Try separating the function (psionics) from how it is being symbolically expressed (religion).
I think our definitions differ to much to be using the same words for these things. The way I read this, is a very cold way of looking at it. Psionics isn't just like an arm or leg to me. It is a precious grace. I respect it and honor it. I treat it as sacred. Not in the sentimental way, nor in a naive way. In a way that it is not about simple mechanics. I'm not sure how to describe it, and I don't know if I can explain it. There is a sense of responsibility in it so that others may benefit from it. Not the way I insist they do. Just simply that they are assisted in a way they can relate. The reason I emphasize this, is because of the sentiment of the post, and other related posts, regarding the misunderstood context I keep referring to.
The religion bit, regarding symbolism. I understand why its seen as that. If any form of "mainstream" history is fake, and its all just interpretations (i.e. its all in the head), then of course its nothing but a symbol for something else. But that is a subjective opinion, and its based on a lot of assumptions - despite the historical research basis for the suggestion to "drop the connection to the symbol". Yes, I agree that religion is bad, and I agree the facts are a lot different from what we were told they were. But to relate those deceptions with the actual precious miracles (and I use that word because to those people they were deeply meaningful and special) where people had breakthrough in their lives after having gone through all sorts of trauma ranging from emotional to spiritual torture - that, I cannot accept. This is not about religion.
When the brain encounters something it does not know from prior experience, it attempts to find the nearest match to known symbols (adaptive resonance theory of the mind). And we've been programmed with a lot of religion to provide those symbols. Read mythology... any time something inexplicable happens (based on active knowledge of the time), a "god" must have done it. And we've built up this pantheon of gods, angels and demons to symbolize many natural events--except those events are taking place in the unobservable region of 3D time, rather than space.
I get that. We're on the same page on that bit.
Your angels are yin, your demons are yang, organized under the "godhead" aggregate.
I think there's a big gap in definitions here again.
To me, angels are simply non-physical beings with a pre-arranged task to perform in partnership with the physical person having a physical incarnation. The word simply means "messenger" but is used in many other contexts despite those contexts having nothing to do with messages.
Yin, is to me a form of energetic configuration with the characteristics of integration or creating harmony or wholeness,
while yang is a a form of energetic configuration with the characteristics of bringing change, or transformation of one state to another state - which CAN result in separation or diversification, but not necessarily. I'm not even sure I see them as polar opposites because I don't think of them as that. If they are "white and black", then I would consider "green, pink, purple, red, blue, etc.) just as valid as the white or the black.
Regarding demons - I'm not sure what experience (if any) you have with the real thing, but you seem to treat the term as some trivial symbolic term used for something that doesn't exist. Unfortunately the term is used to cover a broad range of encounters (including purely psychological stuff), but the word "demon" is properly used when referring to a malevolent spirit, working in a hierarchical power structure toward a common goal with other spirits of its kin, to manipulate and control other beings (through any form, whether fear or hope) toward their own self-centred agenda - at the cost of anyone else that gets in their way. They are neither symbolic nor harmless. And they DO respond to anyone with the ability to perceive their presence or their workings, because they don't like it if there's any awareness of them. They are usually associated with the destruction of all forms of life, dividing and conquering their targets.
Religion is a convenient control drama, as well. If "god did it," and I am the personal representative of that god, well, then you better do what I tell you--or He'll get pissed and you'll be in a world of trouble--even though "god" never, ever shows his face. One of the things Larson points out in Beyond Space and Time, is that the supernatural is natural (and a natural consequence), when time is included as an aspect of motion, in a physical universe.
I fail to see how that has anything to do with my question, nor my examples. How could it be possible for me to have learned, developed, and have had really good results of genuinely helping people getting genuine breakthroughs, if the bible is pretty much complete fiction? There, I spelled out the question now. I thought it was obvious in the way I asked it in my previous post, but maybe the unwillingness to tolerate the idea of the context got in the way of the actual logical question. You don't have to like the context, but that doesn't mean its bad or wrong. Your bias against it also shows me that your definition of it is so negative - not based on your experience in the environments and contexts I have been in, but only your own perhaps which might've been the opposite of mine - that you cannot fathom the idea of experiencing unconditional love, unadulterated spiritual guidance, and "natural occurences" happening in 3D time (to put it Larson's way or your way then) in the context of a "belief system" that's supposed to be all fake and deception. But that's the problem. That's based on the assumption that its all just mechanics and function and symbolism.
It's not what we're talking about here. You try to explain it away (how could i learn and do these things having learned them through the bible) by "separating the symbolism from the function" but you're avoiding the question I'm asking - which has nothing to do with the symbolism, and which has nothing to do with the function. It has to do with the impossibility of the material being all bogus, yet having learned and developed very non-bogus, very real, and very effective abilities BASED on that supposedly bogus material. That is a logical contradiction, it is an empirical contradiction, and they are mutually exclusive. The one is based on words and letters and people telling stories differently. The other is based on changed lives and real breakthroughs - not my words, the words of the people that shared their experience of it. Thousands. Not only in my country, but in India, in Australia, in South America. All over the world. The same stuff. So which one should I go with? Wouldn't a reasonable person go with what actually works, as opposed to what someone else is saying "that can't be because its all fake" ?
So my question remains unanswered. The symbolism vs function approach is not answering the question.