Talk:Demonology/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reorganization, NPOV, general editing

I've been reorganizing some of the sections and doing general editing - removing some non-NPOV material, wikifying, etc. More needs to be done, such as filling out some stub sections. Aleta 02:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll start working on that today. It looks like the first thing it needs is some major sourcing, which will alleviate the NPOV problem in most cases, at the very least showing what wording needs to be changed to accurately reflect the verifiable material. ◄Zahakiel► 19:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Tartaric Demonology

I am unable to find any reliable information for this section either online or in what I would consider the reasonable literary sources. I am removing the section without prejudice toward recreation if someone who knows where to find verifiable data comes along. ◄Zahakiel► 16:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

Regarding the various articles about individual demons, can you please give cites about where the information on these demons comes from? Most of us don't believe in demons, but are willing to accept statements about demons as mythological / fictional figures, or statements that someone else believed demons to be real. It would be useful to say "According to the Grimoire of X by Y, the demon Z is..." -- The Anome 07:26 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I'm a bit uncertain as to exactly what you are asking for here. The article says such things as "In Christian tradition, demons are fallen angels. . ," or "Judaism received the concept from Zoroastrianism, wherein. . ." These things seem to indicate fairly clearly, at least to me, that those sentences are talking about Christian or Zoroastrian belief, and that non-believers in those faiths can treat them as mythical (at the peril of their souls, of course. ;-) Or are you talking here about a whole 'nother class of articles which I han't seen yet? -- IHCOYC 16:36 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)~

I believe he or she is asking that, for example, in an article on Astaroth, that one properly cite a source, such as Wierus' Pseudomonarchia Daemonorum, or the Ars Goetia appearing as the first part of Lemegeton, attributed to Solomon. Even obscure occult notions do have sources to cite. People who don't know these sources and cannot cite them probably ought not to be creating articles on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.66.68 (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

For one Satanists and Lucifarians are two different groups, whith opposing dogmas. And for two; this is in no way a patently Christian topic.

I only felt the subject was painted with broad strokes and only touched on a few references of how "demons" are viewed in different religions. I believe this topic is far more extensive and cannot be covered in such a short general overview. I did not however, feel this topic was written by a christian, muslim, satanist etc, as I saw no indication of any bias or outside influence in the facts or references presented in the summary. If anything was wrong with this entry it was only it's lack of information. It would be nice if an author with a theology doctorate would add to this article.

3:56 15 July 2005 (ZEBURN)

I am removing Tartaric Demonology as it is mainly about Demonolatry, and is well dealt with on that page. Parts of it clearly violate NPOV. In the next few days I will attempt to rework this article as it clearly lacks information and needs a full rewrite. --Chaoscrowley 08:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Demonology in fiction

why it is worse than Necromancer ? why it is deleted from here, and from demonologist article ? it should be either here or in demonologist article (which is now redircet) Idot (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The article on Necromancy has a section on necromancy in video games because the practices and goals of necromancy in fantasy entertainment (e.g. raise zombie armies using evil magic) are extremely different from the historical forms of necromancy (e.g. trying to talk to dead people for information). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

• do you think that fantasy demonlogist the same as real life ones? and that real life demonlogist conjure demons for battle ? (Idot (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC))

I don't think that they are the same, but the intended goal (to summon demons) remains the same in both. With Necromancy, the goals are far different. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"to summon demons" is a method not a goal! results of summoning are also different. so the diffirent between real life and fantasy demonlogist is like the difference between houngan (he could speak with deads so he's a kind of a real life necromancer) and fantasy Necromancer - both can rise Zombies, but with different results and goals (Idot (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC))

Methods would include incantations and rituals. The goal of demonology is to summon demons. Why a person or character wants to engage in demonology is their own business. Also, hougans aren't involved with zombies, only bokors are, and the zombies they work with are just people that have been drugged and traumatized. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Its like this- the goal of baking is to bake. If a baker bakes to make money, or to impress people, or to eat, that is the baker's goal, not the goal of baking in general. Same deal here. The goal of demonology (when practiced) is to summon demons. If a demonologist wants to summon demons to harm people, acquire treasure, whatever, that is the demonologist's goal, not the goal of demonology in general. Also, the zombies are also an extremely small and regional necromantic practice, while the majority of historical necromancy has been concerned with communication with the dead. The majority of fantasy necromancy has been concerned with creating undead, not simply chatting with them. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Can any of real life demonologist call a demon to fight on his side?
or just what he/she can do just beg for something and get only promises, not something more real than promises (Idot (talk) 02:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC))

That's not the point. Both fictional and real demonology involves attempting to summon demons, whatever form the demons take. What demonologists want to do with the demons is the demonologist's goal, not the necessarily the goal of demonology. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

it's the point! even more a real life demonoloist could be simulteniously a therologist. id est a person who definetily will not call demons and deal with 'em! (Idot (talk) 02:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC))

There is a difference between theory and practice. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ian... the "in fiction" section was completely and totally pointless, and so have removed it. If "Idot" wants to restore it he/she should take the time to get a consensus of editors here to agree to it instead of just edit warring to put it back. DreamGuy (talk) 14:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Where on this page did Ian say that the "in fiction" section was completely and totally pointless? Did I just miss it or are you simply misrepresenting his comments? Dlabtot (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm on the fence, but leaning a good bit towards leaving it out. It could be done, but there is little justification for what was there. If there was a good amount of material that wasn't just a list of bits of fiction that mention the word demon and summoning within a hundred words of each other, that'd be something to keep. If there was a major difference between fantasy demonology and what people in the real world dabble in, that'd be something to keep. Right now, the article doesn't have either. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

the best way is to put in this section {{rewrite}} & {{section-stub}} then gradually improve it (Idot (talk) 01:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

You apparently missed it, Dlabtot, as that was the gist of the comments and actions (confirmed above). Incidentally, is there any particular reason you keep popping up in the oddest locations seemingly for no other reason than to try (and always failing, I might add) to shoot a hole in whatever I happen to be saying? I would hate to think you're following me around just to try to oppose whatever I happen to be doing anywhere... and if you are, I suggest you stop immediately, because at some point it will stop being merely amusing and turn into something actionable. DreamGuy (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The reality is that completely and totally pointless was entirely your formulation and not actually something someone else said or implied. Why you would feel the need to pretend otherwise is beyond my purview. Dlabtot (talk) 22:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The phrasing was mine, but the conclusion was the same, as confirmed by the individual in question. And the reason for you pretending otherwise is becoming more and more obvious. DreamGuy (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the individual in question did not 'confirm' anything of the sort. Why you would repeatedly insist on something that is obviously untrue, I don't know. His comments were reasonable and measured in tone and stand in stark contrast to yours. Dlabtot (talk) 19:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

He confirmed it above and has super double plus confirmed it below in a way that is undeniable. Now please knock off the wikihounding. DreamGuy (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In it's current state, it is trivia. It pretty much just says "there is a demonlogist class in a bunch of RPGs," (notice that the knight article does not do that). If there was more substantial material, not simply that "there is a class called demonologist in various RPGs," then it wouldn't be trivia. However, there hasn't been any evidence that it could improve beyond that. Dlabot and Dreamguy, I don't know what's going on between you two, please get a room, but I am agreeing with Dreamguy at the moment. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy you deleted it agian! is it worse to answer your if you will delete whatever I say? (Idot (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

Please read and follow WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. You haven't gotten consensus on the talk page to make that, which is why it has been removed. Knowing that you do not have consensus and putting it back anyway is a violation of several Wikipedia policies. DreamGuy (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

All of your arguments over semantics (whether summoning demons is a goal or a method) completely miss the point. The introductory statements in the article pretty clearly define real-life demonologists as theologians, not sorcerors. Here's a reality check: Civil War historians are not trying to summon Robert E. Lee, astronomers are not trying to summon planets, and real-life, legitimate demonologists are not trying to summon demons. Sorry if that contradicts your own personal misconceptions, but it's true. Just like elves and pixies don't exist. Demonologists study the history of demonic beliefs in the contexts of history, literature, religion, etc. It is an academic endeavor, not a supernatural one. "Both fictional and real demonology involves attempting to summon demons"? Somebody makes this astoundingly ignorant comment and then the people who argue with him don't even think to point out how insane that is? My god! Go back to your D&D games and leave editing Wikipedia to people with some concept of reality. Minaker (talk) 04:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you seriously need to see a urologist to pull that stick out. A lot of the 'comprehensive' info on demonology comes from sources aimed at summoning them. Just check the Literature: Demonologies from Christian and Occult perspectives section of the Christian demonology article. The Sworn Book of Honorius, the Key of Solomon, and the Book of Abramelin were all written with the aims of summoning demons. The other texts either don't go into much detail or are more focused on the witch cult conspiracy theory. As for that ridiculous comparison of historians summoning Robert E. Lee, practice would be archeology or examining first-hand accounts or items from different eras, theory would be conjecture based on other information. If demonology and summoning demons have absolutely nothing to do with each other, why is it that the folks that actually try to summon demons are the ones most interested in the most detailed info? I'm not claiming there are pixies or anything like that, but there are indeed people that try to practice magic, and they're the ones that look for and ultimately contribute the most info (whether that information is real is a different issue). There's a reason the article links to Deal with the Devil and Conjuring, and a reason why the Christian demonology article links to Nigromancy and Grimoire. Theologians study demons in the same way an average wikipedia editor studies animals, a demonologist studies them as if they could interact with them as a zookeeper. Lets say you have you people that both read and write a lot about archeology, but one would do anything to avoid going to a dig, and the other would do anything to go to one. Which one would be more correct in claiming to be an archeologist? And if summoning demons and demonology still have nothing to do with each other, then RPG characters that summon demons should be put in their place in the Conjuration article. And lastly, consider that St. Albertus Magnus said that demonology is taught by demons, teaches about demons, and leads to demons. ...But since your first post directed at me included an attack on me, I suppose you're not going to be mature to even consider any of this. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess I stand corrected. I'd sit corrected, but I can't sit down 'cause of that damn stick. Minaker (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, though, I do apologize for my acharacteristically antagonistic attitude in the above comments. I can get pretty aggressive on Wikipedia, but this is the first time I did so without even the slightest provocation; the fault is entirely mine. I may disagree with some of your statements, but it's no excuse for breaking Wikipedia's guidelines on civility, nor for specifically aiming the attack at you. Furthermore, this is a clear example of me mocking what I do not understand, so I apologize for that too. (From now on, I'll stick to mocking the things I do understand! That gives me very little to mock.) All joking aside, though, I do apologize for offending you. Minaker (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I accept your apology. Its nice to see someone reasonable on the internet. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

possible sources for this section

• "ENCYCLOPAEDIA ARCANE: DEMONOLOGY: THE DARK ROAD" review —Preceding unsigned comment added by Idot (talk • contribs) 01:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[long section of copyright violation text from the publication removed]

• Rolemancer.ru : Magic & it's Schools, Rolemancer.ru : Magic effects by Shools, Theoretic research of AD&D Magic - unfortunatelly it's in Russian as English is not my native language, I could not write approriate query for english articles :-( may be someone could fide somethinh similar in English? (Idot (talk) 02:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC))

Uh, no... multiple people told you that section doesn't belong, so quoting an unreasonably long bit of text from a copyrighted publication doesn't change that. DreamGuy (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy, there's not a clear talk page consensus now for your edit, or for his. Please stop edit-warring. I don't want to have to keep telling you this. When you revert, you are wrong. I believe this is a situation where refraining from reverting, even if reverting seems justified by policy, is a better idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus. Please do not try to tell me I was wrong for not adhering to a non-consensus that didn't come until after I made the edits in questions. I am not a mind reader, and it's ridiculous to insist that I must be. Reverting doesn't automatically make someone wrong, it's part of the standard WP:BRD process. As the info was not added with consensus in the first place, a consensus needs to be established in order to put it there, not the other way around. I don't want you to think you have to "keep" telling me things that aren't even accurate in the first place. DreamGuy (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy: "I am not a mind reader, and it's ridiculous to insist that I must be." I agree, and I don't insist that you read minds. If I seemed to suggest that, then I wasn't very clear. "Reverting doesn't automatically make someone wrong, it's part of the standard WP:BRD process." I agree, and I did not say that reverting is always wrong.

Now, once a conflict is going, we have choices. Suppose an edit is made against consensus. Suppose that you've reverted it once, but then it's made again. The person who makes the edit a second time, without first establishing consensus, is edit warring. If you revert them again, then you're also edit warring. You can do that, without breaking any "rules". However, if you refrain from reverting instead, and decide to take a different path, then you can get where you're going with less difficulty.

If a policy "allows" strategy A, but strategy B gets you where you want to go more smoothly, then go with strategy B. In this case, that means, yes, letting a bad edit stand for a little while, thus occupying an excellent position above reproach from which you build your case on the talk page. Then, when outsiders come along, they'll be more inclined to agree with you, and they'll probably make your edit for you. If you're both reverting each other, then a newcomer to the scene sees two tendentious edit warriors. This is simply a fact of life on Wikipedia. Our policies do not require you to recognize this fact, but if you do, you'll be happier and more effective. This is really all I was trying to say.

You can do it the hard way, or you can do it the easy way. I've seen a lot of editors come to grief doing it the hard way. However, experience is the only teacher that mankind will learn from, so don't let me stand in your way. You almost certainly have my support, and if you play ball, I'll make the edit for you, unless you decide to chase me off by talking about how you're "allowed" to revert. I care very little about what's "allowed", and very much about what works.

Does that make sense? Ball's in your court. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

this section was created according consensus in Talk:Demonologist about merging two articles (Idot (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

I said then that the info in there was useless and it would be better to start fresh. I also said "Feel free to start a "Demonology in fiction" section," but I didn't say that it should stay or shouldn't be deleted if useful info wasn't added. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So, does it mean that the best solution is that I should revert your chages from the demonlogist article ? (Idot (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

The information that was in that article does not warrent its own article. That it cannot last here is a separate issue. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

neutrality

so, your bould positions mean that neutraility is disputed (Idot (talk) 06:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC))

In the Christian demonlogy section

• Got rid of the distinction between demonic and diabolical. It almost reads like it was taken from Dungeons and Dragons, not like anything from any Christian demonological text. If there is a demonologist that makes the distiction, bring up that demonologist as "This guy says," instead of "All demonologists believe derp der der"
• Added "Some" and "Many" when talking about Christians' beliefs (not all Christians believe in plenty of this stuff).
• Tried to make it reflect that there is no single universal Christian Demonology tradition.
• The last paragraph of the Christian demonology section claimed that everyone operating in North America had certified approval from the Catholic church. If you look at the Dave Considine article this is obviously untrue. Also, there are Protestant exorcists. Its comparable to the New Age movement, but they're still there.
• Removed "and Latin" from the bit of certification required to become a Catholic exorcist. Learning Latin is part of learning a ton of Catholicism and has more to do with the Mass or reading official church documents than exorcism. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've scanned through the edits, and everything I've seen looks like a definite improvement. (By the way, new talkpage discussions go at the bottom of pages unless otherwise specified, so I've moved it.) DreamGuy (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

• I would very much like to see a clean up of this section. It seems to me that this section focuses more on exorcism than demonology. I think that the article would flow much better if it covered the topic in this manner: Christian Views/Definitions of Demonology (common to both Catholics and Protestants), and then explain things unique to the Catholic Church, and to the Protestant churches. If this could all stay on topic too, that would be great. When I get a chance, I'll start typing up the Catholic stuff (I'm more qualified in that area), and if somebody else would like to cover the protestant side, feel free. Also, more citations... I know that in the Catholic Church, there are plenty of reliable books and resources, so there is no reason to not cite the information. [[User:Mr.Vanker| Mr.Vanker]] (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur.

I agree. Not all Christians are fenatics. Being a Christian (although not a particularly devoute one) I can tell you that most of the other said christians I know arnt bible toting crazies. Just thought i'd get that out there. Fidchelle (talk) 04:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

demonolatry merged - Demonology (occultism)

Demonolatry has been merged in, to form a small mention of occult and ceremonial magic's use of demonology. We can't really deny it exists at all.:)Merkinsmum 00:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The merge doesn't seem appropriate to me... demonology is a largely Christian subject, while demonolatry is an occult subject -- also, one is a study, while another is effectively a religion. While there is some cross over (and I'm sure demonolatry is of interest to Christians), they don't seem to "fit" in the same article.--Shadowlink1014 06:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree - it is apples and oranges. Demonology is a scholarly discipline. Demonolatry is a religious practice, albeit an obscure and controversial one. The two are not equivalent terms. I oppose this merger.

A brief mention of Demonolatry here should be enough, I approve the merger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.129.229.10 (talk) 10:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this merger, should we merge theological study of christianity pages with christianity? I would hope not! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.80.208.250 (talk) 08:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to bring back the article on demonolatry? Seems to me like this was the action of one person, there was no consensus vote to approve the merger, which is within Wikipedia guidelines. As stated before, demonology is the study of demons, demonolatry is the worship of demons. Perhaps articles on theology should be merged with Christianity? 209.244.7.239 (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The section on Demonology (occultism) does not match the material on the page Demonology (occultism). Either material needs to be added to the page, or the link should be removed and possibly the section retitled - is occultism the best word to use given the lack of a precise definition? Occultism can refer to christian occultism which is already covered in the christian demonology section. Perhaps 'demonology in other faiths' would be better. There is far too little information about this here - there should be some basic info about belief systems and the number of adherants to such faiths Halon8 (talk) 01:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Christian demonology?

The article appears to be about Christian demonology, not about demonology in any more generic sense

I consider myself in some sense a demonologist, but I am not Christian

Indeed, I count the Christian deity amongst the host of demons

Laurel Bush (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The intro section is a general statement (Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on theology), the Prevalence of Demons section doesn't mention Christianity except in the next to last line (along side Greco-Roman paganism), the Character of the Spiritual World section doesn't mention Christianity or any Abrahamic religions, the Types section only discusses Christian demonology for maybe a third of the section (since most of the English sources on demonology were by folks that stated that they were Christians, this is only natural). Your contributions are welcome, but be aware that Christian demonology takes up less than 10% of the article. It did use to take up a whooolle lot more (go back a page in the history), but it doesn't right now. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers
Then what I wonder is the sort of prejudice that seems place demons below the rank of gods, as in "It deals both with benevolent beings that have no circle of worshippers or so limited a circle as to be below the rank of gods, and with malevolent beings of all kinds"?
I tend to see gods themselves as essentially demonic beings
Or is there a good generic term to cover both?
Laurel Bush (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Daimon does mean spirit, but demon usually doesn't get used the same way as daimon. Spirit would cover both demon and deity, so I guess spirituality would be what covers both. It isn't a specifically Christian view that places demons below deities, it comes from Zoroastrianism and Judaism, and is also found in Islam and Sikhism. "It deals both with benevolent beings that have no circle of worshippers or so limited a circle as to be below the rank of gods, and with malevolent beings of all kinds." A malevolent deity could be discussed under both demonology and theology, but generally demon refers to spirits that don't get much, if any, worship. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Daimon looks to me like just another way of spelling demon
Perhaps monotheistic demonologies (plural) is what the article is about, demonologies of monotheistic religions
Laurel Bush (talk) 11:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Daimon is the root for Demon, but colloquial use has separated the words (language is a living thing). The article does include Buddhist and Hindu demonologies (perhaps reading the article as it currently is would help). The reason I didn't get into those is that Buddhism isn't focused on worship and Hinduism... well, the "lack of worshippers" bit does work for beings such as many of the Asuras (Mitra is worshipped, but most of the rest aren't). Can you find a source for demons being viewed by a notable group as equal to deities or deities being demons? Keep in mind that this would be a minority view in demonology, so the article wouldn't be rewritten much. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to regard worshippers as possessed by demons
Gods seem to me to be just especially powerful demons, who tend to characterise rival god-demons as less than or worse than themselves
"Spirituality" no, by the way, "spiritology" perhaps
Laurel Bush (talk) 13:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

So is this entirely about your POV instead of sources? This isn't a general discussion board but a discussion board pertaining to improving the article, which means it has to be sourced material. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is about whether my POV is represented anywhere in any recognisable shape or form, either in this article or elsewhere, or is precluded by historical anti-heretical bias
Laurel Bush (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Are there sources for your POV? If there are, then they could be incorporated into the article. If there aren't any demonological texts or works that reflect your POV, then the issue certainly isn't any sort of bias on the part of everyone else. It's like, I consider Romeo and Juliet to be a parody of love stories, but because I don't have sources for that view, the article saying the play is about love doesn't mean everybody else is biased. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Cheers
You have at least helped me to invent the term spiritology
More to the point perhaps is the fact that the so-called Demonology article seems to me now to be more about religious demonology (or religious spiritology?), demonology developed by worshippers, who see their favoured demons/spirits as gods
By historical bias I mean historical religious and semantic bias long predating Wikipedia
Laurel Bush (talk) 11:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If I think that the word shark refers to a small furry rodent lives in trees and hides nuts, is everyone that refers to that animal as a squirrel biased, or is it me? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you accept that the demonology of the article is religious in origin?
Laurel Bush (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Belief in the existance of spirits is a religious belief, not a scientific statement. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can not accept the possibility of non-religious demonology or spiritology (such not dependent on worship of any particular demon or spirit, then there is your bias
Also, I now know I am not the first to use the term spiritology
Laurel Bush (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is worship mentioned at all in the statement "Belief in the existance of spirits is a religious belief, not a scientific statement"...? Buddhism, Jainism, and Scientology aren't about worship, and most monotheists believe there are a variety of spirits they do not worship. And again, if I think that the word shark refers to a small furry rodent lives in trees and hides nuts, is everyone that refers to that animal as a squirrel biased, or is it me? Ian.thomson (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If religion includes a god or gods, there is worship (or, at least, this is implied by "It deals both with benevolent beings that have no circle of worshippers or so limited a circle as to be below the rank of gods, and with malevolent beings of all kinds")
Whether Buddhism, in some of its forms (in which references to dieties or other spirits may be quite absent), is really a religion is debatable
I do not know about Jainism and Scientology
Spiritology, by the way is now a redirect to Al G. Manning
Seems he uses the term, but I know very little about his work
Laurel Bush (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The Buddha frequently refered to gods (Devas particularly), but Buddhism doesn't worship them because they're in the same boat as us. Buddhism is full of faith based metaphysical claims about the soul and the universe, so it is considered a religion by religious scholars. There is a philosophy that the Buddha expounded (usually refered to as Buddhism as well) which many say can be taken separately. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If I am not careful, by the way, I might start believing in an amphibious normally arboreal shark demon capable of garnering hazel nuts which have fallen into the well of Sinann
Perhaps another manifestation of my own demonic being
And it seems to me now that "It deals both with benevolent beings that have no circle of worshippers or so limited a circle as to be below the rank of gods, and with malevolent beings of all kinds" actually implies that gods are demons but for rank
Fewer worshippers and . . .
Laurel Bush (talk) 15:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

just as a point of semantic common sense: Many (almost all) religions have supernatural beings who are not gods. some religions have supernatural non-god beings that are not good (e.g. muslim ifrit and some of the supernatural beings in Chinese mythology). Demons, however, are generally viewed as infernal beings in the Christian pantheon, related to the Christian notions of the afterlife and moral behavior in the life. it makes no more sense to talk about demons outside of Christian mythology than to talk about Peng within Christian mythology. --Ludwigs2 21:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe the term demon is non Christian in origin
Christianity has given it a meaning which may not be appropriate in other contexts
Laurel Bush (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

'Demon' is a loan-word from the Greek 'daemon' (early Christian literature was largely in Greek, before being translated into Latin). A daemon (in the Greek sense) was an inner motivating force personified - The ancient greeks would have said that any 'inspired' work (be it a great work like the writing of a play or an evil work like the destruction of a city) was the action of a daemon. Christian belief split the daemonic world into angelic and demonic elements, and then pacified the angelic elements so that only demons were active forces in the world. Thus one may be tempted by a demon but not by an angel... --Ludwigs2 11:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Christian god is a powerful demon who has neutralised one host of demons while stigmatising the rest?
Laurel Bush (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Provide sources for your (apparently new) use of the word demon or we cannot change the article to reflect it. Otherwise, this is not a general discussion forum to develop one's opinion. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

How about this: Prejudice? Erm, in all accounts, the author's deity usually wins. 71.234.123.137 (talk) 02:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

A note on changes

I broke away the Hinduism and Buddhism demonology sections, and expanded slightly on both. They are very much related however, with the former exerting a great influence over the latter. It's possible that I shouldn't have split them. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Is the NPOV tag necessary at this stage? Does anyone intend to fix the perceived problems? --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

More to the point, is there any likelihood of an NPOV anyway, given the subject matter and the narrow diversity of its practitioners? ExLegeLibertas (talk) 12:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I see no biased part in it, some section do need expansion, apart from this I find the article quite correct, even though some other issues are touched upon.

--Gdje je nestala duša svijeta (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL

I don't care that discussion of the topic is not allowed, this is too funny:

If Christians believe that "holding fast to a particular belief and refusing to listen to reason" is posession, then all Christians are posessed! ROFL.

It says "SOME" Christians for a reason. Also, to say that it is all Christians refuse to listen to reason shows that one doesn't know many Christians and probably isn't willing to listen to reason either. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure, what you say may be the truth, but I lump 'em all into one category out of my sheer hatred for religious people. I never refuse to listen to reason. It's just that my knowledge that religious people almost never believe anything reasonable (religiously speaking, not any of the other belief categories like politics etc; most of the time these categories have nothing to do with religion; also I define "reasonable" as a belief based on unbiased objective truth, that is, factual data and information put into the most neutral terms possible, even knowing that complete objectivism when regarding facts is never attainable; every fact can be looked at from multiple points of view, and I define the "best point of view" as the POV that, when applied to facts, leads to the most overall benefit; to summarize, a reasonable belief is that belief which arises when objective data is looked at through the lens of the post beneficial POV, though even "beneficial" is subjective; therefore there are multiple reasonable beliefs that can arise from the study of objective data through the lens of multiple POVs considered beneficial by different people.) has led to an almost irrational hatred on my part, which in turn leds me to generalize when I OBJECTIVELY KNOW that such generalizations may not be true. Looked at through the lens of anger however, and what I previously stated becomes "the truth". Not an objective truth. Obviously I'm not the best example of an atheist, as anger has always been my problem. Do not link atheism with my irrationality.

All christians refuse to listen to the arguments of others, if they did, they all realise how evil Christianity is, and besides THE ORIGINAL SIN FOR WHICH ADAM WAS CAST DOWN FROM HEAVEN FOR, WAS SEEKING KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL ie. listening to the opinions of people other than god —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.241.47 (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Occult POV

The article is written unapologetically from the point of view of an occultist. A more balanced approach would be to not minimize so strongly the Christian view on this patently Christian topic.

What's with the 'peasentry' and 'uncivilised' cultures comments? Egypt is hardly on the same level as old indiginous cultures. Plus, in this Post-Modern world, who's to say what's civilised and what isn't?

Should a scientist who writes an article on Norse mythology and the beliefs of the ancient Norsemen be accused of being an occultist who worships Norse gods? No- because the scientist is writting what the Norse *percieved* to be reality. In much the same manner, "Christian Demonology" defines the *Christian perception* of demonology. How is writting an article that gives accurate information on this perception defined as occultism?

There is nothing inherently Christian about demonology. Many many religions, large and small believe in some form of demon/malevolent spirit. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Demonology and Charismatic Christianity

I find the placement of this article into Category:Charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity unnatural. If WikiProject Charismatic Christianity wants it (which I also find quaint) that must be up to their members to decide, but I certainly do not think demonology is a central part of their curriculum. __meco 07:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Is agonestic even a word? Deep Alexander (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to remove it, I imagine no one would stop you. The writings and immense popularity of contemporary authors such as Rick Joyner and Frank Peretti, and the heavy emphasis on Spiritual Warfare in contemporary Evangelicalism, particularly Pentecostalism, would indicate otherwise. Bloomingdedalus (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Talmudic demonology

I checked the source for the following statement: "The Talmud declares that there are 7,405,926 demons, divided in 72 companies." The source is a generalist web page, not particularly scholarly, and what it says is this: "Johann Weyer wrote a book describing Hell: Pseudomonarchia Daemonum. He accepted the Talmud's estimate that there are exactly 7,405,926 demons, grouped into 72 companies. His book described the hierarchical structure of Hell. Although it was intended as a joke and a criticism of worldly hierarchies, it was eagerly analyzed by generations of ceremonial magicians who relied on it for source material." The word "accepted" implies that Weyer, a 16th-century occultist, actually saw this in the Talmud, but how are we to know whether this is true? The rest of the paragraph throws Weyer into doubt as a source. At best, this is third-hand documentation. It is (dubiously) verification that Weyer made the statement (did anybody check the Pseudomonarchia Daemonum?), but not verification that it is contained in the Talmud. A better source would be a scholar who actually cites the Talmudic passage. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried searching everything in the Judaism section of www.sacred-texts.com (which does have plenty of Talmud stuff), there wasn't anything regarding the number of demons. I think it might be appropriate to remove the sentence. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I took the Talmud-reference away for now. I ran into this exact demon-numbering in the Finnish wiki and tried searching for online/offline resources for it. The phrase is repeated outside Johann Weyer's work, but I cannot find an actual Talmudic reference. It is not uncommon for scholarly work of old to generally reference works that are unavailable (untranslated). Talmuds and their translations are easily searchable nowadays on computers and if somebody does find a reference (e.g. b. Pesah. 10:1, IV.23), I'll be more than happy to doublecheck it for demons of any kind. RedJimi (talk) 18:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"Theology"?

The article states that "[Demonology] is the branch of theology relating to supernatural beings who are not gods." Given the obvious morphological derivation of "theology," it seems to me that theology must by definition be about gods. There may be a word that encompasses the study of all supernatural beings, but "theology" isn't it.

2warped@gmail.com 68.36.147.128 (talk) 07:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demonology. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060903005321/http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au:80/ to http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Demons of the past

I believe the demon malika was the young no err ma Jean I found by greyhound Priestabbyvanquish12 (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

I believe you need to stick to citing professionally published mainstream academic sources instead of using original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Demonology. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016201216/http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=207375 to http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=207375

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"Study"

How does one "study" things that don't exist?2600:6C5A:6780:265D:64BC:2EA2:7432:7C6C (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Demonology is the study of demons or beliefs about demons. For most of human history, have not most people held some sort of belief in evil spirits? Not saying they're right, but did they or did they not believe in them?

Now, imagine you're surrounded by those people. Is just saying "they're not real" really gonna make them stop believing? For many of these people, the idea of demons explains real (if misunderstood) phenomena with fewer assumptions within their worldview than the biological, sociological, philosophical, physical, and psychological explanations for that real phenomena. It would actually violate Occam's razor for them to drop a complete, intricate, and internally consistent worldview to accept one premise from a worldview they don't fully understand. Not saying they're right, but pointing out that for them to just accept "demons don't exist" just because someone tells them that would require them to abandon independent logic for charismatic dogmatism.

Now, imagine these people are panicking because of demonic activity, and there's someone who is educated in their worldview justifying that panic. Would you rather accomplish nothing (aside from being accused of working with the demons) by saying "but demons aren't real," or would it make more sense to make logical arguments consistent with their worldview as to why it can't be demons? That's what demonologist Johann Weyer did (btw, he also coined the phrase "mental illness"). The authors of the Malleus Maleficarum, even though there were serious problems with sexism and superstition, still toned down the power of demons from actual effects to mere illusions.

In other cases, some demonologists (especially Buddhist and Christian ones) use the demons as symbols for worldly (if perhaps mental) problems, such as greed. This serves as a useful means of social control among those who believe in demons. "Feel like stealing? That's a demon, don't listen to him." Yes, it's ideal if people adopt ethics based on their philosophical truth instead of boogeymen, but that requires a degree of education that requires a degree of economic safety that many people (even in the first world) just don't have.

Ian.thomson (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Not denying the existence of the beliefs surrounding them or the usefulness of studying those beliefs. But the first part of the description is "the study of demons", and that is what my question was about. How does one study something that doesn't exist?2600:6C5A:6780:265D:D5C5:23A8:BB58:2891 (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

For fictional entities, studying the beliefs is studying the thing in itself. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

And what would you call the study of demonology by those who believe in demons? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The map is not the land. That does not change just because the land is fictitious. If you watch a movie about World War II, you've watched a movie about World War II. If you watch a movie about World War III, you did not watch World War III itself, you watched a movie about it. To say that you saw, studied, or otherwise observed a thing is to say that you observed [i]that thing[/i], not ideas or folklore or stories about that thing. I'm not clear on what your question is about. In any of the Wikipedia articles about the various demons that this article might link to, we're clear about the fact that what we're talking about is a mythological creature/spirit/deity/whatever, not a real thing. I don't know why we're adopting this in-universe perspective for this article in contrast to that.2600:6C5A:6780:265D:D5C5:23A8:BB58:2891 (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, what would you call the study of beliefs about demons by people who believe in demons?

If someone says "I know a lot about Superman," are you going to tell them that they're wrong and they really only know about stories about Superman? That's just pedantic hair-splitting. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2018 (UTC)