In what situations would demons and angels form an alliance?

The centrist lord of Purgatory has decided to send his army of morally ambiguous souls to conquer Earth and send it into an eternity of moral grayness, no good or evil in sight. This pisses off Heaven and Hell because with nobody to be good or evil, no more souls will ever be sent to salvation or damnation, and that's no good

Never. Look up the relevant passages in the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, Summa Theologica, or the Catholic Encyclopedia. I'd give citations but I'm pressed for time.

newadvent.org

Demons are irretrievably fallen and totally consumed by absolute, eternal enmity toward God, the unfallen angels, and humanity. The have already committed the one unforgivable sin of bluaspheming against the Holy Spirit and are already damned for all time. Their entire existence is consumed by hatred of their enemies and there is no possibility of them ever joining forces with the good guys. On the other hand, God and the angels have no need whatsoever of allying with demons, because God is already all-powerful, and there is no threat to His sovereignty whatsoever, not from demons or any other source, so there is no "greater enemy" that would require angels to seek their aid, if they were capable of offering any, which they aren't. Demons only persist in the world because that is in accordance with the divine plan for the ultimate salvation of humanity, as their working in enmity against God only realizes a higher good of testing and refining and proving the elect in the end. This is not the same as demons working with or for God, but rather demons working against God but their work failing and its actual results (entirely unintended by the demons) being all part of the plan all along.

The only way you could get a demon/angel teamup is if you depart entirely from orthodoxy, and fundamentally change the definition of both kinds of spirits as well as the metaphysical framework of the world in general.

I can't speak for angels or demons or their analogues in other religions or pop culture, but you asked using the English words without further qualification so I answered for Christianity. Here comes some unfashionable hats.

>God is waking up, everyone else has come to enjoy the status quo.

>Nephellim that escaped the purge have made themselves known, and are making a fuss.

>Extrauniversal threats.

You sound like you'd be really fun at parties.

That insult is clichéd.

"What is the Diablo series / Sanctuary," for 200, Alex.

Wasn't an insult. It was dry criticism.

James Blish wrote a bit on that topic in Black Easter/Judgement Day where mankind starts to understand how and what demons/angels/immortal souls/by extension God himself are and how they work and how to take them out.
I imagine that'd make angels and demons shit themselves and band up against mankind.

Problem is, sarcasm actually needs a bite to it to work as sarcasm, but you can't pull that bite off effectively using a shopworn phrase. The irony dies and it comes across as just a bald, thoughtless statement. Dryness doesn't come with mold. So it doesn't count as sarcasm, just insult. Keep practicing, though.

God and mom went out
Demons made a helluva party
God and mom are about to come at any moment
Demons and angels have to form an alliance and clean up the house before this happens

When humans or rogue angels/demons try to upset the status quo.
Or when other religions come into play.

There's an entire game about this.

A bigger fish.

Okay, now this isn't sarcasm, this is entirely serious: You are taking this too seriously.

God and Satan suddenly and mysteriously vanish.

Did OP preclude serious answers when he asked the question? The serious answer is that angels and demons can't form an alliance, nor would they ever have any reason to. To depict otherwise for gaming purposes, OP would have to remove these creatures from their own backstory, which would at best make them feel inauthentic, and there are much worse missteps possible that way. Sorry, but I have no more reason to care that you don't take the subject seriously than you have to care that I do, so I write off your response as worthless.

No, no. I actually liked the answer. The matter of factness and smugness of your answer, however, left a lot to be desired.

What you are taking too seriously is how fucking offended you got at the 'fun at parties' remark.

When a demon summoning program gets created and released to the public.

>What you are taking too seriously is how fucking offended you got at the 'fun at parties' remark.
I'm not offended at all. As I explained, the barb didn't land.

>matter of factness and smugness of your answer, however, left a lot to be desired
As for "matter of factness," I apologized first thing that I was pressed for time while writing, so obviously my post would be curt and without proper references to back up my assertions as fact. As for "smugness," I charitably accounted for other worldviews in the final two paragraphs. Naturally I made an exception in the last line for people who react with indignation at the mere mention of any Christian doctrine let alone description. You see, I'm under no obligation to take such a kneejerk reaction seriously, and I don't, which is what actually bothers you, not that I take the subject too seriously, or myself too seriously, but that I don't take your attitude at all seriously. I tried very hard in the past to do that, but I gave up years ago. I apologize for my lack of patience. I take back my reference to headgear.

The effort that you are putting into this little back-and-forth suggests you took it harder then you want to admit. But that's okay. You're an alright guy, if not really dry.

I'm a fast typer and a much faster thinker and I have time to kill now. It's no effort.

Something is making human souls dissapear, disrupting their respective "economies"

Angels and demons are just tools of the gods whims. Things are taken together and they band together to rebel.

Addendum:

fallen angels and risen demons are kickass.

Everyone okay if I use the term Nephilim for the product of unions of demons and angels?

To punch damned atheists

When you stick them into your handy dandy Demon Summoning Program.

Existential threats to reality itself. Even if there's a cosmic battle over reality, that relies on something still existing. Anything that would unmake it entirely, or completely upend the order over which they fight, would be a foe they'd be mutually obliged to oppose.

Na, Satans greatest victory was convincing man he didn't exist. People will be evil if left alone, but need convincing to be righteous.

>In what situations would demons and angels form an alliance?

Never.
The folly of the Divine and Demonic should be their inherent, unwavering, dependence on moral absolution and total inability to ever coexist or cooperate with one another under any possible or theoretical means.

Yes, that is why one of the most civilized countries in the world that have religious freedom and high number of atheists are hell holes to live in like japan,iceland or other northern countries. While ultra religious countries ( middle east, europe in the past ) are heaven in earth.

sexual tournament?

JUST FUCK ALREADY

Not him but...

>Japan
>Atheist
Folk shintoist. Shintoism is orthoprax so our definitions of faith barely even apply to them.

>Western Europe
You know that its own relativism is proving to be its undoing, right? They're inviting over those Middle Eastern zealots you're so afraid of. Even Dawkins has acknowledged this.

>Europe in the past
Disregarding technological advances, how exactly has Europe gotten better over the past century? We've gotten to the part where "traps aren't gay" is taken at face value rather than as an in-joke, I guess that makes up for the collapse of the family unit and the breakdown of society as a whole in the face of relativistic nihilism huh? This is pretty much a "the lich king is taking over but at least we have gay marriage" scenario.

There is a dragon uprising again.

God rules over all but is really hands off.

Heaven in in effect ruled by the Metatron

Hell is ruled over by Satan.

The two of them have over the eons reached a sort of cold war agreement to not fire the first overt shot for sake of fallout.

Faction 3 emerges in the border town of Purgatory and is refered to as The Demiurge. It's a power and land grab operation plain and simple and honest. Turns out it's Lilith and Cain trying to carve out their own kingdom for the outcast shit like Nephilim

>I can't speak for angels or demons or their analogues in other religions
In Islam some Djins are muslims, some are fedoras and some are loyal to Lucifer. Not sure if Djins count as demons, though.

I bet it's proprietary.

What does religion get us? Serious question. I get your not sold on the whole ‘gay’ thing, but theocracies are shit. Most of them are in the Middle East, including Iran where the people are in revolt, some of them chanting to bring back a secular monarch. There’s the whole ‘breakdown of the family unit’ blah blah blah, but again what does that mean and what does it get us? Are you complaining about gay marriage? Divorce rates? Declining birth rates? Because those are due to a lot more factors than ‘lol muh athiesm’.

Btw- most atheistic country in the world is China at sixty percent, thanks to an irreligious base, and communism.
Djinns are considered to be like magic humans. They’re not inherently good or evil, they’re just all over the place. Also there are three species in Islam, humans, angels and Djinn. Where the Houris fit into that is unknown.

none

Well, for one thing, trying to avert the apocalypse because frankly neither would like it if their own side won, and obviously doesn't want the other side to win.

Seriously, everyone goes on about how bad Hell is, and it is, but have you ever seriously considered Heaven? Do you know how many classical composers Heaven's got? Handel and Liszt. Hell's got all the rest. Beethoven. Mozart. Wagner. Sousa. All of them.

Can you imagine an eternity of listening to Liszt? I'd rather dread it.

Good Omens was a good book. There needs to be a film. A good film, not some shitty BBC abortion.

I like Handel.

>tfw metalhead
I mean if I do go to paradise, surely I'll be allowed to bring some rockers from Hell fora private gig. Otherwise what's the point ?

What's so great about the family unit? It takes a village to raise a child.

>It takes a whore mother and a bunch of people helping out of resentful sense of duty and/or pity.

>What does religion get us?
Looking from a purely secular perspective the 'perks' of a religious society would greater social interconnectivity and a shared set of objective moral values. Also, taking Islam of all religions as a model is far from fair.

>including [a revolt in the middle east]
No surprise here.

>There’s the whole ‘breakdown of the family unit’ blah blah blah, but again what does that mean and what does it get us?
Again going from a purely secular perspective: a society that doesn't implode and is sustainable. The whole family unit 'blah blah blah' is but a part of that story. It also includes having a set of shared values that can point all noses in the same direction, a sense of objective morality that makes people believe it's important to restrain themselves et cetera. This internal restraint is especially important if you believe (like many authors on the subject do) that a democratic legal order can only persist if its people are virtuous enough to not just vote for individual goodies at the detriment of the collective. Of course it could theoretically be possible to teach this to a materialist, but how can you build proper ethical foundations on meta-ethical quicksand?
cont.

Good work, user. Go get yourself a cookie.

Yeah, but...FOREVER? And you KNOW that the only tune of his they're going to play is "Hallelujah".

Nope. They're in Hell.

Hence why it's better to preserve the status quo than to actually get the whole apocalypse ball rolling.

>Declining birth rates? Because those are due to a lot more factors than ‘lol muh athiesm’.
The big three are increasing living standards/prosperity, women's liberation and declining religiosity. The first we obviously do not want to change, nor do we need to: fertility rates merely need to remain above replacement level. The latter speaks for itself, buwomen's liberation is arguably also a symptom of this post-secular age. It relies on the nihilistic dogma (not as contradictory as it might sound at first) of total equality. Everything is equally (in)valid, including men and women and the idea that they each have certain assigned roles.

>Btw- most atheistic country in the world is China at sixty percent
That's state atheism for ya. It also has the fastest growing number of christians though, it's expected they'll outnumber American christians by 2030.

>Inb4 "but we don't need religion for that, Platonism could do the same thing!"
Nietzsche did call Christianity mere Platonism for the masses, didn't he? But I agree, any philosophical system which has teachings about the metaphysical would fare better than cynical materialism.

>The big three are increasing living standards/prosperity

It's actually just this. People don't need to have lots of kids anymore, because people don't tend to work on farms or other places where they need staff; nor do most kids die in childhood.

Your other two examples are just "symptoms" of this. Woman's liberation is a natural consequence of the fact that women don't need to devote as much time or energy to maintaining a home or doing other "woman" duties anymore, so your choices are either let them get jobs if they want; or keep them shut in a house for really no reason at all other than you feel it's where they "belong". Frankly, however, society benefits more from a larger workforce.

Likewise, declining religiosity is a result of increased standards of living. Life isn't as terrible as it used to be, so you don't need to go to Church and ask God to change it. And there are a million and one options these days for socialization; where in the past you'd use the Church to meet new people and hang out with the community, now you can go to a club, or the park, or whatever. Everyone has more free time, and as a result no one needs to use the Church as their alloted socialization time, nor rely on Sunday for a day of rest.

Please note, by the way, that I'm not trying to state whether or not any particular religion is true or not. I'm just listing the reasons for why religiosity is on the decline.

During the middle of Armageddon, the Hindu gods return in their flying nuclear space palace and use the Brahmastra to kill Jesus and the Antichrist.

>Your other two examples are just "symptoms" of this.
Oh?

>Woman's liberation is a natural consequence of the fact that women don't need to devote as much time or energy to maintaining a home or doing other "woman" duties anymore, so your choices are either let them get jobs if they want; or keep them shut in a house for really no reason at all other than you feel it's where they "belong".
Except that's not the case. Women simply cannot match men and even in the most optimal situation they underperform. This is why they need and vote for government incentives to "equalize" the marketplace. In the absence of government intervention (meaning a situation prior to second wave feminism [by the way, the reason for unequal pay was that women were expected to quit working to start families so they were inherently less valuable in the long term]) women would remain primary caretakers. It's just that we've evolved this relativist dogma of total equality for some reason. It also doesn't help that women now are unhappier than in the 70s, proving that it doesn't even work out for women.

>Likewise, declining religiosity is a result of increased standards of living.
I've heard that a lot but I'd like to see something suggesting a direct causal link between the two. I cannot find that.

>And there are a million and one options these days for socialization; where in the past you'd use the Church to meet new people and hang out with the community, now you can go to a club, or the park, or whatever.
Not only is that a rather cynical view of the role of religion, but even despite that people today are lonelier than ever before.

>Woman's liberation is a natural consequence
Eh, yes and no.
It came into effect due to world war labour shortages, and it existed before(as a 3/4 peasant, and a guy that likes history, women working wasn't unusual, and farm householding is a full-time job for women).
And it's turning into Japan-tier work autism.
Not that you can do much about it in the current economy.
>Frankly, however, society benefits more from a larger workforce.
Not really.
Maybe in certain circumstances, but for the individual, it's increasingly turning into late Rome or Europe pre-Black Death, economically, especially since a lot of that big workforce is brought from our lovely friends in the Middle East/Africa(well, and E. Europe, but slavs and co don't explode or breed like crazy).

And it's only gonna get worse if automation starts screwing us over.

>Women simply cannot match men and even in the most optimal situation they underperform

Yes! I was hoping this would come up, I love what I'm about to type. Okay, this is called Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage, and it's basically the only economic law that doesn't boil down to common sense.

In sum, if you can do X better than you can do Z, and there's a second person who can do Z better than he can do X, but can also do X and Z better than you can, then the economy should NOT encourage that second person to do both things. You and he, and society as a whole, benefit more if you each do what you do best.

Let us decide, for the sake of example, that one legal thriller is equal to one pop song as a Benefit to Society (BS). John Grisham is a better writer than Courtney Love. Grisham is also, assuming he plays the comb and wax paper or something, a better musician than Love. Say Grisham is 100 times the writer Love is, and say he's 10 times the musician. Then say that Grisham can either write 100 legal thrillers in a year (I bet he can) or compose 50 songs. This would mean that Love could write either 1 thriller or compose 5 songs in the same period.

If Grisham spends half his time scribbling predictable plots and half his time blowing into a kazoo, the result will be 50 thrillers and 25 songs for a total of 75 BS units. If Love spends half her time annoying a word processor and half her time making noise, the result will be one half-finished thriller and 2.5 songs for a total of 3 BS. The grand Benefit to Society is 78 units.

If Grisham spends 100 percent of his time inventing dumb adventures for two-dimensional characters and Love spends 100 percent of her time calling cats, the result will be 100 thrillers and 5 songs, for a total Benefit to Society of 105 BS.

So, in sum, even if a man is better than a woman in every way, society benefits the most if both work, rather than one or the other.

To expand upon what I typed out above, as well, I feel I should probably remind you that society is loaded with jobs that require no particular skill and where the advantages of being a man over a woman are negligible. Cashier, grill cook, waiter, secretary, and so on.

>Not only is that a rather cynical view of the role of religion

It's not the role of religion, it is, or was, the role of the physical building of a church or synagogue or whatever, and the various mundane activities around it, like Church picnics and so on.

I'm not questioning the validity of religion in a person's life; I'm an atheist but I got over my "rah rah religion always bad" phase more than a decade ago. I'm strictly speaking about the role religion used to play as a community organizer, which has nothing to do with the tenets of the faith itself.

Even in a situation where men and women do not perform at the same level, it is economically better to increase the workforce by the amount women present than to forcibly maintain a weaker workforce.

Even if women only contributed 10% of what men contribute, 110% > 100%.

Humans create weapons that can kill both of them.

That's all nice and dandy, but when I said that women simply cannot match men I meant that they cannot contribute ANYTHING.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2375926
Look here: women over their entire lifespans do not pay any net taxes at all. They're a drain on state coffers. This means that in the absence of state intervention they'd simply starve, if not a certain structure of voluntary subjugation to men where they promise to take care of housecleaning and childrearing in exchange for the man's resources. If only we had a name for such a structure...

The only reason why women are in the workplace in significant numbers is because the state wants them there, not because they're useful in any way. According to some they even reduce the workplace productivity of men.

Phyrexians

Pretty much

old gods.

to hide from the eternal conflict

The higher is supply, the lower the price. Unless the demand is so high it consumes all the supply and asks for more, of course. Which doesn't seem to be the case anymore with outsorcing.

>Nope.
But who says it's not possible to have them brought for the delight of heaven-dwellers ? Or have replicas ?
>Hence why
Hence nothing, you didn't prove anything.

Aliens

How would that happen? Are you crazy?
>Downloads some shit on his pc of unknown source

>That's state atheism for ya. It also has the fastest growing number of christians though, it's expected they'll outnumber American christians by 2030.
holy shit, what? in China?
source pls I never heard of this

>People don't need to have lots of kids anymore
Actually they do, because the money they live on after retirement doesn't come from a chest in a bank that contains their savings. That money was spent a long time ago, they need the contributions/taxes of new workers in order to live, and this is already causing a lot of problems in European countries (probably other countries too).

>or keep them shut in a house for really no reason at all other than you feel it's where they "belong".
The thing is, letting/pushing them to work floods the market with potentially as many workers as there already were, which leads to a huge competition and depreciates the value of work. Since twice as many people are available, salaries will plummet because everyone is desperate to work now, this is good news for corporations but not for workers.
Another thing is that since women because economical actors who can earn their money and spend it on whatever they like (which once again, is a huge business opportunity for corporations because it's literally a new market) means they no longer depend on men. This further accelerates the disappearance of the familial structure as the basis of our society, which nobody agrees if it's a good or a bad thing. But it sure as hell isn't helping birth rates, which are crucial in the system we live in, because people live longer now and spend a longer part of their lives not working and living off what the new workforce as producing.

In a global system, letting women work may be like shitting on the male workforce, but it's the only way to survive and still be competitive. Because if other countries do that and reduce production costs, we all know what happens.

What power do they hold, again ?

>Women simply cannot match men and even in the most optimal situation they underperform
Depends on the field. IIRC women make better nurses and better teachers.

>In sum, if you can do X better than you can do Z, and there's a second person who can do Z better than he can do X, but can also do X and Z better than you can, then the economy should NOT encourage that second person to do both things. You and he, and society as a whole, benefit more if you each do what you do best.
Isn't this Keynesian doctrine ? Encouraging specialization and exchange.
>even if a man is better than a woman in every way, society benefits the most if both work, rather than one or the other.
On the economical level ONLY. This only applies to quantities of money, not everything else. And today's society is proof of that: yes we're richer, but at what cost ?

Most countries just make up the declining birth rate of ‘native’ populations with Immigration. The United States did this since before it’s founding, and its economy has always been dependent on cheap immigrant labor (which is the first step in the American Dream assembly line, though it may have its kinks). Except Japan, which is making up the difference with robots.

Yes. What cost? I keep hearing that, but I genuinely don’t know what cost it is we’ve supposedly paid for modern society. Is it the gay stuff? Sure the economy’s tanked, but that’s corruption issues, not a gay or feminine agenda issue. Even Trumpo says as much.

Soulless beings are exploring the possiblities of the soul and use it as their fuel and hardware.

well, technically, in light of the forum (TG), yes he did preclude serious answers, and expected them in relation to the removal from their Catholic backstory.

I didn't mean the gay stuff. Athens was gay, it wasn't an issue. Gays aren't a modern invention.

Literally the Master arc of my Shadow game.

Go back to tgcraft, Yuri

So what cost does modern society have? I think we’re working out the kinks of social media and the age of information (which includes unfortunate throwbacks to the Nazis) but outside of that I can’t think of any problem I have today that is unique to this age (there’s massive corruption, but it isn’t unique to our time).