Demons

MrMojoRisin

gillad wrote: »

Consciousness was created in the Big Bang or else consciousness created the Big Bang.Whatever happened, everything that came from that moment in time is all the same and it ALL has a conscious.

To an extent, I agree with what you're saying, although I've always reckoned that consciousness was always there because I don't see it as having a beginning, a middle or an end (it's just 'in the now').

I think you're right that consciousness created the Big Bang/physical universe because it needed that spark/instigation. Of course, nobody can prove any of this, but that's what I think anyway.

At the risk of sounding radical, I would go so far to suggest that evolving consciousness, in turn, affects the physical bodies of people; sort of like Darwinian evolution, if you like, except it happens from within. I think this impacts on things like the ability to fight certain diseases as well. For example, I don't think there will ever be a cure found for AIDS, but that more and more people will simply become immune to it as time goes on, making it a non-issue.

Too right as well, because it would be a sweet slap in the face for the U.S. government, whose Department of Defense - on the orders of the Policy Committee of the Bilderberg Group in Switzerland - created and released the virus, firstly into Africa, and then into the U.S., via the Hepatitis B vaccine in 1978.*

It's a bit of a funny coincidence how the virus appeared in the gay communities of New York and San Francisco immediately after the inception of a government-sponsored programme of Hepatitis B vaccinations. Initially, the AIDS thing was just a plan to bring down the population a little and/or cull some members of the gay community, which the U.S. government viewed as a threat. It sounds crazy, I'm sure, but, trust me, a virus as complex as AIDS didn't just appear out of nowhere.*

Getting back OT (ahem, sorry)..

gillad wrote: »

We have evolved enough intelligence to be aware of ourselves and what we are on an atomic level is energy.That is why other energies in this universe have evolved and become aware of themselves and some energies were aware right after the Big Bang.

I think we only developed in awareness so steadily and slowly because we wouldn't be able to process all of it, and the intensity of it, all in one go. I'm sure many more - to borrow from Aldous Huxley - 'doors of perception' will open as time goes on. I don't know if anyone knows what I mean because it's hard to put it into words.

gillad wrote: »

I dont think these energies actively seek us out but if they get an opportunity they will take it and im sure they are just as curious as we are.They are the same as us,energy trying to suvive in this universe.

You wouldn't be referring to the sort of energies that emanate from so-called portals, would you? Or do you mean entities or some other type of supernatural, non-physical beings? Whatever you meant, I agree that we'll know more about them in time. Because they're invisible, I'm sure they've had the chance to know a lot more about us, so we'll eventually get that chance (subtly, but powerfully).

*These are just my personal opinions and are in no way representative of those held by Boards.ie.

MrMojoRisin

ratticus wrote: »

And lastly, I do not think there is any such thing as negative or positive when it comes to these classes of beings, they are what they are. Electricity can be destructive or constructive, it depends how it is channeled and used, same thing with demons or angels. ( on a side note, demons and angels are pretty much the same entities but just wearing different hats. )

But would you not classify something as positive or negative according to its actions? Wouldn't that be an obvious indicator? I know you can't gauge the intention (and the benevolence or malevolence of that intention) of these things to be 100% certain about whether they're positive or negative beings, so you can only judge them on their actions.

For instance, most people think angels are lovely, pretty, innocuous beings because they think they do positive things like save them from imminent danger, give them emotional strength, etc. So how could an angel be neutral like a demon, or vice versa?

I'm sure that, within demons' own usual sphere/world, they see themselves and their brethren as 'good' or harmless, but their power, when applied to human affairs, is destructive because human beings are ill-equipped to deal with things like that.

Morag

MrMojoRisin wrote: »

For instance, most people think angels are lovely, pretty, innocuous beings because they think they do positive things like save them from imminent danger, give them emotional strength, etc. So how could an angel be neutral like a demon, or vice versa?

I'm sure that, within demons' own usual sphere/world, they see themselves and their brethren as 'good' or harmless, but their power, when applied to human affairs, is destructive because human beings are ill-equipped to deal with things like that.

There is the school of thought that all deamons are fallen angels, those who either refused to leave the garden of Eden when they were recalled or those who sided with Lucifer or those who fell of their own accord.

Angelic forces are just that and so few people seem to think that an angel esp those who are warriors won't fúck a person over if it's for their personal greater good or the greater good of others.

Angels esp Arch angels are described as being so powerful that humans are ill equipped to even look upon them properly. Personally I'm not one for mucking around with them, esp when they are the wetwork team for JVH when you look at the book of Moses.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

MrMojoRisin

lisatiffany wrote: »

At the end of the day we are less evolved than they are and on an intellectual level they can run rings around us like you wouldn't believe. Twenty years is a long time to work in magic for a human but 20 years to an entity is no time at all, I don't doubt they appear to be working on you're side but never let you're guard down.

I would have thought that, because demons occupy a lower spiritual plane, they would automatically be less (spiritually) evolved than humans? Apparently they're beings that chose to shun the path taken by, say, angels, who maintain a direct 'pipeline' to the Source, God, or whatever people want to call it.

The fact that demons have the capacity to choose must mean they have consciousness just like humans do, except their consciousness remains at a plateau (because they're immature). Just as the human race projected itself into matter, i.e. living on this planet, demons seem to have created their own separate system/world that co-exists, albeit invisibly, with our one.

lisatiffany wrote: »

One worrying thing a spirit told me before was that in order to work with an entity on the Ouija board they have to merge with you're aura to move the planchette,

That can't be safe. Anyone who attempts to do that is an eejit.

lisatiffany wrote: »

Once you have the entity contained in the circle do you not think they would be after something themselves? they don't exist so they can do our bidding so there must be some form of an energy exchange for them too?. You mentioned you do it protected and obviously that's the safest way but do you never wonder that demons especially might take advantage?.

That's true that an energy exchange of some kind has to take place. It's unavoidable. One of the fundamental physical laws is that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and I would think that would apply to all levels.

Maybe the demon takes some of the person's vital energy, or life force? So, if that is the case, a person will probably feel the effects of that, manifested in things like low physical energy, poor health, or something, I would imagine.

Honestly though, I can't imagine that, despite supposedly being protected, a person can emerge unscathed from interactions with a demon sooner or later. I don't think anything constructive can come from it...

I've heard of magic practitioners creating energy thoughtforms through the use of collective group intention and energy, to the point that the thoughtform can manifest physically to carry out whatever purpose it has been given. It can be good or bad, or constructive or destructive, depending on the nature of mental energy it's been infused with. They often paint a picture of whatever-it-is as well.

I read about one magic group creating a giant, protective creature to protect an island off the west coast of Ireland from unwanted oil drillers (I think that's what they were - I'm open to correction on that) in the 1980s, and they later heard stories from people, who were completely unaware of the group and their efforts, about seeing a massive creature matching the description of the one they had created near the islands. Apparently the thoughtform was effective because the plans outlined for the island were soon abandoned. Unless it was just a coincidence...

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

MrMojoRisin

Sharrow wrote: »

There is the school of thought that all deamons are fallen angels, those who either refused to leave the garden of Eden when they were recalled or those who sided with Lucifer or those who fell of their own accord.

Yeah, I've heard all that, but, ideally, I'd like to separate them from religion and the subjective religious texts. Unless there actually is some truth in what's written about them in the Bible? I have no idea at this point in time..

Sharrow wrote: »

Angelic forces are just that and so few people seem to think that an angel esp those who are warriors won't fúck a person over if it's for their personal greater good or the greater good of others.

I've always thought angels were servants of God though (if various books and all the rest are to be believed)? If they were servants of a benevolent, divine force, I would think that they would be unable to, as you said, f**k a person over. Also, wouldn't they need to have an ego (and the subjectivity that accompanies that) to decide that they dislike someone enough that they want to 'teach them a lesson' as they see it? The way I look at it is that, if angels are so spiritually advanced to be, well, angels, then they wouldn't possess an ego anymore.

Sharrow wrote: »

Angels esp Arch angels are described as being so powerful that humans are ill equipped to even look upon them properly.

You mean that humans can't look at the angels or archangels in their complete form? I've read that alright. I also read that a powerful angel can manipulate its energy to make itself appear in normal, but noticeably radiant, human form - like a bloke in a pair of jeans, or whatever - to accommodate the person's limited perception (visual and spiritual). It's interesting.

Sharrow wrote: »

Personally I'm not one for mucking around with them, esp when they are the wetwork team for JVH when you look at the book of Moses.

Beyond what I've read and heard about them, I don't have anything to do with them. I'm on the fence RE: them, tbh, but I'm always interested in what people say about the subject regardless. I'm not really into religion either - I mean, I couldn't tell you what such-and-such a holy book says about something - but I find it can be interesting in the context of both real-life and supernatural subjects, if you get me.

MrMojoRisin

Aquila wrote: »

Any links to that?i would be very interested to read about it myself.

I only read about it in this book: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/offer-listing/0709072279/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1/275-1040900-0052566?pf_rd_m=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe&pf_rd_r=0DPA5EG1P268RMKKZYD2&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_p=103612307&pf_rd_i=0919345921 I think the story is mentioned in the second half of the book, which recounts some interesting stories and theories about various things.

The first section of the book deals almost exclusively with actual witchcraft - which, to be fair, is outlined responsibly and ethically - but parts of that are interesting as well.

I'll go see if I can find the exact page number where the story about the thoughtform is mentioned. Hold on..

Okay, the story about the thoughtform manifested by the group is mentioned on page 242 of the book. They created the thoughtform (it seems to have been a sea creature of some kind) to protect seal pups on the Inishkea islands, just off the coast of Mayo, from being systematically slaughtered at the time (1981). Sorry, I don't know where I got the idea about the oil drillers. I read that book months ago, so I forgot.

Anyway, they said they later met a couple who had been ferrying supplies to volunteers who were helping out on the islands, who reported seeing the creature/thoughtform. They said they first thought it was a woman, before realising how odd it was to see a woman perched on a rock in the middle of the sea. They also said she/it was smiling at them. Apparently the thoughtform had been designed to scare away people seeking to cause harm to the islands and the seal pups (how it would even know, and act on, this in reality, I have no idea), but to protect and welcome people who were trying to help, i.e. that couple.

Well, at least people can do positive and useful things with this sort of stuff.

According to that book, every last detail, from the duration of a thoughtform, to what its exact purpose is, can be created.

Morag

Aquila wrote: »

But thats going by Judeo-Christian lore.after all those same ideas were found in ancient Sumerian texts

True I didn't say that the Judeo-Christian was the only school of thought but if you are looking to deal with things from a certain context you have to make sure you have the right context and grasp on them or else you can end up with for all intents and purposes dialing a wrong number.

MrMojoRisin wrote: »

According to that book, every last detail, from the duration of a thoughtform, to what its exact purpose is, can be created.

Which is one of the hazards, people can create such thoughtform either pure creation like running into charazard due to over a decade of kids believing in him or the thought forms which people have put on entity and deity over the years.

MrMojoRisin wrote: »

Yeah, I've heard all that, but, ideally, I'd like to separate them from religion and the subjective religious texts. Unless there actually is some truth in what's written about them in the Bible? I have no idea at this point in time..

There is not that much about then in the approved books of the bible.

There are many more angelic texts then the approved bible, the texts which were uncovered with the dead sea scrolls are interesting and then there are many others.

MrMojoRisin wrote: »

I've always thought angels were servants of God though (if various books and all the rest are to be believed)? If they were servants of a benevolent, divine force, I would think that they would be unable to, as you said, f**k a person over.

Like the one who sent forth the plagues into egypt or caused the walls of Jericho to fall down?

MrMojoRisin wrote: »

Also, wouldn't they need to have an ego (and the subjectivity that accompanies that) to decide that they dislike someone enough that they want to 'teach them a lesson' as they see it? The way I look at it is that, if angels are so spiritually advanced to be, well, angels, then they wouldn't possess an ego anymore.

The text on the wars in heaven between angels would say other wise and so would what is written about the morningstar.

MrMojoRisin wrote: »

Beyond what I've read and heard about them, I don't have anything to do with them. I'm on the fence RE: them, tbh, but I'm always interested in what people say about the subject regardless. I'm not really into religion either - I mean, I couldn't tell you what such-and-such a holy book says about something - but I find it can be interesting in the context of both real-life and supernatural subjects, if you get me.

There are grimore and magick books which deal with angels and archangels which I would not automaticall consider holy. The LBRP calls on them and by working that you open yourself to them and a possible relationship/encounters if that is what you wish.

Whispered

EnterNow wrote: »

I was thinking the exact same, could the Djinn be considered the same thing?

That's what I was touching on earlier, most entities are so very similar (just like all described omnipotent gods) that they appear to be the same things, with different names, whose descriptions and "jobs" developed according to culture.

Leprachauns, hobgoblins, minor demons, djinns, etc are all very similar.

Just like sprites, angels, dryads, nymphs etc are all very similar. Although I'm aware there can be some cross over between the two lists.

This again brings up the question, if they do exist, would they do so without us? Do our thoughts shape them, or do they simply do things and look as we'd expect them to?

Would I see an entity as The Green Lady, while my mother would see the same Entity as Archangel Uriel?

MrMojoRisin wrote: »

For instance, most people think angels are lovely, pretty, innocuous beings because they think they do positive things like save them from imminent danger, give them emotional strength, etc. So how could an angel be neutral like a demon, or vice versa?

Neutral like a force of nature maybe? Rain is at it's best life giving and at it's worst a destroyer. Could the difference be as simple as that? Circumstantial and depending on the surroundings.

EIDT: http://uuquincy.org/talks/20050123.shtml "theory 6" talks about the thoughtform mentioned by Mrmojo.

Ziycon

I think the idea that demons exist is firmly routed in ones own religous beliefs or its a case that some people can't comprehend the idea of demons so they fall back to religon to help them explain it/understand it.
I've spent a good few years with the paranormal and have taken part in pretty much any method of 'communicting' with the dead, to date I've yet to get any response.

The belief in demons, paranormal, afterlife is a completely religous one that has filtred down from older religons over the years and become embellished and elaborated. Everyone is entitled to there beliefs, im not trying to take that away.

The belief in demons is as I said routed in religon and in the fact that its in human nature to want to find answers and to know that when we die that its not over.

ratticus

MrMojoRisin wrote: »

But would you not classify something as positive or negative according to its actions? Wouldn't that be an obvious indicator? I know you can't gauge the intention (and the benevolence or malevolence of that intention) of these things to be 100% certain about whether they're positive or negative beings, so you can only judge them on their actions.

For instance, most people think angels are lovely, pretty, innocuous beings because they think they do positive things like save them from imminent danger, give them emotional strength, etc. So how could an angel be neutral like a demon, or vice versa?

I'm sure that, within demons' own usual sphere/world, they see themselves and their brethren as 'good' or harmless, but their power, when applied to human affairs, is destructive because human beings are ill-equipped to deal with things like that.

I would argue that Angels are anything but lovely, pretty innocuous beings.

There is a school of thought that Angels and Demons are actually the same entities but in different operational modes, Angelic forms being informative and Demonic forms are action based.

I think any energy can be either positive or negative depending on its application. Cancer therapy destroys cancer cells and is seen to be a "good" thing by us but if you were a cancer cell it would be pretty darn "bad".

faceman

I'm mostly with Ziycon in this discussion. If you are talking demons, you are talking demons of religious origin. Anything else is just a la carte demonology. I'll work with the assumption that everyone believes in demons for the purpose of this post.

St. Thomas Aquinas was considered to the be the the Catholic guru on demonology based on his visions and apparitions. He was the first to document hierarchy etc.

Modern day demonologists (not sure if thats even a word) are again of religious background. In particular Fr. Gabriel Amorth and Fr. Jose Antonio Fortea. Their "first hand" experience puts them above any other experts on the topic IMO.

By religious definition, demons are evil. They are filled with hatred for God and humans. There is no middle ground. Why anyone would want to communicate with them is just barmy. Even Aleister Crowley realised that when he was trying to conjure some Egyptian demon yoke.

Of all the books I have read on demons, I'd rate Matt Baglio's "The Rite" as the most riveting.

ratticus

faceman wrote: »

I'm mostly with Ziycon in this discussion. If you are talking demons, you are talking demons of religious origin. Anything else is just a la carte demonology. I'll work with the assumption that everyone believes in demons for the purpose of this post.

St. Thomas Aquinas was considered to the be the the Catholic guru on demonology based on his visions and apparitions. He was the first to document hierarchy etc.

Modern day demonologists (not sure if thats even a word) are again of religious background. In particular Fr. Gabriel Amorth and Fr. Jose Antonio Fortea. Their "first hand" experience puts them above any other experts on the topic IMO.

By religious definition, demons are evil. They are filled with hatred for God and humans. There is no middle ground. Why anyone would want to communicate with them is just barmy. Even Aleister Crowley realised that when he was trying to conjure some Egyptian demon yoke.

Of all the books I have read on demons, I'd rate Matt Baglio's "The Rite" as the most riveting.

I think the term Demon is overused and probably has the incorrect connotations. Where you you place the hierarchies of Johns Dee Enochian system or the Goetia/Lesser keys of Solomon or even the Abramelin spirits?

Sephiroth_dude

lisatiffany wrote: »

I do however communicate with spirits through channeling and clairvoyance and I naturally ask a lot about other dimensions and of the creatures that reside there.

Hope you don't mind me asking,how do you communicate?are you a medium?

Sephiroth_dude

interesting thread so I'm gonna bump it