Do demons get a bad rap?

[Willum]

So we all know all know the tale of how Satan, who will be defined as the Serpent or the Devil or Lucifer, or etc. for purposes of this OP, led 1/3 of the angels in heaven to the fall. This is also an assumption of the OP.

Satan, Lou Cypher, et &al., is often depicted in media as not evil, but a rebel against God, even a champion for freewill.
And who could blame him seeing the antics of this God? God drowns the world because he lets his angels breed, then doesn't have the good sense to start over with another garden...

When we look at these events, we, and certainly the media has often expressed sympathy for the Devil. Maybe he did simply want man to know the truth and is getting a bad rap.

But that is not what the OP is about.

This is about the demons or his fallen angels.

These folks are always depicted as deviant and chaotic and evil.
But isn't it more likely that they fall about some kind of spectrum?

Perhaps the best of demons, were they to chose again, would really have chosen not to rebel, and conversely, some angels would, given a choice, choose to rebel.

I know I would.

So, is it more likely that demons, if they actually existed, are not all as they are depicted in media, fathomless malevolent evil, but there are ambivalent, even good demons? Or losing the bias:

It is possible there are ambivalent, even good fallen angels?
Is there anything, other than logic, to support this view?

[FinalEnigma]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]As we all know history is written by the victor.

This is true when speaking about history as recorded by humans. Presuming there is a God however, and presuming that one is just, we could arguably have confidence in the truthfulness of his presentation of the facts.

JW

If we assume that there is a God, and that he has communicated with us through the Bible, how can we verify that what he says about himself is accurate, when our only source of information about his attributes is what he tells us and what wants us to see of the universe?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 11 by FinalEnigma]

Assuming there is a creator of the universe we could presumably also learn about his character from what he has created, so the bible wouldn't be the only source of information about Him. Recognizing however all that is true cannot necesssarily be verified, the most reasonable approach would be to do what most people do anyway, come to a logical conclusion based on what we do know, not on what we don't.

[FinalEnigma]

[Replying to post 11 by FinalEnigma]

Assuming there is a creator of the universe we could presumably also learn about his character from what he has created, so the bible wouldn't be the only source of information about Him.

But if he is the creator of the universe, then it is necessarily true that we can only see what he chooses to make visible to us, and therefore, any conclusions we might make about him based upon what we see are necessarily based upon what information he chooses to make available to us.

Essentially, we have no way of assessing him outside of the information and works which he has produced by which he wants us to assess him. If he were to decide to trick us, there would be no possible way for us to detect his trickery.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 11 by FinalEnigma]

Assuming there is a creator of the universe we could presumably also learn about his character from what he has created, so the bible wouldn't be the only source of information about Him.

But if he is the creator of the universe, then it is necessarily true that we can only see what he chooses to make visible to us, and therefore, any conclusions we might make about him based upon what we see are necessarily based upon what information he chooses to make available to us.

Essentially, we have no way of assessing him outside of the information and works which he has produced by which he wants us to assess him. If he were to decide to trick us, there would be no possible way for us to detect his trickery.

True enough. So? What practical bearing would that have on what I said, namely we can only come to reasonable conclusion based on what we know not on what we don't know?

[Willum]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Assuming there is a creator of the universe we could presumably also learn about his character from what he has created, so the bible wouldn't be the only source of information about Him. Recognizing however all that is true cannot necesssarily be verified, the most reasonable approach would be to do what most people do anyway, come to a logical conclusion based on what we do know, not on what we don't.

You do know that one of the things that makes something true is that it CAN be verified, right?
Name one thing that can't be verified that is true.

[Willum]

So I had this thought.

Does this mean all angels are good?
We know that 1/3 rebelled, and 2/3 didn't.

But does this mean they are good, or simply didn't participate in the rebellion, or maybe didn't have the morale fortitude to say: "God you are so wrong, I'd rather spend eternity in a boiling mass of fire than serve you!"

[JehovahsWitness]

So I had this thought.

Does this mean all angels are good?
We know that 1/3 rebelled, and 2/3 didn't.

But does this mean they are good, or simply didn't participate in the rebellion, or maybe didn't have the morale fortitude to say: "God you are so wrong, I'd rather spend eternity in a boiling mass of fire than serve you!"

Biblically nobody is "good" in the absolute sense but what we can say is it is reasonable to assume that the angels that remained loyal (even though they evidently didn't have to) did so because they wanted to uphold Jehovah (God) souvereignty and have for the thousands of years since, continued to do so.

The bible doesn't say if other angels joined Satan progressively over the milleniums since his rebellion, so we cannot say if some, that didn't initially join him (Satan) harboured or developed the same inclinations that subsequently lead them making similar choices, but it seems reasonable to conclude that there are presently two "camps" and that those on God's side are there because they they are loyal to him out of love.

Interesting question

JW

[OnceConvinced]

This is a tough question because I no longer believe in demons, so it seems silly to consider whether they have a bad rap. But ok, let's presume that they are real and that some fell from grace.

These folks are always depicted as deviant and chaotic and evil.
But isn't it more likely that they fall about some kind of spectrum?

I guess it all depends on how picky God is. If one sin is enough to black list you and brand you evil, then yes, they are all evil and all damned, no matter how minor their infraction. The bible seems to indicate this.

It seems to be the same with humans. We could be the most evil horrible people ever or we could be someone who occasionally only tells a white lie or something like that, but in the end it all comes down to whether we kiss God's butt or not. If we refuse to kiss God's butt, we are doomed to Hell no matter how nice we are. On the other hand we could be as evil as Adolf Hitler and just as long as we genuinely repent and ask Jesus which butt cheek he wants us to kiss first, then we're through to Heaven - deemed to be righteous - given a free pass.

Perhaps the best of demons, were they to chose again, would really have chosen not to rebel, and conversely, some angels would, given a choice, choose to rebel.

I know I would.

I think a demon would have to be really dumb and I'm talking REALLY dumb... to continue on their evil ways. Surely they are smarter than that? They would realise how foolish they were being... at least most surely should... and they would repent and fall on God's mercy. And God being so loving and caring would surely forgive them? After all, God could forgive someone like Hitler if he repented.

So, is it more likely that demons, if they actually existed, are not all as they are depicted in media, fathomless malevolent evil, but there are ambivalent, even good demons? Or losing the bias:

Indeed. The bible seems to be very biased against them, but it could be that they rebelled on principle due to God being such a tyrannical oppressor. That's really the only logical reason I could see, because they surely can't be that dumb thinking they can win against god. It surely had to be on principle.

Of course one would expect the bible to be biased against them. The bible characters always "demonised" those who don't see things as they did.

It is possible there are ambivalent, even good fallen angels?

According the movie "Little Nicky" and also the TV show "Reaper", yes.

Is there anything, other than logic, to support this view?

Logic is all there is really. Either that or you blindly accept what the bible tells you.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

Demons are like child molesters, if they get a "bad rap" it can never be bad enough for the harm they cause.

But a child molester could repent and then be forgiven by Jesus. Couldn't the same happen with a demon?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 1 by Willum]

Demons are like child molesters, if they get a "bad rap" it can never be bad enough for the harm they cause.

But a child molester could repent and then be forgiven by Jesus. Couldn't the same happen with a demon?

The difference between the child molester and a demon is the time between judgement.

Humans are judged after death. So any actions of repentance will be considered in the final judgement. Demons on the other hand have already been adjudicated. So repentance after adjudication does not change the verdict. Demons are fallen angels which have already been judged. Humans on the other hand await a future judgement. So to compare a child molester to a demon is like comparing a person who was accused vs a person who was convicted/adjudicated. The comparison is not appropriate because of the timing of when judgement occurs.