Are literal demons real - according to your Tradition?

[4x4toy]

I am non denominational, but the closest would be Southern Baptist, I guess.

I have an extremely controversial view on demons, powers, principalities, angels and archons. My tradition believes in real demons.

I believe demons are real; disembodied spirits of the fallen/human hybrid interactions.

If Satan was cast down from heaven how could he present himself with the sons of God unless he came in to men's places of worship on the appointed days of assembly and worship when they presented themselves Sons of God ? Angels were created without the ability to pro-create ..

 

[Church2u2]

Hi.My church believes that demons exist and so do I.

 

[John Hyperspace]

The question is a little tricky in that it uses a word in the bible, but then offers up a definition which isn't really in the bible but more a product of the imaginings of men who attempt to understand the literality of the word use. It's like if we ask the same about "angels" which means "messengers" - naturally everyone would agree the bible speaks of "angels" but a disagreement may arise in the understanding of the word, as opposed to denying the word is used in the bible.

For instance I have made some posts on "hell" which is clearly mentioned in the bible, and as such, I clearly believe in "hell": but I do not believe in the mainstream teaching, or, understanding, of the word that we agree is in the bible. About "angels", surely everyone believes in literal messengers, people carrying messages in behalf of someone for which they work. Likewise, I also believe in literal "devils" - but not "devils" in the sense of little horned creatures which roam around in literal fire and serve a man dressed in red carrying a pitchfork and dominating a dark fiery cave with torture instruments lining the walls.

I believe there are evil and unclean spirits in men, but not that this means these, whispy, carnal, puffs of "spirit" that are working; but that these are actual "spirits": such as a "spirit of discord" which may be in a man, and the man goes around with an evil attitude toward others, causing discord among people when he can.

But this is the nature of words, and the way they can often be misleading - especially when it comes to the Bible - when we attempt to take the words, and attempt to define them literally, and outisde of biblical teachings. You may be surprised to find that Jesus is called a "demon" in the scripture itself: Acts 17:18 This phrase "strange gods" is "xenon daimonion" or "strange demons"; this being said of Jesus whom Paul was preaching. Now these men are not calling the Jesus whom Paul preached an "evil spirit/puff of disincarnate malignancy/etc." they are showing no disrespect, they are merely stating that Paul is teaching about a "demon" they've never heard of before, and, as such, is "xenon/strange/yet unheard of/alien" to their ears. This is the one and only place that the 50-some uses of "daimonion" is translated "gods" instead of "devils" as it is consistently defined in every other usage; and shows that there is something very wrong in the way mainstream doctrine teaches understanding of the word "demons/devils"

So these men are using the word "demon" in a way that is clearly at odds with the mainstream teaching concerning the definition of a "demon" and are not at all using the word to describe what we see in television and movies, which in turn are based in medieval imaginings much akin to elves, and gnomes, and such fantastical creatures.

I also believe in God, but do not believe in a carnal man sitting on a carnal throne hidden away in some other earth-like place. I do not believe in an "earthy" heaven (except as we might call a curseless earth "heaven" yet it would not be heaven except in the idea that peace and life and love reign manifested in the earth causing a state of earthly paradise which we may call "heaven" but that use of heaven would be a misnomer.)

So to make a long story a little longer - yes, I believe in literal demons but, no, I do not believe in understanding these literally as we see them presented in Dore imagery or Hollywood movies.

 

[tatteredsoul]

If Satan was cast down from heaven how could he present himself with the sons of God unless he came in to men's places of worship on the appointed days of assembly and worship when they presented themselves Sons of God ? Angels were created without the ability to pro-create ..

Satan means adversary in Hebrew. The Satan we think of is the entity we believe controls this world, and/or the entity that will power the Antichrist. As there are many antichrists, there are many satans.

In Enoch, it was Azazel who controlled his avatar serpent, and tempted man. Hundreds of other angels made a pact amongst themselves, and mated with women - having nephilim, rephaim, anakim and enim. Hybrids with angelic spirit from their fathers, and human bodies from their mothers. When they die, they become aimless spirits seeking to possess a physical form - whether swine or human.

The accuser/Satan that presented himself with the sons of God was an accuser. I have heard people on these forums describe the entity as a prosecuting attorney, not necessarily an evil spirit.

 

[4x4toy]

Satan means adversary in Hebrew. The Satan we think of is the entity we believe controls this world, and/or the entity that will power the Antichrist. As there are many antichrists, there are many satans.

In Enoch, it was Azazel who controlled his avatar serpent, and tempted man. Hundreds of other angels made a pact amongst themselves, and mated with women - having nephilim, rephaim, anakim and enim. Hybrids with angelic spirit from their fathers, and human bodies from their mothers. When they die, they become aimless spirits seeking to possess a physical form - whether swine or human.

The accuser/Satan that presented himself with the sons of God was an accuser. I have heard people on these forums describe the entity as a prosecuting attorney, not necessarily an evil spirit.

I've heard about the book of Enoch but never found it in my Bible , I've also heard about the Talmud and 100's of other writings and opinions .. Anything outside the inspired Word of God I have little or no faith in .. In Job were not the sons of God Job's sons where Satan also went in ? Again , angels were created without the ability to pro-create and their first estate was to serve and worship God only .. They left their first estate and God cast them out of heaven .. They can possess , oppress and vex but they can not have sex with women or father children .. The devil is the accuser of the brethren , Jesus is our advocate , interceded constantly on our behalf to our Father in Heaven ..

 

[tatteredsoul]

I've heard about the book of Enoch but never found it in my Bible , I've also heard about the Talmud and 100's of other writings and opinions .. Anything outside the inspired Word of God I have little or no faith in .. In Job were not the sons of God Job's sons where Satan also went in ? Again , angels were created without the ability to pro-create and their first estate was to serve and worship God only .. They left their first estate and God cast them out of heaven .. They can possess , oppress and vex but they can not have sex with women or father children .. The devil is the accuser of the brethren , Jesus is our advocate , interceded constantly on our behalf to our Father in Heaven ..

Ok.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Seconded.

Thirded. Thirded? I guess that's the word.

I have no firsthand experience with demons or evil spirits or whatever you want to call them (and don't care to have any, thanks) but I absolutely believe they're real.

 

[JCFantasy23]

I'm not sure on the official teaching of the Methodist church on demons. I've never seen them mentioned in sermons. I do believe in literal demons, however.

 

[Yahu_]

I'm not looking for debate. (Please note this is being posted in Traditional Theology where we discuss ideas from our own point of view, not argue over who is right.) I just noticed some threads in CF that made me curious ...

What does your Tradition teach about the existence of evil spirits? Do you yourself disagree with what your Tradition teaches on this topic?

Yes, but my understanding is considerable different from many traditional views in direct opposition to the Augustinean view..

By my tradition, demons and fallen angels are two totally separate classifications. As implied in the non-canonical Enoch, demons are not fallen angels but the spirits of the dead offspring of those fallen angels. The fallen angels are in prison. That prison is Tartarus, the lowest hell where the immortal titans are imprisoned, according to Peter in 2 Pet 2:4 and confirmed in Jude. Jude also then goes on to quote directly out of the book of Enoch as his source of that knowledge.

 

[~Anastasia~]

<Staff Edit>

My purpose in creating this thread wasn't to find an answer concerning whether or not demons are real. I'm quite settled on my beliefs.

But the reason I asked it in the way I did was to survey various Traditional churches and denominations to ask what their traditions taught.

A brief description of Tradition for the purpose of Traditional Threology can be found in the Statement of Purpose for Traditional Theology.


Definition of Traditional Christianity:

Traditional Christians hold to the traditional beliefs and customs of the early church that Jesus Christ established and believe they should be acknowledged and used in the development of the Church today. Traditional Christians believe that the Church and associated Tradition - especially from the Apostolic / early Church - guide us even today. These traditions include sources such as church councils and creeds, writings of the early Church Fathers, testimony of the Lives of the Saints, classic confessions of the faith, etc. Many traditional Christians believe that each Christian is involved in a movement toward God, commonly known as theosis or sanctification. Traditional Christians recognize a variety of sacraments and sacramental acts including, but not limited to; Baptism, Holy Communion (Eucharist), Confession and Absolution, Chrismation (confirmation) etc., and consider them to be additional means whereby God imparts His grace on those who have faith.

 

[~Anastasia~]

<Staff Edit>
Ok, thank you again.

As I said, I was interested specifically in what various Traditional churches and denominations had to say regarding the question in the OP, and additionally if the person posting agreed with their denomination's position.

So I'm not sure what these two posts have to do with the topic? But thank you.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Admin Hat...

This thread has undergone a cleanup of off topic posts.

For those who don't agree with the purpose of this forum: go find one that you do; we are not going to change the statement of purpose to suit an individual's opinion, nor are we going to let trollish behavior dictate policy here at CF.

Further posts of this nature will result in reports, staff actions, and possibly even restriction of access to CF.

Mark
CF Admin

 

[Arcangl86]

I'm actually not sure what the stance of the Episcopal Church on demons is. The Book of Occasional Services does have a section on exorcisms, but that section essentially leaves it up to the discretion of the Bishop to determine if exorcisms are needed. And the entire Book of Occasional Services is what we consider a supplemental resource which is authorized or deauthorized by the local bishop. So I suppose the most that can be said is that the Episcopal Church allows for a belief in demons but it isn't considered to be a normative aspect of the Faith. As for myself, I'm not sure. I remember hearing my Bishop speak and he said something interesting. There is a tendency to look at possessions in the Bible and see them as mental illness. What he said once was what if we flipped the script and considered that maybe what we are seeing as mental illnesses could be demonic possession. I think a middle ground is the proper belief. Like I'm not sure I believe in demons and possession, but I am willing to consider it in specific cases. Also I think we tend to kind of downplay the capacity for evil in humans if we ascribe too much to demons. Kind of rambling, but i hope it helped.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm actually not sure what the stance of the Episcopal Church on demons is. The Book of Occasional Services does have a section on exorcisms, but that section essentially leaves it up to the discretion of the Bishop to determine if exorcisms are needed. And the entire Book of Occasional Services is what we consider a supplemental resource which is authorized or deauthorized by the local bishop. So I suppose the most that can be said is that the Episcopal Church allows for a belief in demons but it isn't considered to be a normative aspect of the Faith. As for myself, I'm not sure. I remember hearing my Bishop speak and he said something interesting. There is a tendency to look at possessions in the Bible and see them as mental illness. What he said once was what if we flipped the script and considered that maybe what we are seeing as mental illnesses could be demonic possession. I think a middle ground is the proper belief. Like I'm not sure I believe in demons and possession, but I am willing to consider it in specific cases. Also I think we tend to kind of downplay the capacity for evil in humans if we ascribe too much to demons. Kind of rambling, but i hope it helped.

Thank you.

Actually, I find the Anglican/Episcopal to be the most difficult to figure out just what they believe, even when asking a priest/rector/vicar (I may be misusing terms). I don't know if that's due to some lack on my part, an unfortunate circumstance continually repeated, or a wider fluidity allowed in belief (I suspect the last option as being most reasonable, but I'm not sure?).

Aside from that, I find your comments interesting. I do think in the context you mention, a "middle ground" is more reasonable.

It may be that some of what is discussed as demonic influence in the Scriptures would be what we consider medical. That doesn't even imply dishonesty of the Scriptures, at least not to Orthodox, since we understand the fallen condition, including sickness, to be intimately related to sin, and thus demonic influence.

On the other hand, I do believe there is some demonic activity today as well.

The exorcism involved in the Orthodox Church is usually similar to what you describe, I would think. First organic or psychological causes are investigated, and those usually turn out to be the culprit. However, some cases are determined to be demonic in origin, and those can proceed to exorcism.

Thank you for sharing.

 

[dzheremi]

Yes, of course we in the Coptic Orthodox tradition believe in the literal existence of demons, as they are well-attested to not only in the scriptures, but also in the experiences of our fathers the monks. It is a rather standard/set phrase in Coptic hymns, for instance, that we ask that God lift His wrath from us and save us from the snares of the demons, though interestingly it seems that the Arabic language does not distinguish between demons and Satan, in contrast to the idea that is found in many traditions wherein Satan is the head/chief of evil spirits, so you get correspondences like this:

Yios Theos areh eron: evolha pifash ente nidemon (Coptic)
O Son of God, keep us from the traps of the demons
Ya ibn Allah ahfuzana min fakhakh al shayateen (Arabic)

shayateen is just the plural of shaytan, 'Satan'. So I guess in Arabic, demons are more literally 'satans'. Coptic does distinguish between demons and Satan as a figure, however, because you have phrases like the above and verses like this one from the burial hymn Golgotha:

Anon hon marenouosht emmof: enosh evol enjo emmosh: je nai nan efnouti pensotir: fietavashf epistavros: ekekhomkhem empesatanas sapesit ennenshalawj

We also worship Him saying: "Have mercy on us, O God our Savior, who was crucified on the Cross, destroy Satan under our feet."

This gets translated into Arabic as: wa nahnu aydan nesgud lehu sarikheen "irhamna ya Allah mukhalesana ilathy sulubt 'ala al salib wsahaqt al shaytan taht aqdamina."

(And we also worship Him crying out "Have mercy on us our Savior who was crucified on the cross, crush Satan under our feet.")

It might be interesting to also see who believes in Satan as a particular figure, maybe in separate thread. My tradition obviously does, but only in the traditional language of the Church I guess.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Yes, of course we in the Coptic Orthodox tradition believe in the literal existence of demons, as they are well-attested to not only in the scriptures, but also in the experiences of our fathers the monks. It is a rather standard/set phrase in Coptic hymns, for instance, that we ask that God lift His wrath from us and save us from the snares of the demons, though interestingly it seems that the Arabic language does not distinguish between demons and Satan, in contrast to the idea that is found in many traditions wherein Satan is the head/chief of evil spirits, so you get correspondences like this:

Yios Theos areh eron: evolha pifash ente nidemon (Coptic)
O Son of God, keep us from the traps of the demons
Ya ibn Allah ahfuzana min fakhakh al shayateen (Arabic)

shayateen is just the plural of shaytan, 'Satan'. So I guess in Arabic, demons are more literally 'satans'. Coptic does distinguish between demons and Satan as a figure, however, because you have phrases like the above and verses like this one from the burial hymn Golgotha:

Anon hon marenouosht emmof: enosh evol enjo emmosh: je nai nan efnouti pensotir: fietavashf epistavros: ekekhomkhem empesatanas sapesit ennenshalawj

We also worship Him saying: "Have mercy on us, O God our Savior, who was crucified on the Cross, destroy Satan under our feet."

This gets translated into Arabic as: wa nahnu aydan nesgud lehu sarikheen "irhamna ya Allah mukhalesana ilathy sulubt 'ala al salib wsahaqt al shaytan taht aqdamina."

(And we also worship Him crying out "Have mercy on us our Savior who was crucified on the cross, crush Satan under our feet.")

It might be interesting to also see who believes in Satan as a particular figure, maybe in separate thread. My tradition obviously does, but only in the traditional language of the Church I guess.

Thank you.

I would be shocked if anyone had claimed Oriental Orthodox did not believe in demons.

The point about Satan/satan/satans is an interesting one, and that WOULD make for a more interesting thread.

I haven't ever had a chance to look into it, but iirc some of the Hebrew from the OT makes this an interesting question as well, as in some cases it seems to imply "satans". But this is not something I know much about.

Interesting, I'm trying to recall if anything I've read in Orthodoxy refers specifically to "Satan" named as such. It's not coming to mind. I've often read of demons, and the devil (and devils, depending upon translation) so I have inferred that belief, but you just made me realize that I've never absolutely confirmed it.

 

[dzheremi]

Well, it's a linguistic phenomenon, not necessarily a dogmatic stance. I don't recall ever having read anything from my own Church which talks about Satan as a separate figure in himself in the Western sense, either (though such a thing may exist, our prayers tend to be variable in their exact wording, as shown). I just wonder how many people or denominations who do make such a distinction are aware that they or their tradition are probably doing so by reading a lot more into the wording of the text than is reasonable to do based on the distinctions made in the original language(s). As Tattered Soul already pointed out in post #24, the word in Hebrew means something more like 'adversary', which if you think about it is more of a job description than a (quasi) personal name, as many people tend to treat it.

In fact, I quite like this 'adversary' language (as much as anyone can really like something on the topic of demons, that is!), as it fits better with what seems to be the understanding of the Church with regard to not just this topic, but related topics such as intercession. It has not escaped my notice, for instance, that we refer to the Theotokos as "our trusted advocate" in some of the hymns, and believe her intercession to be important and effective not just in some general sense, but in actively helping us to escape the clutches of the adversary. Hence you will find this language in places like the closing verses of some of the Midnight Praises of Kiahk, which is not-coincidentally known as St. Mary's month, wherein we pray:

Intercede for me, do not leave your servant; ask your Son to save me from the fire
For your intercession is heard and accepted, and He defends from the attacks of the adversary.


Arise O poor one, and clothe yourself in faith, and say "Amen Amen, for us she intercedes." The persistent servant will always praise her, for by his side that Day,
the Lady of virgins shall be.

I think if we had a different understanding of the adversary/Satan/satans/demons, it would be much more difficult to understand a concept like this. It seems there is always a question, at least among Western Christians who are more familiar with RC Mariology and related intercessory prayers, of just how explicit we may make the role of the Theotokos or other saints in the salvation of Christians. To that end, I note that via the Latin vulgate of St. Jerome (as opposed to the Septuagint used in both my and your Church), the RCC has developed a different sort of Mariology in which she plays a much more direct role in "crushing the serpent", understood in context to be a reference to the serpent which deceived our first parents in the garden -- our ancestors' first direct encounter with 'the adversary', if you will.

But things like the above verses, which do not personify the devil(s) in either the 'person' (individual entity) of Satan or the serpent, have a correspondingly more general role (albeit still active!), for lack of a better way to put it. The Theotokos does not in any sense usurp the power of her son and savior Jesus Christ, but acts at our request to bring our prayers and supplications before Him as one who stands at His side and at our side in this struggle. "And say amen amen, for us she intercedes" is mighty different than "and say amen amen, for us she physically steps upon the anthropomorphized 'Satan' in the form of a snake" or whatever!

I don't know...this is all horribly off-topic and rambling, so I'll stop here, but I do think there may be something to the kind of images or concepts built up in various traditions of the devil(s)/Satan(s) and wider questions concerning other beliefs and practices of the Church. As relates more directly to this thread, would it be horribly inaccurate or uncharitable to assume that those who do not believe in the reality of literal demons probably have a correspondingly weak or maybe even absent belief in saints and intercession? After all, just what would be advocated by "our faithful advocates" the saints in a context in which the reality of evil spirits is denied, and for what purpose would they advocate so? The hymn above is very clear that her Son defends from the attacks of the adversary, but if the adversary is not really existing, then what is He doing? What is she doing? In fact, what are any of us doing? Our Lord's words in Matthew 17:21, that some demons can only be driven out by prayer and fasting, must therefore have some kind of metaphorical meaning...in which case, did He mean only metaphorical prayer and fasting? It would not seem so, as He elsewhere gives believers guidelines concerning how to pray and fast, in Matthew 6 ("In this manner therefore pray..."; "Moreover when you fast, do not be like the hypocrites...").

Sorry to keep going on after I said I'd stop, but there's a lot more to this when you really (over)think about it!

 

[~Anastasia~]

Well, it's a linguistic phenomenon, not necessarily a dogmatic stance. I don't recall ever having read anything from my own Church which talks about Satan as a separate figure in himself in the Western sense, either (though such a thing may exist, our prayers tend to be variable in their exact wording, as shown). I just wonder how many people or denominations who do make such a distinction are aware that they or their tradition are probably doing so by reading a lot more into the wording of the text than is reasonable to do based on the distinctions made in the original language(s). As Tattered Soul already pointed out in post #24, the word in Hebrew means something more like 'adversary', which if you think about it is more of a job description than a (quasi) personal name, as many people tend to treat it.

In fact, I quite like this 'adversary' language (as much as anyone can really like something on the topic of demons, that is!), as it fits better with what seems to be the understanding of the Church with regard to not just this topic, but related topics such as intercession. It has not escaped my notice, for instance, that we refer to the Theotokos as "our trusted advocate" in some of the hymns, and believe her intercession to be important and effective not just in some general sense, but in actively helping us to escape the clutches of the adversary. Hence you will find this language in places like the closing verses of some of the Midnight Praises of Kiahk, which is not-coincidentally known as St. Mary's month, wherein we pray:

Intercede for me, do not leave your servant; ask your Son to save me from the fire
For your intercession is heard and accepted, and He defends from the attacks of the adversary.


Arise O poor one, and clothe yourself in faith, and say "Amen Amen, for us she intercedes." The persistent servant will always praise her, for by his side that Day,
the Lady of virgins shall be.

I think if we had a different understanding of the adversary/Satan/satans/demons, it would be much more difficult to understand a concept like this. It seems there is always a question, at least among Western Christians who are more familiar with RC Mariology and related intercessory prayers, of just how explicit we may make the role of the Theotokos or other saints in the salvation of Christians. To that end, I note that via the Latin vulgate of St. Jerome (as opposed to the Septuagint used in both my and your Church), the RCC has developed a different sort of Mariology in which she plays a much more direct role in "crushing the serpent", understood in context to be a reference to the serpent which deceived our first parents in the garden -- our ancestors' first direct encounter with 'the adversary', if you will.

But things like the above verses, which do not personify the devil(s) in either the 'person' (individual entity) of Satan or the serpent, have a correspondingly more general role (albeit still active!), for lack of a better way to put it. The Theotokos does not in any sense usurp the power of her son and savior Jesus Christ, but acts at our request to bring our prayers and supplications before Him as one who stands at His side and at our side in this struggle. "And say amen amen, for us she intercedes" is mighty different than "and say amen amen, for us she physically steps upon the anthropomorphized 'Satan' in the form of a snake" or whatever!

I don't know...this is all horribly off-topic and rambling, so I'll stop here, but I do think there may be something to the kind of images or concepts built up in various traditions of the devil(s)/Satan(s) and wider questions concerning other beliefs and practices of the Church. As relates more directly to this thread, would it be horribly inaccurate or uncharitable to assume that those who do not believe in the reality of literal demons probably have a correspondingly weak or maybe even absent belief in saints and intercession? After all, just what would be advocated by "our faithful advocates" the saints in a context in which the reality of evil spirits is denied, and for what purpose would they advocate so? The hymn above is very clear that her Son defends from the attacks of the adversary, but if the adversary is not really existing, then what is He doing? What is she doing? In fact, what are any of us doing? Our Lord's words in Matthew 17:21, that some demons can only be driven out by prayer and fasting, must therefore have some kind of metaphorical meaning...in which case, did He mean only metaphorical prayer and fasting? It would not seem so, as He elsewhere gives believers guidelines concerning how to pray and fast, in Matthew 6 ("In this manner therefore pray..."; "Moreover when you fast, do not be like the hypocrites...").

Sorry to keep going on after I said I'd stop, but there's a lot more to this when you really (over)think about it!

Actually, I find your rambling quite refreshing, and it is an old thread which long since served its initial purpose, so I'm happy for additional insights.

I'm still reeling a bit from the differences in the prayer/hymn (?) you quoted. Is it actually so different, or were you giving an example, or?

I don't normally read Catholic prayers, so I wouldn't actually know. I struggle enough getting at the exact meaning behind our own hymns and prayers, since some of the language is quite - almost hyperbole.

Further interesting question, regarding the possible connection of weaker theology in both terms of demonology and the intercessions of the Saints. I wouldn't know. But the two seem a reasonable "set against" one another. Even though angels would be a more exact comparison.

Ah, I only wish I was more coherent right now. I don't like to complain, but my current condition makes thinking carefully difficult. Yet I want SO MUCH to engage more than I've been able to in some weeks. If you'll forgive my limping participation though, I'm more than happy to go my best.

 

[dzheremi]

I'm still reeling a bit from the differences in the prayer/hymn (?) you quoted. Is it actually so different, or were you giving an example, or?

I was giving an example of the linguistic phenomenon, whereby Coptic has "demons" and "Satan", but Arabic (apparently; I'm not a native Arabic speaker by any means) has only "satan" and "satans". The prayers do not express any different theology from one another (they're from the same Church, after all).

I don't normally read Catholic prayers, so I wouldn't actually know. I struggle enough getting at the exact meaning behind our own hymns and prayers, since some of the language is quite - almost hyperbole.

I'm sorry; it appears that I have perhaps confused you. There are not RC prayers in the post, though I did link to an RC blog post about how differences in translation of a passage in Genesis have led to the development of a uniquely RC image and idea of St. Mary wherein she crushes the adversary underfoot, as I don't believe that such a thing would be possible to find on that same basis in either your Church or mine (though in the thanksgiving prayer prayed in the introduction to every hour of the Agpeya/Coptic horologion, we do give thanks to God that He has given us the authority to "tread on serpents and scorpions", though that is obviously a very 'Egyptian' phrasing...unless running into scorpions is somehow more characteristic of life in Rome than in the desert).

Further interesting question, regarding the possible connection of weaker theology in both terms of demonology and the intercessions of the Saints. I wouldn't know. But the two seem a reasonable "set against" one another. Even though angels would be a more exact comparison.

Yeah, I thought of that briefly, but I have noticed that the belief in angels is one supernatural belief that seems to withstand disbelief in related things (NB: a Gallup poll conducted last year finds that only 16% disbelieve in angels, whereas 27% disbelieve in the existence of the devil, and 22% disbelieve in the existence of hell). So I'm not sure that the correlation would be there in that case.

Ah, I only wish I was more coherent right now. I don't like to complain, but my current condition makes thinking carefully difficult. Yet I want SO MUCH to engage more than I've been able to in some weeks. If you'll forgive my limping participation though, I'm more than happy to go my best.

Oh, I don't mean to put any kind of pressure on you or anyone. I'm only sharing my own view and related questions/thoughts.

It is more important to get better than to engage with the internet when that saps precious energy and focus. Lord have mercy upon Your servant, Anastasia.

 

[~Anastasia~]

You are not putting pressure on me. I put it on myself. Sometimes for good, and sometimes not, lol.

I miss applying my mind to such things though.

And it was indeed the image of Mary treading directly on the snake that I was referring to in your post.