Thread: Speaking the Name of the Evil One Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020448
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
I am perhaps excessively afraid of speaking (or even hearing, writing, or reading - but especially speaking) any of the common names of the Evil One (and for those of you who want to make some silly Trump (or other politician or public figure) or Voldemort joke, I am referring to the Devil (and I feel nervous just typing it here)).
This fear is somewhat ironic given that I did not much of a religious upbringing at all and that I am a pretty progressive Christian full of skepticism and doubt about all kinds of things. I am not sure what kind of supernatural evil I even believe in and what kind of powers or presence it has. But the personal reasons for my fears are the topic for another thread.
Does it give evil forces power to invoke the name of the Evil One or of Hell or demons more broadly? Does it summon them in any way? Is this true even if one believes in supernatural evil in a more impersonal sense (I am not sure if I do)?
Of course, naming the Evil One in the context of declaring opposition to him/her/it or in an attempt to cast him/her/it out of something is different, especially when coupled with the invocation of Jesus or God more broadly as help in opposing evil. I am referring, rather, to naming the Evil One, Hell, or demons in casual conversation, in jest, or in intellectual discussion (like that here).
Is it best to avoid using the names like one or all of "Satan," "Lucifer," or "the Devil" and to use more indirect or translated terms like "the Evil One" or "the Adversary"? If so, why? If not, why not? What about using the word "Hell" or talking about demons in general unless one is being serious and talking about avoiding or opposing them?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
This is what I call paranoid spirituality. Put bluntly, no.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Personified evil aside:
"The devil, the prowde spirit, cannot endure to be mocked" (Thomas More)
"The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn." (Martin Luther)
So I'd say that this name perception thing has power in it only insomuch as you believe it have and thereby give it strength. If you abjure it or It (I'd use the lowercase myself, part of scorn and mockery, and I'd not use the personal pronouns he or she), then all power evaporates.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Oops...I thought this was another Trump thread. ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Of course, naming the Evil One in the context of declaring opposition to him/her/it or in an attempt to cast him/her/it out of something is different
Going by your original premise, I'm not sure why you would posit this exemption. If saying the name "Satan" invokes Satan, is he automatically deterred by the fact that the person said it in the context of declaring his opposition?
(somewhere in Hell)
SATAN: Hey, ya hear that? Someone up on Earth said "Satan"! Whoo-hoo, here I come, helpless mortals, ready or not!!
BEELZEBUB: Hold on, Big Guy. I think he was saying "Satan is one nasty dude", so that negates your right to materialize in his presence.
SATAN: Damn technicalities!
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
We're told not to be afraid. There's no need to refrain from speaking about the devil. No harm will come to you from Satan as long as you avoid the deception that comes from the father of lies.
Superstition is deception. We do not control forces of evil or good, we only go along with them.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
This bit from an old Jack Chick comic titillates the reader with detailed descriptions and drawings of occultic jewelery. But it reassures us that since the images in the comic are not three-dimensional, we don't need to burn the book.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I'm getting a 403 from that link.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I don’t believe there is any ‘evil one’, ‘devil’ or ‘satan’ being.
All evil comes from human beings imo
I see the biblical devil as a powerful metaphor, no more.
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on
:
As I understand it, in much of the Bible, the word used is what we translate as "satan" (small s) rather than "Satan" (large S). This is the little imp that sits on your shoulder (as in old Warner Brothers cartoons) and urges you to misbehave. In the New Testament, Jesus is tempted by the imp on his shoulder. In the book of Job, we find God being tempted or taunted by his own imp. This is part of us,
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
I used to know a man who was tortured by the question of whether or not Satan could read his mind.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I used to wonder that at one time. I'd forgotten about that, so I can't have been unduly tortured by it.
Perhaps I was but I've blocked it out ...
But poor fella. I hope he got over it.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
No, that's God's prerogative, though no doubt a wily, experienced archangel can make some good guesses if he tries.
Simply speaking a name does not give anything power. Invoking a name means to intentionally call upon that person to be present or to help, not just to say the name itself.
In fact, refusing to say a name (using circumlocutions like "he who must not be named") actually adds to the person's power, if only because he/she/it gains something from your fear.
You're best off to say "devil" or "Satan" as needed without any special concern or ceremony, just as you would say "egg" or "pineapple". If you are in Christ, he can't harm you anyway.
Posted by Graven Image (# 8755) on
:
Lamb Chopped posted quote:
You're best off to say "devil" or "Satan" as needed without any special concern or ceremony, just as you would say "egg" or "pineapple". If you are in Christ, he can't harm you anyway.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
experienced archangel
What would an inexperienced archangel look like?
quote:
You're best off to say "devil" or "Satan" as needed without any special concern or ceremony, just as you would say "egg" or "pineapple".
Would it be appropriate to say, "Satan, unlike the curate's egg, is good in no part, and I will therefore make sure he gets the rough end of the pineapple?"
quote:
If you are in Christ, he can't harm you anyway.
Not sure that Bunyan/Christian would have said that after his battle with Apollyon.
[ 23. January 2018, 23:20: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Not sure that Bunyan/Christian would have said that after his battle with Apollyon.
Ah, but unlike Bunyan and Christian, LC is a Lutheran, so she knows that when it comes to the Prince of Darkness grim, one little word shall fell him. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Posted by Galloping Granny (# 13814) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don’t believe there is any ‘evil one’, ‘devil’ or ‘satan’ being.
All evil comes from human beings imo
I see the biblical devil as a powerful metaphor, no more.
Absolutely. Useful originally for controlling people.
(As usual, what Boogie says I say).
GG
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
And anyway, "Satan" is not a name, but a description or title ("the accuser") that is being used as a name. Just as "Lord" is not a name but a title.
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I'm getting a 403 from that link.
Maybe this one will work(or maybe not). It's the complete comic book. The relevant section is on Page 7, I think. You can scroll down for the page numbers.
Apart from the kitsch value, I mostly posted it because the explanation about why you don't need to burn the comic book resembled the odd legalism underlining the OP's speculations on this thread.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don’t believe there is any ‘evil one’, ‘devil’ or ‘satan’ being.
All evil comes from human beings imo
I see the biblical devil as a powerful metaphor, no more.
Absolutely. Useful originally for controlling people.
(As usual, what Boogie says I say).
GG
Me too!! Also I think it is an indictment of religions if the idea of a devil is so indoctrinated into a person, that s/he has a real fear of talking of such a human idea.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
While I reject the notion of taking a superstitious attitude to evil (and Stetson, that Chick comic is certainly an unwelcome trip down memory lane) I occasionally run across stuff which is so evil that I have difficulty accounting for it through merely human agency.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
While I reject the notion of taking a superstitious attitude to evil (and Stetson, that Chick comic is certainly an unwelcome trip down memory lane) I occasionally run across stuff which is so evil that I have difficulty accounting for it through merely human agency.
How?
If the human has no capacity for care, conscience or guilt they can do anything.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
I'd go along with that. I also see no difficulty in believing in the existence of a Devil (whatever we want to call it) if we already believe in the existence of God as an independent Being. Indeed I have, on occasion in my private prayers, invoked the name of our All-powerful God.
However I wouldn't want to set up an unhealthy dualism which suggests that we are all piggies-in-the-middle in a cosmic tug-of-war. And, while I don't think (to go back to the OP) we "attract the Evil One's attention" by simply mentioning his name, nor would I wish to give him undue attention.
[ 24. January 2018, 07:18: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If the human has no capacity for care, conscience or guilt they can do anything.
Yes, but sometimes the scope of the evil achieved appears to me to defy human competency.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
If the human has no capacity for care, conscience or guilt they can do anything.
Yes, but sometimes the scope of the evil achieved appears to me to defy human competency.
You will have seen much of the very worst and it is natural for a religious person - and I include my rationalistic self - to invoke the supernatural in human brokenness. But they can never read your mind can they? They can never actually do anything supernatural.
I too have residual feelings, gut reactions in talking about Satan in particular. That name is more powerful than The Devil for some reason. When the feelings get more than transient, I seek deliverance from evil, in the mighty name of Jesus, by His blood, whatever it, evil, is. That and CBT with God in prayer.
Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
experienced archangel
What would an inexperienced archangel look like?
Well...
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
But they can never read your mind can they? They can never actually do anything supernatural.
As you might guess, my functional demonology owes much to The Screwtape Letters, so yes, I think they are permanently frustrated that they never quite know what we're thinking.
What you're missing is that my emphasis was not on the depth of the evil so much as the competency required to occasionally perpetuate some particularly evil stuff, which to me seems to surpass what even the most competent of humans could devise unassisted.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
What would an inexperienced archangel look like?
"L" plates front and rear perhaps? Or a lanyard hung around his wings saying "Please be patient with me, I'm in training".
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Of course, naming the Evil One in the context of declaring opposition to him/her/it or in an attempt to cast him/her/it out of something is different, especially when coupled with the invocation of Jesus or God more broadly as help in opposing evil. I am referring, rather, to naming the Evil One, Hell, or demons in casual conversation, in jest, or in intellectual discussion (like that here).
I can understand not wanting to refer to the Evil One in jest, although intellectual discussion does have to be able to refer to him. He does have quite a few names, which is interesting in itself.
As for me, I'm not keen on 'cute' depictions of the devil, such as the one on the Ship's homepage, or the one on the 'Hell' page. But one has to tolerate these things, because the devil has largely become a comedy character in our culture.
I do think it's interesting how little theorised the devil is in the spiritual life of the (Protestant) churches I know. Hell has largely fizzled away without the benefit of any clear instruction on the matter, so I suppose the devil has gone the same way. We're free to believe what we wish for lack of any clear pronouncements from our church authorities.
Perhaps the RCC and some of the strict evanglical churches have somewhat clearer ideas about the devil, but my guess is that they don't really like to 'name' him (i.e. talk about him) either. I think we all find him simply too embarrassing and troublesome a character to dwell on. Also, I should think focusing on him risks dividing congregations, which the clergy are loathe to do.
Only 24% of self-professed British Christians claim to believe he exists, according to YouGov.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
But they can never read your mind can they? They can never actually do anything supernatural.
As you might guess, my functional demonology owes much to The Screwtape Letters, so yes, I think they are permanently frustrated that they never quite know what we're thinking.
What you're missing is that my emphasis was not on the depth of the evil so much as the competency required to occasionally perpetuate some particularly evil stuff, which to me seems to surpass what even the most competent of humans could devise unassisted.
Ah, they practice and they start small when young. Genius helps.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
Dr Who had a good episode on the Devil.
I have a strong Australian accent, so whenever I try to invoke the Evil One I am hit with a roll of fabric.
[ 24. January 2018, 22:37: Message edited by: simontoad ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Early Tennant, in balance with a black hole? VERY good.
Posted by Dormouse (# 5954) on
:
I'm not sure what I believe vis-à-vis the Devil/Satan/the Evil One, but sometimes, when feeling that oodles of stuff are going wrong, as though someone/thing was trying to get me to start effity-jeffing then I start talking to it saying "Oh, yes, you really know what buttons to press today...that was a clever trick...etc" which takes away the sense of being tempted into wrongdoing.
It's a form of mockery, an "I know what you're doing" - whether it is addressed to something/one, in the end, probably isn't important.
I'm not sure that adds much to the debate, but there you go.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Dr Who had a good episode on the Devil.
I have a strong Australian accent, so whenever I try to invoke the Evil One I am hit with a roll of fabric.
I can do strong strine, but for the life of me I can't say the names in a way that would evoke being thumped by a bolt of cloth.
And Dormouse, that's a great strategy. Regardless.
And BT: I have every difficulty in believing in the existence of denizens of supernatural creation, evil more so than not. Yet Jesus did. He exorcized them and passed that ability on. I can and do believe in evil as a real synergy of our individual limitations, in our social interactions, groupings, hierarchies, power structures. There is no evidence for the supernatural beyond the wind blowing where it will for me.
If there is a supernatural creation perichoretic with ours, I don't want to know. I can't. No one can. I don't understand why it's there if it is. Which doesn't mean it isn't. If it ever actually makes its presence incontrovertibly felt and more, seen, I'll ask the Lord to rebuke it. It never has. Even when I was staring at an apparition. That was a good one. In a deserted country wood at night. You should have been there. Whatever evil I encounter in myself or others, I'll seek deliverance from. Which is a lie, as I don't reach up whenever I'm being impatient, unkind. When I'm being afflicted with intrusive thinking I'm more likely to remember. My inner, untransformed lack and its external ramifications are the evilest thing I know, how I blame the Devil for it and how that would help I don't know.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dormouse:
I'm not sure what I believe vis-à-vis the Devil/Satan/the Evil One, but sometimes, when feeling that oodles of stuff are going wrong, as though someone/thing was trying to get me to start effity-jeffing then I start talking to it saying "Oh, yes, you really know what buttons to press today...that was a clever trick...etc" which takes away the sense of being tempted into wrongdoing.
It's a form of mockery, an "I know what you're doing" - whether it is addressed to something/one, in the end, probably isn't important.
I'm not sure that adds much to the debate, but there you go.
That's interesting that you found your way to that method, as it's widely used in therapy, usually under the name of self-talk. It's often used with those negative voices which plague some people, often called the inner critic or inner saboteur.
I used to recommend to people using plenty of anger as well, and 'fuck off' is quite useful. It does seem to work, partly I think, because one is actually acknowledging that there is such a thing as a negative inner voice. The worst thing is to be unaware or half-aware of it. I don't see it as supernatural.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
I'm not very happy about the idea that creation includes entities which we cannot sense, and which can feed off us in ways which can only be countered by being the right sort of believer and knowing the right way to call on the powers of light.
Doesn't seem to fit with a good God at all.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm not very happy about the idea that creation includes entities which we cannot sense, and which can feed off us in ways which can only be countered by being the right sort of believer and knowing the right way to call on the powers of light.
Doesn't seem to fit with a good God at all.
What of the argument that we must have the knowledge of evil as well, so that we have the true free will to choose the good, and must accept accountability?
Can we sense evil? Does it depend only on nature / nurture?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm not very happy about the idea that creation includes entities which we cannot sense, and which can feed off us in ways which can only be countered by being the right sort of believer and knowing the right way to call on the powers of light.
Doesn't seem to fit with a good God at all.
And yet you have probably had a cold. You possibly consulted a doctor, or at least asked a friend or relative whether aspirin was a good idea. Maybe she even gave you some.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm not very happy about the idea that creation includes entities which we cannot sense, and which can feed off us in ways which can only be countered by being the right sort of believer and knowing the right way to call on the powers of light.
Doesn't seem to fit with a good God at all.
And yet you have probably had a cold. You possibly consulted a doctor, or at least asked a friend or relative whether aspirin was a good idea. Maybe she even gave you some.
The devil is a virus?
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Of course, naming the Evil One in the context of declaring opposition to him/her/it or in an attempt to cast him/her/it out of something is different, especially when coupled with the invocation of Jesus or God more broadly as help in opposing evil.
In one respect - perhaps not a very important respect either - I wonder about this. I spent a lot of time with Christians who spent a lot of time praying the kinds of prayer that went like this:
We declare to you, Satan, God is going to do this, that and the other to you... Or, Watch out, Satan, 'cos Jesus is going to punish you and stop all your evil etc etc.
Or less directly, Lord, We pray this about Satan and that about the Devil, and the other about Be'elzebub, that you'll confound him, or stop him, Lord. Lord, do this to Satan.... Jesus, do that to the Devil.
Or more worryingly, things like: Lord, stop Satan from making Steve's life so difficult; or help Mary to stand against the devil's power in her life etc.
I understand the theology behind some of this, particularly the last kind of prayer, especially considering some of Christ's healing techniques in the gospel. And to an extent I understand the psychology of naming aloud something that can harm and declaring its lack of power; as in 'depression, I won't let you beat me'.
But some Christians seem peculiarly hell-bent (boom-tish) on including Satan in so many of their prayers to God, I end up wondering who, or what, is really and truly at the centre of their faith. I don't mean that I think they worship, or deliberately prioritise the devil or anything daft like that. I just mean that their principle focus and object of prayer does not seem to be God! Why are they turning naturally and persistently to the dark, and wallowing there?
[ 25. January 2018, 19:52: Message edited by: Anselmina ]
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I'm not very happy about the idea that creation includes entities which we cannot sense, and which can feed off us in ways which can only be countered by being the right sort of believer and knowing the right way to call on the powers of light.
Doesn't seem to fit with a good God at all.
What of the argument that we must have the knowledge of evil as well, so that we have the true free will to choose the good, and must accept accountability?
Can we sense evil? Does it depend only on nature / nurture?
What argument?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
What of the argument that we must have the knowledge of evil as well, so that we have the true free will to choose the good, and must accept accountability?
“Hey you. You will suffer so this other bloke can freely choose to be good” How does this work? I think the best you can get, with the premise of a god that is good, is that bad shit can happen; not that it must.
Posted by Ohher (# 18607) on
:
I doubt it. Though there's a good example of a non-human-caused evil -- disease, natural disasters, etc.
Whoops -- ETA that was in response to Boogie.
[ 25. January 2018, 20:28: Message edited by: Ohher ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
I doubt it. Though there's a good example of a non-human-caused evil -- disease, natural disasters, etc.
That isn't evil. They are just unfortunate events.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
But they are just as unseen, just as inexplicable, just as difficult to influence. I don't know how that Tylenol works, any more than I know how my mouse works. Large swathes of our lives we take on faith. Why am I taking this vitamin?
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Dr Who had a good episode on the Devil.
I have a strong Australian accent, so whenever I try to invoke the Evil One I am hit with a roll of fabric.
I can do strong strine, but for the life of me I can't say the names in a way that would evoke being thumped by a bolt of cloth.
Satan/Satin? No?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But they are just as unseen, just as inexplicable, just as difficult to influence.
I get it. It provides comfort for some to ascribe agency to the bad things.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S, emphasis mine:
I'm not very happy about the idea that creation includes entities which we cannot sense, and which can feed off us in ways which can only be countered by being the right sort of believer and knowing the right way to call on the powers of light.
Doesn't seem to fit with a good God at all.
Did you read Frank Peretti novels instead of the Bible?
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
I doubt it. Though there's a good example of a non-human-caused evil -- disease, natural disasters, etc.
Whoops -- ETA that was in response to Boogie.
I don't think natural disasters are evil, though their consequences may be bad.
In 2011 a severe earthquake hit the city where I live. There were over 100 deaths, and over 10,000 aftershocks and an extended time of constant uncertainty. One of the facts that I clung to was that the quakes were a result of the earth's structure, not something perpetrated by a malicious mind bent on destruction and not, as one fuckwit fundamentalist claimed, God's punishment for sin.
Being physically assaulted in my own home was more terrifying because there was a human mind setting out to deliberately harm me - that is what I call evil.
Huia
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
That Christchurch series of earthquakes (I think) was horrible to witness even on the news. We feel so close to the New Zealanders. For me, the bushfires in 2009 really shocked me, with so many dead. Even today, I think of them as happening 'a couple of years ago'. Romsey was on the right side of the wind, but what gets me is that it COULD have been us in the Macedon Ranges instead of Kinglake. The idea that the fires were God's work, or the Devil's, I find ludicrous. They were the work of lightening strikes and arsonists.
I have not personally been a victim of anything but a small scam or two as a tourist. Nor has any family member or object of love. I had my window smashed in Calais for a box of food, but how could you feel anything but sympathy for the poor person who did it? Getting the window fixed was a minor inconvenience.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
Eutychus, I have no idea who Peretti is or what his books are like, but I have come across some odd ideas, from people who may have met his work. Or possibly, not, having been in churches with ideas unmodified by traditional theology.
OTOH, I did spend some time I regret in my teens reading Dennis Wheatley, and I think Charles Williams may have had some parasitical entities in his books. Michael Bentine also had a book with such things in it, which I read because it was set in an area of Kent I knew. He really believed in them.
And then there was the book I found in the York Minster book shop on the subject of blessings and curses, which had such odd ideas in it that I wrote to the then Archbishop about the wisdom of selling such stuff.
I shall, should I come across his writings, avoid Peretti.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S, emphasis mine:
I'm not very happy about the idea that creation includes entities which we cannot sense, and which can feed off us in ways which can only be countered by being the right sort of believer and knowing the right way to call on the powers of light.
Doesn't seem to fit with a good God at all.
Did you read Frank Peretti novels instead of the Bible?
Peretti red the Bible. In my journey through evangelical Anglicanism, only 13 years ago, aged 50 odd, I was desperate enough due to intrusive thinking to go through Anderson's The Bondage Breaker. Literal-minded spiritual warfare is normal. As we are showing. I now use spiritual CBT - I pray everything. Everything. Once I can hop out of the headlights. I've had a top shrink and an excellent Christian counsellor, or rather counsellor who happened to be Christian as well.
I read Lee Baer's excellent The Imp of the Mind: Exploring the Silent Epidemic of Obsessive Bad Thoughts at the same time as Anderson. And was moved, by the Spirit I would say, to offer restoration to someone I had wronged 30 years before. It all helped. It's still bad ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Especially as my void is daily exposed.
That gets a hot, closed eyed, whispered 'Lord' with head up.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Six years ago at most, just after I married, for the last time, with my wonderful common sense personified wife, herself emergent from non-conformism via evangelicalism, we went to our vicar who married us, as I had shared my inner curser. Not externally. I never do except when utterly alone, yeah he's still with me. We loved our vicar. Still do. But there can be no conversation now. There was then. I was desperate enough still, despite the Baer et al from 7 years before, to seek 'spiritual' help. He was very good, completely non-judgemental, got me to say EVERYTHING, words that stuck in my throat. He spoke with total conviction and experience about demons living in the stomach and how they can react. I was completely open in every way. Nothing happened of course. Mild catharsis. I choked on my love for my abusive father who died in the vilest of circumstances. It was all part of the journey in which supernatural empersoned evil has become at least 99.9% - which would be 1 minute a day, therefore at least - 99.99%, 99.999% emotionally unreal.
It is 99.99% intellectually unreal: I cannot dismiss Jesus' experience, but cannot integrate it.
[ 26. January 2018, 09:15: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Dormouse (# 5954) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
quote:
Originally posted by Ohher:
I doubt it. Though there's a good example of a non-human-caused evil -- disease, natural disasters, etc.
Whoops -- ETA that was in response to Boogie.
I don't think natural disasters are evil, though their consequences may be bad.
In 2011 a severe earthquake hit the city where I live. There were over 100 deaths, and over 10,000 aftershocks and an extended time of constant uncertainty. One of the facts that I clung to was that the quakes were a result of the earth's structure, not something perpetrated by a malicious mind bent on destruction and not, as one fuckwit fundamentalist claimed, God's punishment for sin.
Being physically assaulted in my own home was more terrifying because there was a human mind setting out to deliberately harm me - that is what I call evil.
Huia
When I once discussed earthquakes & other natural disasters with a wise friend, asking why God allows such things, he asked me if I believed in evolution. As I agreed that I did, he pointed out to me that, in a way, these natural disasters are part of the world evolving...Just as humankind and animal life hasn't stopped evolving so the natural world is still evolving and changing. Some of these things (climate change) are affected by humankind, but they still come under the label of "evolution".
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
What of the argument that we must have the knowledge of evil as well, so that we have the true free will to choose the good, and must accept accountability?
“Hey you. You will suffer so this other bloke can freely choose to be good” How does this work? I think the best you can get, with the premise of a god that is good, is that bad shit can happen; not that it must.
More like"Hey you, you will suffer because you have the option to make people suffer through your words and actions, and so do others. If everyone loves one another, nobody will suffer. "
A good God means that some people might suffer, not that they must, nor is there a promise that they won't, with the world as it is now.
I think that we all have a built in tendency to harm ourselves and other people in some ways, from nature and nurture, which are ours to own and try to overcome.
But I hold open the possibility of evil as an external entity too, which may draw close to us if we invite it to, in the same way as the good God draws close to us when we invite him/her to.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
More like"Hey you, you will suffer because you have the option to make people suffer through your words and actions, and so do others. If everyone loves one another, nobody will suffer. "
Babies suffer and die at the hands of "sinners" before they have that option. Your proposition only makes sense if everyone actually has that chance. Even then, they don't jibe with a loving god. Every explanation is a kludge to get loving in line with what actually happens.
Reconciling the two is tough, so I get the workarounds. But I cannot see them as anything else.
That we create much of our own misery, as individuals and as a species, yes.
That everything would be wonderful and all would be perfect if we just loved one another, no.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
Dr Who had a good episode on the Devil.
I have a strong Australian accent, so whenever I try to invoke the Evil One I am hit with a roll of fabric.
I can do strong strine, but for the life of me I can't say the names in a way that would evoke being thumped by a bolt of cloth.
Satan/Satin? No?
Stroll on! I mean, I'd take the hit but how the H..., how on Earth do you pronounce satin in Strine then? With an 'ayy'?
Posted by Lothlorien (# 4927) on
:
From someone downunder Martin, it is said "Say- tin" possibly even without the letter "i " being pronounced.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
A good God means that some people might suffer, not that they must, nor is there a promise that they won't, with the world as it is now.
This sound ridiculous. A disinterested God, a God who prefers to not intervene, a God who's a spectator, but goodness is not part of the demonstrated nature of God in the context of suffering. Goodness might be the characteristic which allows some feelings of support or motivation of other people to help, but not of not intervening when could.
And I don't think it's some people who suffer, it's all of us, though some much more than others. Live long enough and you will suffer. The actions of other humans hurt some, but it's the impersonal thing diseases and natural disasters which harm us more. Even wars and genocides are eventually blips on the background hecatomb.
The nature of evil is its impersonal nature, it's denigration of the value of the individual. The lack of caring for each as 'being in themselves'. The indifferent world in which we live is experienced as evil sometimes. Which shows the basic flaws in creation. God saw it and said it was good, though while obviously it was good for God, your mileage may vary.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
Very, very good no... Although of course preference, choice don't come in to it. Intervention is ineffably impossible. Once you start, where do you stop? If this life is anything, it is mere conception.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
No prophet, I agree that it seems that everyone has or will suffer, but this is not an imperative to describe God as good.
God has shown that God is interested, if that were not so we would never have been given Jesus, nor would we witness him nailed to a cross.
As Martin said, where would a line of intervention be drawn? At a thought, an idea of mischief before it turned into action? Where would free will begin?
What is to say that we were not unflawed to begin with? The story the earliest thinkers told was the one which described the first move a human being made to satisfy personal desires, against God's will. Does it mean that we're imperfect if we have the free will to choose good over evil?
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
The title of this thread reminded me of an online discussion years ago, on another website, where the topic got around to Satan, and one of the more excitable participants kept typing “Stan” by mistake...which led to some unintentionally funny comments.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
The title of this thread reminded me of an online discussion years ago, on another website, where the topic got around to Satan, and one of the more excitable participants kept typing “Stan” by mistake...which led to some unintentionally funny comments.
Puts a whole new interpretation on that Eminem song...
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
I am perhaps excessively afraid of speaking (or even hearing, writing, or reading - but especially speaking) any of the common names of the Evil One (and for those of you who want to make some silly Trump (or other politician or public figure) or Voldemort joke, I am referring to the Devil (and I feel nervous just typing it here)).
This fear is somewhat ironic given that I did not much of a religious upbringing at all and that I am a pretty progressive Christian full of skepticism and doubt about all kinds of things. I am not sure what kind of supernatural evil I even believe in and what kind of powers or presence it has. But the personal reasons for my fears are the topic for another thread.
Does it give evil forces power to invoke the name of the Evil One or of Hell or demons more broadly? Does it summon them in any way? Is this true even if one believes in supernatural evil in a more impersonal sense (I am not sure if I do)?
Of course, naming the Evil One in the context of declaring opposition to him/her/it or in an attempt to cast him/her/it out of something is different, especially when coupled with the invocation of Jesus or God more broadly as help in opposing evil. I am referring, rather, to naming the Evil One, Hell, or demons in casual conversation, in jest, or in intellectual discussion (like that here).
Is it best to avoid using the names like one or all of "Satan," "Lucifer," or "the Devil" and to use more indirect or translated terms like "the Evil One" or "the Adversary"? If so, why? If not, why not? What about using the word "Hell" or talking about demons in general unless one is being serious and talking about avoiding or opposing them?
Just to get back to this a little.
I know the ship doesn't care for Bible quotes, only C. S Lewis is always welcome and nearly inerrant (kidding) but when I think of such fear as the OP describes regarding Satan and his names, I can't help but think of all the times the Bible tells us to, "Fear the Lord." In that context, excessive fear of Satan would be giving him some of the awe, reverence, and fear of displeasing that we owe God. Satan, then, is not worthy of that much fear.
I seldom think of Satan at all, but I feel like I would somehow be cherry picking if I chose to believe that God was the "face" of all love and goodness, but that the absence or opposite of those things has absolutely no supernatural "face" even if only as a representative idea of what to avoid.
So, while I would like to take the modern, liberal view that there is no devil, just people doing bad things, I can't 100% believe that. It seems too easy and comfortable.
So. I don't fear him, but I certainly wouldn't be thinking about him more than necessary or deliberately calling him out with rituals and paraphernalia.
If I thought I felt him tempting me toward something, I would probably fall back on the simple, dismissive, "Get thee behind me, Satan." The sort of "Get lost," we might say to a drug dealer offering us heroin, and the result should probably be about the same.
Then I would simply go forward, no longer thinking about him, because that can't be conducive toward the open, loving person we all want to become.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
So, while I would like to take the modern, liberal view that there is no devil, just people doing bad things, I can't 100% believe that. It seems too easy and comfortable.
Interesting. I would say the opposite. People hate random events. We are more comfortable if there is something to blame. God(s), the devil, fate.
"It was her time to go". We do not like uncertainty, even if that certain is bad.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
I can't see whether it makes a difference or not whether I believe in empersoned evil or not. When I'm tempted I can't see what part it could have to play. As I'm enmired in weakness and ignorance and exposed in that constantly, apart from those more... meditated... weaknesses, the subjects of temptation, again I fail to see the mechanism.
I can't see the mechanism of afterlife either of course. I can concurrently believe in triune God.
Yesterday's suicide bomb in Kabul, Trump, Brexit, homelessness, inequity you name it in the past five thousand years, what's supernatural evil got to do with it? Let alone the sixteen to forty times longer we've been talking?
And if there are such entities, what could they want? How could they be? Psychologically? Like Dexter?
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
So, while I would like to take the modern, liberal view that there is no devil, just people doing bad things, I can't 100% believe that. It seems too easy and comfortable.
Interesting. I would say the opposite. People hate random events. We are more comfortable if there is something to blame. God(s), the devil, fate.
"It was her time to go". We do not like uncertainty, even if that certain is bad.
Oh I don't believe in the Flip Wilson, "The Devil made me do it," thing. But neither do I think God protected a certain church during Katrina the way one of my fellow church members does.
I believe God set the world in motion and so it turns, with man doing the good things like finding cures for diseases and sacrificing for others, as well as man doing the evil things like the ones Martin just mentioned.
It's influence I'm talking about. I believe in God. I believe he works through our minds to help us cope with the bad things and if we ask him, he "leads us not into temptation." So I feel I also have to believe that there actually is temptation out there and it just might be set in front of me by Satan, but we always have free-will, neither entity makes us do things.
I can remember times in my life when I could have gone one way over another, when I allowed myself, usually through self-serving rationalization to go down a wrong path. I also know of times when prayer has helped me resist evil. I might name those paths Wrong and Right and the influence over each path either Satan or God. Or not. But I can't really go with one and not the other.
If it's all merely us being good or bad, isn't that just humanism? If that's one's belief, fine, but it's not Christianity, is it? (That's a real question, not rhetoric.)
Martin?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
'And lead us not in to temptation but deliver us from the evil [one]', said Jesus, according to a transliteration of the Greek translation of His Aramaic.
One has to broaden and deepen this. It's not as if God would lead us in to temptation. And I have only ever stumbled across or led myself into temptation. 1% of the time quantifiably. 1% of my days have in the past few years have involved serious, life changing temptation. The other 99% finds me up to my nostrils in evil. 'Led' every day in impatience, unkindness, laziness, gluttony, judgment, lust.
Which of this stuff is Satan and his demons responsible for? How? WHY?
And (and this has FAR wider theological implications which I've been raising here for some time, over a year now, with no takers, due to my track record I realise) if he's real, as writ, is he local? Or is he the demiurge? The lord corrupter of all the infinite worlds of eternal creation?
[ 28. January 2018, 12:55: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
'And lead us not in to temptation but deliver us from the evil [one]', said Jesus, according to a transliteration of the Greek translation of His Aramaic.
One has to broaden and deepen this. It's not as if God would lead us in to temptation. And I have only ever stumbled across or led myself into temptation. 1% of the time quantifiably. 1% of my days have in the past few years have involved serious, life changing temptation. The other 99% finds me up to my nostrils in evil. 'Led' every day in impatience, unkindness, laziness, gluttony, judgment, lust.
Which of this stuff is Satan and his demons responsible for? How? WHY?
And (and this has FAR wider theological implications which I've been raising here for some time, over a year now, with no takers, due to my track record I realise) if he's real, as writ, is he local? Or is he the demiurge? The lord corrupter of all the infinite worlds of eternal creation?
Well, yes. Me too as far as the 99% but how do we know it's entirely us and we aren't being pulled by the Primo Drug Dealer who knows our weaknesses and is there with our drug of choice at just the right moment?
I'm not trying to lessen my own blame at all, but if we try not to put ourselves in the addict's place (and this could be addiction to mean spirited sarcasm as well as heroin you understand) but think of other people to whom you extend more sympathy than to yourself, Martin.
Might he, the repeat offender at the prison, be facing more temptation than normal averages?
When Jesus cast out the unclean spirit, what was it? Could it have been anything at all that blocked that person from perfect love? Where did it come from?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
My drug, my endogenous opiate of non-choice is frozen heartedness liberally sprinkled with insincerity, dark humour, sarcasm, lack. It's first nature to me. In my own front room. I can be as nice as pie and AM beyond it. It's all a lie. I go out of my way in compensation for my lack of sympathy. But I know I have not charity. I am unrid of a body of death. Nobody, no transpersonal force, no power of the air makes me be this way. As for when I'm smitten with a savage pulse of wantonness that can beat for days and come back over months and years, that would destroy worlds, I need no story but my own to explain it.
It'll all be in the novel I daren't write.
And yes, Jesus encountered unclean spirits. I never have but my own. If I ever DID it would be a miraculous answer that would leave me with more questions.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
If it's all merely us being good or bad, isn't that just humanism? If that's one's belief, fine, but it's not Christianity, is it? (That's a real question, not rhetoric.)
OK, so a lot of what we do, how we react, is mechanistic. But that doesn't eliminate agency.
So, we instinctively are selfish or helpful, but we still decide if we want to be. It benefits people to understand the basic mechanisms of a behaviour if they wish to change it. Thinking of it in terms of sin, in some Christian applications, obscures or dismisses this.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
LilBuddha: For me, thinking of it as sin magnifies it and makes me try harder to eliminate it. It doesn't lessen my agency in it at all. I'm just reminded to steer clear of certain temptations that may be put in my way.
If the devil has put a bakery on the street where I walk, I can take a different route. If I continue to walk past it and end up going in the bakery for a dozen glazed donuts, I don't blame Satan, but myself for walking on the wild side and vainly believing I'm stronger than I am.
This is a hard line I try to take with myself only, reserving the "We're all only human and nobody's perfect," attitude for other people.
--------------
Martin: You'll never convince me you're anything but a kinder than average guy who has set his bar too high and looked too deeply at his own id. I avoid mine at all costs.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lothlorien:
From someone downunder Martin, it is said "Say- tin" possibly even without the letter "i " being pronounced.
I originally wrote the joke as someone with a speech impediment, but considered that to be not good form. In the last minute of the edit time, I changed it to an Aussie accent. I acknowledge it was a stretch.
I was temporarily in love with the idea of someone in a cork hat and sweaty khaki shorts seeking to invoke the devil but not quite getting the name right and having a roll of satin thwack them upside the head.
I put allot of effort into being silly. I feel it's important. Unfortunately I rarely think things through.
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
My drug, my endogenous opiate of non-choice is frozen heartedness liberally sprinkled with insincerity, dark humour, sarcasm, lack. It's first nature to me. In my own front room. I can be as nice as pie and AM beyond it. It's all a lie. I go out of my way in compensation for my lack of sympathy. But I know I have not charity.
I call bullshit on the charity thing. If you had no charity, you wouldn't give a crap about God. You'd be busy minting it and socking it away and to-helling everyone who got in your way. You perceive you have no charity because you are so focused on God, who is charity.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I was at a symposium today where it was asserted that in the OT, it is always "the Satan" rather than "Satan", which was described as "referring to a function rather than a person".
I'm not quite sure what to make of this thought (was too busy quizzing the Orthodoxen attending about their view of guilt...).
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0