this is real, there being quite a few france speakers in the middle east to acknowledge the defacto. A bit of reality ladies and gentlemen.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Demon&oldid=758692232"