How did demons get so evil?

[OldWiseGuy]

The earth was created for the pleasure of the angels. This was their first 'estate' and 'habitation'. Lucifer's desire for equality with God caused the destruction of the original 'Eden'. Fast forward several billion years to Genesis One: God begins the process of "the restitution of all things".

 

[The Liturgist]

"“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels."
Mt 25:41

Not sure what you think it means regarding demons. But maybe you think that demons are fallen angels, then it would make sense.

Well obviously that’s what they are, even if we accept 1 Enoch, by this simple reasoning:

The word angel refers to messengers; the demons, regardless of their origin, impersonate deities according to Psalm 95 v. 5 in the LXX, and deceive humans and inflict sickness upon them; these actions put them in league with the Deceiver, the devil, and since demons deceive humans by posing as gods, according to the aforesaid Psalm, they are automatically messengers of the devil, whether a specific demon is an angel fallen from Heaven with Satan or of some alternate origin.

You should not feel pity for the demons, you should regard them as dangerous, diabolical co-adversaries and co-conspirators of Satan, because that is what they are, according to Scripture and the Church, and indeed the Latin translation of Psalm 95 v 5 LXX is “the gods of the gentiles are devils.” Calling them devils is not inaccurate, for a demon is a devil, full stop.

 

[The Liturgist]

The earth was created for the pleasure of the angels. This was their first 'estate' and 'habitation'. Lucifer's desire for equality with God caused the destruction of the original 'Eden'. Fast forward several billion years to Genesis One: God begins the process of "the restitution of all things".

Ah where did you get that?

 

[Sorn]

The earth was created for the pleasure of the angels. This was their first 'estate' and 'habitation'. Lucifer's desire for equality with God caused the destruction of the original 'Eden'. Fast forward several billion years to Genesis One: God begins the process of "the restitution of all things".

That's drawing a very long bow i'd say, arrived at by assuming much.
For that matter I'm prone to think that angels could just as easily picnic on the moons of Jupiter as frolic on the martian surface and travel to any part of the physical universe they care to so i doubt the earth was created for them.

 

[trophy33]

Well obviously that’s what they are, even if we accept 1 Enoch, by this simple reasoning:

The word angel refers to messengers; the demons, regardless of their origin, impersonate deities according to Psalm 95 v. 5 in the LXX, and deceive humans and inflict sickness upon them; these actions put them in league with the Deceiver, the devil, and since demons deceive humans by posing as gods, according to the aforesaid Psalm, they are automatically messengers of the devil, whether a specific demon is an angel fallen from Heaven with Satan or of some alternate origin.

I must admit I do not understand this reasoning, even though you say its simple. Yes, angel can mean simply "messenger", but in our context, we mean angelic beings. And the Bible has a specific word for demons, so the verse can say "for devil and his demons", but did not.

I know of no verses saying that demons are fallen angels. It all seems to be just a church tradition, because the church tradition says that demons are the fallen angels.

You should not feel pity for the demons, you should regard them as dangerous, diabolical co-adversaries and co-conspirators of Satan, because that is what they are, according to Scripture and the Church, and indeed the Latin translation of Psalm 95 v 5 LXX is “the gods of the gentiles are devils.” Calling them devils is not inaccurate, for a demon is a devil, full stop.

I feel no emotion towards them. Just debating possibilities.

Translations can be misleading, because translators can have the traditional mindset they are used to.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

What made them go from bad, to worse, to even worse?

The main agenda of Satan is to be equal to or more powerful than God. He knows this can not be. Therefore he has turned his cunningness to the lustful desires and evils of the flesh in the human race. God uses the adversary to test our faith. He is the tempter. God holds back or releases the power of the adversary, he can not act on his own. If we heed to the call of the adversay the result is the evil shown through man and that can come in varying degrees.
Blessings

 

[The Liturgist]

must admit I do not understand this reasoning, even though you say its simple. Yes, angel can mean simply "messenger", but in our context, we mean angelic beings.

But that is literally the definition of an angel.

I know of no verses saying that demons are fallen angels. It all seems to be just a church tradition, because the church tradition says that demons are the fallen angels.

And it is correct. Church tradition is extremely important. Its where we get things like the Nicene Creed and the New Testament canon (and indeed the Old Testament canon, to wit, only the very traditional Ethiopian Orthodox Church admits 1 Enoch as canonical, and they do not do so in a manner that contradicts the traditional Oriental Orthodox, which is to say, the traditional, doctrines). This is also the basis on which I accept it. There are compelling and legitimate reasons to reject it however; I regard it as less reliable than Church Tradition and as deuterocanonical (whereas I regard the “deuterocanonical” Old Testament books like Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, etc, as protocanon; indeed St. Athanasius regarded Judith as protocanon and John Calvin regarded Baruch as protocanon).

 

[trophy33]

And it is correct. Church tradition is extremely important.

But can be also extremely wrong.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What made them go from bad, to worse, to even worse?

Ive thought about this and it seems that these angels were just complete morons since that they knew God and knew what He is capable of and they still rebelled against Him. I guess common sense was not so common in heaven either back then.

 

[The Liturgist]

But can be also extremely wrong.

I am unaware of any cases where the tradition of the Early Church, unanimously shared by the magisterial Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, and Saints Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague, who are also venerated as martyrs by the Czech and Slovak Orthodox), the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and the more recent Protestant theologians ranging from very traditional men like John Wesley and CS Lewis, to those who relegated it to much more secondary roles, or did not care about it much at all, such as Stone and Campbell, Jonathan Edwards, Karl Barth, and Charles Spurgeon, and indeed even John Nelson Darby agree could remotely be described as “extremely wrong.” Indeed I myself accept the consensus patrum and reject the idea the early Church was in error; we do not see evidence of any lasting error until lasting schisms erupted in the fifth and eleventh centuries, first between the Chalcedonians and Oriental Orthodox, and later between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, and in these cases, at least in the first case, I am of the belief the schism itself, manipulated by crypto-Nestorians, was the error.

But setting that aside, where everyone for or since basically agrees, like in demonology, this is a case where the entire Church to an exceptional degree agrees on the issue of demons, including the Ethiopian Orthodox and Eritrean Orthodox churches, who are the only ones who include 1 Enoch as canon.

And its not just tradition, for the experience of the Church attests to it (see the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, or the Philokalia, or any book dealing with demons written since, I suppose, the year 1,000 BC).

And my position that I am claiming the support of these churches for does not even require the rejection of 1 Enoch; all I am saying is, the demons are messengers of the devil regardless of what sort of entities they are. Matthew 25:41 would further suggest they are at least substantially if not entirely fallen angels. And this further assumes the demonology in 1 Enoch should be read using Antiochene literal-historical exegesis; however, in general, Alexandrian typological-peophetic-parabolic exegesis is extremely important in the hermeneutics of the Old Testament, and this would be particularly the case in works like 1 Enoch which are highly pertinent to mystical theology.

 

[Landon Caeli]

What made them go from bad, to worse, to even worse?

I wonder if they have neurons. Because neurons not firing properly are a large factor in human failings.

 

[The Liturgist]

I wonder if they have neurons.

I doubt it, since the tradition of the church is that they are “pneumatic” and capable of near-instantaneous travel, hence the devil being called “The prince of power of the air”

 

[The Liturgist]

I doubt it, since the tradition of the church is that they are “pneumatic” and capable of near-instantaneous travel, hence the devil being called “The prince of power of the air”

 

[Dustoff]

What made them go from bad, to worse, to even worse?

Well regarding the original question here is my explanation.

Prior to the creation of our universe and us God originally created angels and the other myriads of personalities in heaven as innocent. They didn't know what evil was. They didn't know what good was either. They were innocent. When the devil sinned and knowledge of evil and good spread throughout heaven they all had to deal with it personally. Some gave into temptation and sinned and some didn't.

Those who gave into the temptation to sin found it eventually worked its way all through their life until they desired nothing but evil and couldn't be good if they tried. Same with those who resisted sin. That yielding to righteousness spread through their entire life until they couldn't sin if they tried.

Eventually starting from a place of innocence 1/3 became totally evil and 2/3 completely righteous.

Incidentally and slightly off topic (sorry) The devil himself is neither the strongest nor highest of Gods creation. Although probably the most beautiful.
He is not an angel. He is one of the Cherubim Ezek. 28/ 12-19
He is not the strongest either as seen in Jude 9 when the Archangel Michael would not allow the devil to take Moses body.
I think regarding the hierarchy of heaven he was second or third tier

 

[angelsaroundme]

There is a Jewish story where two angels, Shemhazai and Azazel, tell God that if they had bodies, they would not sin like people. God grants them the opportunity. Not long after they arrive on Earth they fall into temptation with human women. Once fallen, it seemed to get worse from there. They teach sin and indulge in sin. It is said that Shemhazai repented but Azazel did not. Azazel still entices people to sin.

 

[trophy33]

I am unaware of any cases where the tradition of the Early Church, unanimously shared by the magisterial Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, and Saints Jan Hus and Jerome of Prague, who are also venerated as martyrs by the Czech and Slovak Orthodox), the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, and the more recent Protestant theologians ranging from very traditional men like John Wesley and CS Lewis, to those who relegated it to much more secondary roles, or did not care about it much at all, such as Stone and Campbell, Jonathan Edwards, Karl Barth, and Charles Spurgeon, and indeed even John Nelson Darby agree could remotely be described as “extremely wrong.” Indeed I myself accept the consensus patrum and reject the idea the early Church was in error; we do not see evidence of any lasting error until lasting schisms erupted in the fifth and eleventh centuries, first between the Chalcedonians and Oriental Orthodox, and later between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, and in these cases, at least in the first case, I am of the belief the schism itself, manipulated by crypto-Nestorians, was the error.

But setting that aside, where everyone for or since basically agrees, like in demonology, this is a case where the entire Church to an exceptional degree agrees on the issue of demons, including the Ethiopian Orthodox and Eritrean Orthodox churches, who are the only ones who include 1 Enoch as canon.

And its not just tradition, for the experience of the Church attests to it (see the Sayings of the Desert Fathers, or the Philokalia, or any book dealing with demons written since, I suppose, the year 1,000 BC).

And my position that I am claiming the support of these churches for does not even require the rejection of 1 Enoch; all I am saying is, the demons are messengers of the devil regardless of what sort of entities they are. Matthew 25:41 would further suggest they are at least substantially if not entirely fallen angels. And this further assumes the demonology in 1 Enoch should be read using Antiochene literal-historical exegesis; however, in general, Alexandrian typological-peophetic-parabolic exegesis is extremely important in the hermeneutics of the Old Testament, and this would be particularly the case in works like 1 Enoch which are highly pertinent to mystical theology.

I do not believe in an inspired tradition. It can be useful, it can be truthtul here and there, but it can also be mistaken in various things, because its just human tradition.

But its off-topic to this thread, so just this short note.

 

[Sorn]

I wonder if they have neurons. Because neurons not firing properly are a large factor in human failings.

If they don't have neurons does that mean that they can't be neurotic?

 

[Landon Caeli]

If they don't have neurons does that mean that they can't be neurotic?

I suppose not.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I do not think this gives any reasons why demons tried to live in people, maybe just some general "because they want to harm them".

CS Lewis deals with this, in reference to the fact that they seem to find it desirable to have a physical host, a 'dwelling place', which is also true, in some way, with God himself. Interesting direction to study, anyway.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Even though there is no evidence for it?

No evidence? Or do you mean only no scientific evidence? Or what?