Is anyone out there terrified of demons/devils IRL?

[Mark Chance]

Did you read the rest of my post? I think you've missed a thing or two:

If I missed anything, it isn't the fault of my reading skills.

Except for fundamentalists and Pentecostals, modern Christians do not believe that demons play an active role in their lives.

Circular argument, I'm sure, since anyone who believes that demons are active in the world probably automatically qualifies automatically in your lexicon as a fundamentalist and a Pentecostal, terms obviously used as perjoratives.

You're the one insulting Christianity by suggesting that it is normal for modern Christians to fear demons in real life.

Your inference is not my implication.

If a parishioner came to any remotely responsible priest or minister of a mainstream denomination and stated that he was personally afraid of demons hurting him, that priest/minister would refer the parishioner to psychiatric care.

And if those fears turned out be justified? Or is that even possible? Augustine (neither a fundamentalist nor a Pentecostal), whom you glowingly reference, would certainly agree that demonic agency is at least a potential danger.

Padre Pio, certainly neither a fundamentalist nor a Pentecostal, believed that he was attacked by demons. So have any number of other Christians throughout history. John Paul II, again certainly neither a fundamentalist nor a Pentecostal, also believes that demons are real and actively working against mankind. All of these people are wrong and delusional?

The question was not whether it is technically possible for demons to exist in some way but whether it is reasonable for a modern person to be afraid of demons.

If demons exist, then it is reasonable to fear them.

But belief in demons is not a canonical feature of Christianity, contrary to your statement mere presence in the bible is insufficient to make something canonical

And for what reason do your statements carry more weight? When did you, as opposed to the vast majority of Christian (not to mention Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Jewish, and Muslim) tradition over the past many centuries, become so authoritative?

unless you're a fundamentalist.

There's that perjorative again.

 

[fusangite]

Green Knight says

Um, if the Bible isn't "canon", then what is? Though I'm fairly certain fear of demons isn't canonical. But I'm hardly an expert on that.

The canon is a mutually contradictory combination of scripture, tradition and collective decisions. Furthermore, there are problems like: "I come not to destroy the law but to fulfill it." To most Christians, this statement means that Leviticus is superseded by the New Testament. Thus, the fact that the bible states that one should not eat shellfish does not make a prohibition on shellfish consumption canonical.

However, you're also correct that almost all demon lore comes from outside the bible and that Scripture is pretty thin on the subject.

 

[Planesdragon]

Put another way, the supernatural has always been the way humanity explains the unexplained until such time more concrete evidence is available. [/B]

Science--that is, the body of knowledge and learning built up and scientifically verified by our society--often explains away things that it does not understand as "superstitious myths."

An important thing to remember when discussion the "supernatural" is that most of those who believe in it do not see it as "supernatural"; they see it as a natural part of their world. Just as scientists don't consider their particular field "arcane", spiritualists don't consider the world they see "supernatural."

Componding the question, of course, is a dogmatic inertia in the scientific community that often crosses over into atheism (belief that there is nothing but what science has proven is atheism--and is bad science, too) and the sophmoric and horribly unscientific methods of most (all?) spiritualists.

The only real conclusions we can make about the astral world is that it either doesn't exist, it is negativly affected by scientific doubt, or it is conciously working to stay hidden.

One more bit.

Originally posted by fusangite
Except for fundamentalists and Pentecostals, modern Christians do not believe that demons play an active role in their lives.

Most christians certainly do not have a "magickal" worldview, and they certainly encounter a distinguishable incorporeal demon about as often as they encounter a serial killer, but they do, as a minor matter of faith, believe that demons exist. If Christ didn't cast out demons, then either the bible is actually lying or he cast out something else that still fits the rather broad definition of "demon."

You're quire correct that most priests will refer you to mental help if you fear that demons are after you. Even from a "magickal" view, the rigor and discipline from a psychiatrist can work wonders. And, regardless of your worldview, going to the most experienced professionals when your problems become too much for you is just common sense.

But, most denominations have at least a vauge idea of what to do if therapy doesn't work. The catholic rite of exorcism is still canon, though, like aknowledgement of miracles, a potential posessee must past through the filter of science a couple of times first.


Now that I've done my responses, a personal note:

I'm a Christian, and I certainly believe that demons are real things--but I also believe that they operate on the same level as the soul does, and on a scientirically-real sense, they simply don't exist. But, on a scientifically-real sense, God doesn't exist either, and I tend to believe in Him.

I am not afraid of demons, but that's not because I think that they don't exist. I just think that I'm as well protected from them as I am from nuclear-armed terrorists--and I'm about as able to handle the one as I am the other.

 

[Planesdragon]

The canon is a mutually contradictory combination of scripture, tradition and collective decisions.

Care to cite an example of this contradiction? Most of the supposed contradictions I've seen can be clarified by allowing for non-universal instruction and more careful examination. (A good example is shellfish--the Hebrews weren't to eat it because that'd be bad, but those of us who know the dangers and know how to prevent them can go right ahead.)

However, you're also correct that almost all demon lore comes from outside the bible and that Scripture is pretty thin on the subject.

Scripture does state that demons/devils exist--though, as with Angels, it doesn't go into details because they're simply not relevant to everday life.

 

[Brennin Magalus]

Originally posted by fusangite
Did you read the rest of my post? I think you've missed a thing or two: I cited two major Christian theologians, including the most important one ever.

I dispute your assertion that Augustine is the most important Christian theologian. I believe the most important Christian theologian was Paul.

Except for fundamentalists and Pentecostals, modern Christians do not believe that demons play an active role in their lives. You're the one insulting Christianity by suggesting that it is normal for modern Christians to fear demons in real life.

If a parishioner came to any remotely responsible priest or minister of a mainstream denomination and stated that he was personally afraid of demons hurting him, that priest/minister would refer the parishioner to psychiatric care.

Not necessarily. Modern Christians in Africa, for example, often fear demons and believe in the efficacy of exorcism, regardless of their sect.

 

[RingXero]

edit: no longer needed

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Except for fundamentalists and Pentecostals, modern Christians do not believe that demons play an active role in their lives. You're the one insulting Christianity by suggesting that it is normal for modern Christians to fear demons in real life.

I think you'll find that exorcisms are still a part of official catholic theology (although they are often discouraged in the church). Among Protestants, there is far more diversity than your post implies. The charismatic portions of many denominations are also often willing to consider the possibility of the existence of spirits. Non-charismatic conservative evangeligals generally accept the biblical accounts of spiritual activity but generally reject accounts of such activity from the post-apostolic era. And among "mainline" denominations, it's hard to predict what you'll find--individual congregations and ministers may be pretty much anywhere on the map theologically.

If a parishioner came to any remotely responsible priest or minister of a mainstream denomination and stated that he was personally afraid of demons hurting him, that priest/minister would refer the parishioner to psychiatric care.

Most would, mainstream denomination or not. The primary question would be whether or not other resources would be made available.

 

[fusangite]

Mark, you're quite correct that I failed to credit that several prominent Roman Catholic officials also believe in demons (or at least claim to in their public statements). I apologize for that inaccuracy.

However, I think you would be hard-pressed to find that the church's parishioners in the developed world believe their leaders on this subject any more than they follow their doctrines on contraception.

As for Augustine and demons, for him, demons had an important rhetorical function -- his employment of demons is basically a strategy for denying the divinity of pagan gods. Because stating that pagan gods do not exist would simply be too outrageous, Augustine instead argues that they are demons and therefore not deserving of veneration. Furthermore, even if Augustine did, in fact, believe in demons, my point was that Augustine's demons were invisible, non-physical forces not the mean, scaly slobbering things in D&D.

Christianity is a dynamic, changing modern thing that is not required to be the Christianity of 1000 years ago or even 20 years ago. Just because selling indulgences was reasonable 500 years ago does not mean it is reasonable today -- the same goes for thinking demons are real.

I was hoping to post the URL to a public opinion poll which specifically spoke to this point, noting that while over 80% of Canadians believe in God, less than 40% believe in the devil as an active agent but I've been unable to locate the poll. I had thought it was taken by IPSOS-Reid but now I'm thinking another pollster with an inferior web archive did. Anyway, if you can accept the data, I think it's pretty clear that belief in demons as active agents would be even less common than belief in the devil as such. I will keep looking for the poll, though, and may post it later this afternoon.

Thus, while I do not have enough data to dispute your statement that the majority of Christians worldwide believe in demons as an active agent of evil, I think I can state quite confidently that the majority of Christians in North America and Europe do not believe in demons as active agents of evil in the contemporary world.

EDIT: I see a few more posts have come in while I've been searching through the IPSOS-Reid web archive. A few points:
(a) if you've studied the bible and don't believe it contains contradicitons, nothing I post will help you
(b) please read all my generalizations, except where specifically stated otherwise, to refer to the developed, modern world -- I don't think anyone here knows enough about the various syncretic Christian systems around the world to really engage this, though I'd be pleased to hear from someone who does know
(c) if you want to call Paul a theologian, go right ahead. I generally only class interpreters of scripture (as opposed to writers thereof) as theologians
(d) Planesdragon, I'm agreeing with what you say about demons in scripture but whatever it is you are saying about shellfish I'm not sure; perhaps you could clarify
(e) Planesdragon beautifully encapsulates the educated view of demons as expressed by Eriugena and Augustine -- it's a view with which I have no specific quarrel

 

[Green Knight]

Thus, while I do not have enough data to dispute your statement that the majority of Christians worldwide believe in demons as an active agent of evil, I think I can state quite confidently that the majority of Christians in North America and Europe do not believe in demons as active agents of evil in the contemporary world.

Then again, Christianity is also dying in Europe and Canada due to the PCification of the churches (Hell, aren't they trying to label the Bible "Hate Literature" in Canada?). Those self-same churches are dying out, while what you would call the more "fundamental" ones are the ones thriving in both America, as well as Africa (Which has more Anglicans than the UK) and Asia.

Just because selling indulgences was reasonable 500 years ago does not mean it is reasonable today

But that's something that was never part of the faith to begin with. Where in the Bible is this an acceptable practice? There's a difference between crud invented by a church at a certain period of time to make itself more popular like what's happening in a lot of western churches these days (But which only succeeds in driving the faithful out of the pews), and what's always been part of the religion.

 

[Green Knight]

An example of what I mean, just looking at Anglicans.

Anglican Church of Nigeria - 17,000,000
Anglican Church of Australia - 3,998,444
Anglican Church of Kenya - 2,500,000
Episcopal Church of the US - 2,500,000
Anglican Church of South Africa - 2,400,000
Episcopal Church of the Sudan - 2,000,000 (figures are from 1989, can't get more recent totals cause of the civil war)
Anglican Church of Tanzania - 1,379,366
Anglican Church of Rwanda - 1,275,000

Officially, there're 25 million in the UK, but in actuality there're only 1-2 million practicing Anglicans in the UK. Islam's also growing like gangbusters, over there, because unlike what's offered in some Western churches, Islam doesn't water down its faith in the hopes of attracting the PC crowd.