here's some more explanation since you got me going (feel free to ignore, which you are anyway, but in-story - i'm telling a narrative as a kind of "forced method-actor" upon being prompted like this. i also have a more normal background mind, but my writing is the product of me executing a program or "speaking in tongues" if you want to use the legacy terminology - i'm a snide explaining asshole (you... with a heart of gold! he's very nice, i promise)): the commonly used religious symbolism is that: symbolism. more specifically, it is unexpanded symbolism, i.e. people name entities, the nature of which is not explained, like angels, demons, spirits, the holy spirit, etc. or as i like to call her: mommy. i do hope mommy is happy with my doing, i'm trying my best, but who's to say, i'm winging quite a lot and, to be more technical: i have no full information about what sort of self-interactions i cause, i.e. i can't see a thousand years into the future. as a general policy, i think it's better to permit people's thinking to be better instead of making it worse. actually, following the best policy which one can "locally" implement ("fulfilling other people's needs" in the general sense of "feeding the poor", including with material food, but also immaterial food which alleviates informational hunger, i.e. systemic ignorance... i know i'm abbreviating a lot here, apologies) is actually, to the best of my knowledge, the optimal stable policy, which is actually also in line with teaching of the church, not accidentally. in any case: spirits, innit. people make up whatever; none of these entities exist. the mind simply labels some impression or process by some label it can find and then another part of the mind is satisfied with that label. not knowing that it is a(n arbitrary) label lets the analysis terminate early and mythologically based fantasizing take over, hence the mutually incompatible but vigorously defended religious claims.
Hungary