The photographer, Mark D. Phillips, swears there was no doctoring of the photo. One can see a diabolical visage in it, I would say.
Posted on 10/01/2001 9:13:50 AM PDT by betty boop
Toward an Understanding of the Enemy:
A Meditation on Satan
It truly has been said that Satan is a “myth.” The only problem with that statement is, the word “myth” has become synonymous with “false superstition” in contemporary thought and rhetoric. Thus Satan, being a “myth,” cannot be “real.” Q.E.D. End of story.
Being a Christian with a great partiality to Plato, I take issue with this understanding of the word “myth.” True, all myths are “stories,” as opposed to “facts.” But some of these stories are nonetheless true.
On the classical view, the soul, by virtue of its essential, divinely-constituted nature, has true knowledge of aspects of reality that are not susceptible to direct empirical proof (or falsification). Thus its insights cannot be spoken of in terms of ordinary language, which developed in answer to the human need to describe concrete events in physical space-time. Another language is needed to describe “intangible” entities, such as Evil – and also Soul and God for that matter -- which do not find their source in physical nature per se.
Plato consciously developed the language of the myth because he needed to find a legitimate language to articulate movements of the soul -- soul being understood as the vast complex of (1) unique, infinite spiritual essence; (2) the unconscious, conscious, and self-conscious domains of the Self; and (3) the nous (intellect or reason). To Plato, this organic complex uniquely describes the essential being of every sacred human person. (Like snowflakes, no two souls are exactly alike.) Moreover, to my knowledge, there is nothing in Christian theology that refutes this view.
Evil, being intangible -- but none the less real for all that, for clearly we have seen its effects in the hideously cruel events of September 11th -- is not a fit subject that profitably can be left to verification (or falsification) by the techniques of physical science. Thus, the language that Plato evolved to express such “intangibles” (which ultimately refer to the transcendent basis of empirical space-time reality) was the aletheia logos, the “true story” or myth. On these terms, the language of the myth is the language of the soul – and thus of all spiritual, moral, cultural, and religious development, understanding, and communication.
Satan is such a myth. Or perhaps it’s better to say, what Satan represents has inspired a vast multiplicity of myths in human historical culture. Every people of every time has confronted the problem of evil in the world. And each human society in time has developed its own myths to symbolize evil for its time. To me, the “truest myth” is the one developed in Christian theology; for this conception has “real legs,” having endured for more than two thousand years, with roots stretching back into time immemorial. To my humble way of thinking, anything that can last that long in active human imagination and action is worthy of our attention and understanding.
The Christian understanding of Evil finds its apotheosis in the symbol of Satan, also known as Lucifer, “son of the morning star,” beloved archangel of the Lord. As angel, Satan is a God-created being. He is an immortal creature, like man, formed in Divine Love. When you boil it all down, the only real, practical difference between the status of angelic and human nature is that human spiritual being incarnates (i.e., takes on physical form), but angelic nature remains discarnate or “pure” spiritual being. Both created realms are intended by God to manifest their true being within the Providential Order of their Creator, formed in Love and intended for Love.
The eruption of evil into the world first becomes possible in the divine fact that both realms -- angelic and human -- are endowed by their Creator with reason and free will. Satan “fell”; and “later,” Man fell also -- taking all of creation “down with him” when he did. What is the nature or essence of this “Fall?”
It can be summed up in the two words of Lucifer: Non serviam. Which translated, might go something like this:
* * * * * * *
“I will not serve You, Lord. I not only refuse to live in Your Order of Creation, in Your Providential Law for all the realms of being, natural and supernatural; but I will work implacably against all Law -- divine, natural, human.
“It is better for me to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven under Your Law. And I will draw down into the Pit of Hell with me all your most beloved -- Man -- for sheer spite. Thereby I shall show You that I can use the very materials You created to fashion my rebuke and repudiation of You, to create an ‘anti-creation.’ I will therefore suck all Love and Life and Light out of Your Creation for all eternity, and shall turn each of your preciously beloved Sons into Your accuser, and make each of them the enemy of his brother. I shall achieve my victory against You by disordering their souls via unceasing attack on their minds, via appeals to their pride and vanity and selfishness and envy and anger and brute fear.
“And they will choose me in consequence, not You; for I am ‘easier’ than You (at least that is what I shall tell them; and they will believe my word). Yet am I also equally to be feared as You (and I shall spare no pains to make sure they know that).
“I take libidinous pleasure in anticipating how galling You will find their ingratitude, down through the ages. And these whom You have made for immortality in communion with You will eternally spend their lives with me instead, accusing and repudiating You and everything You have fashioned in Truth and Goodness and Beauty and Justice for all eternity. Simply because I cannot bear the thought that there is anything greater than I am in my own self-conceit. And I shall persuade all Your sons similarly. In the end, they all shall worship me, and I shall thereby secure their eternal perdition -- their perpetual state of ‘lostness’ in Your Sight. I will take all your children from you -- all of them. Thus, the victory on earth ultimately will be mine.”
* * * * * * *
This is the essence of Satan’s boundless Pride -- which properly understood, is the one, the only, truly unforgivable sin among Christians.
Anyhoot, that’s how I imagine that particular conversation went -- the Satanic Boast addressed to God, his Maker.
To get timely with these reflections, I hear cadences of the satanic boast repeated by Osama bin Laden, among others, these days. Although OBL may claim to base his actions on conscientious fidelity to the demands of the Law of God, by his works we know him without doubt to be aligned with Satan’s rebellion against the justice, love, and providence of the One God Whom all Abrahamic peoples – Jew, Christian, Muslim – revere and adore.
Benjamin Netanyahu recently said that OBL and his minions may have the will to destroy the order of the West; but he lacks the power to do it. At least so far.
On the other hand, the United States has the power to neutralize this attack on Western civilizational order; but does it have the will?
Netanyahu went on to say that this question turns on whether the United States can achieve“moral clarity” with respect to the position in which it now finds itself. For without moral clarity, our national will has no engine to drive it such that America can prevail in the long run. And this is a war that will take some time to issue in a clear victory.
Will the people unite and stay united for as long as it takes to prevail? From whence will the necessary “moral clarity” come to secure a victory for our civilizational order if not from the myth -- and not just any myth, but the classical/Christian myth of our American civilizational order? The myth that formed the minds and characters of our Founding generation, out of which they built a nation? For that is what we must defend first, it seems to me, if we hope to defend our nation, and to prevail against the satanic forces now arrayed against the United States and the West more generally.
The foregoing meditation or speculation raises certain questions, the answers to which must be left to each reader to supply for himself, according to his own best lights. Notwithstanding, these days I am comforted by an intuition that urges me to believe that the best thing we Americans can do for ourselves right now is to “Praise the Lord (and pass the ammunition).” We must trust in Him above all things, and stay vigilant and prepared for what is surely to come, given the implacable spite of our eternal Enemy and Accuser -- who has released the very hounds of Hell on America.
Then it simply becomes a matter of “keeping your powder dry,” and waiting to see “the whites of their eyes.”
What happens next, we do not know for certain in every detail. But at the end of the day, I am convinced beyond any doubt that the Will of the Lord of the Universe will be done, “on earth, as it is in heaven.” On grounds of our American myth, I take heart in the words of the Battle Hymn of the Republic: that “His Truth is marching on.” And that the America people still have what it takes to rally to this Truth.
God Bless America, Amen.
You will notice that my initial query was directed at an assertion made by a particular poster who was not the author of this piece.
While "the consideration here" may well be "the active role of evil in the lives of men here on earth", I asked a question of an entirely different nature to a poster other than the author.
Sorry if you had difficulty following along.
Nope. You're imposing your viewpoint onto a particular theory of reality, and then subjecting God's freedom of action to it. At root, you're claiming that a God who could create an entire universe from nothing, couldn't create a being with free will.
Then again, you already know that there is no "free will" in any absolute sense. For example, your will might be to float when you walk off a cliff. The harsh fact is that you don't have the ability to do so. Your free will is constrained by the force of gravity. Which is to say, the universe places numerous constraints on free will that you have no difficulty accepting.
Likewise, you have many, many times stated that humans operate -- indeed, are morally required to operate -- in a manner such that their exercise of free will is constrained by morality. Yet free will, however constrained, exists in spite of moral rules against raping the lovely young woman who steps into the elevator.
The one constraint you're fighting against, is that there might exist a God who could create the Universe (which would be the ultimate example of acting in History), and could still allow you to move with a free will.
You're certainly free to state that there is no such God -- but of course your say-so has no bearing on whether or not such a God actually exists.
Here we must recognize an important distinction: we're not talking about some all-encompassing concept of free will. We're really talking about a particular type of free will here -- moral free will -- which takes us straight back to those endless threads on the subject of the sources of morality.
But let's suppose you're right: suppose there's a God who acts in history, and that we don't have ultimate free will (and in the sense that it predicts Judgement, Christianity agrees with that idea to some extent). If that's the way it really is, an objectivist such as yourself should have no grounds for complaint.
All the peripheral discussion is of your creation, not mine.
Just following your comments to their logical conclusion.
Hi OWK! Then why didn't you ask the poster (that would be moi)? :^)
Q: Do I believe that God takes an active role in influencing the earthly affairs of men?
A: Yes, I do. To explain: The entire context in which men can choose anything is a "given" -- it is independent of human will (choice), having been created, organized, and sustained by God. God has made the world "the way it is, and not some other way." As C.S. Lewis put it, the world isn't something that's "true or false; it's just THERE." It operates according to laws that are divine at their source and thus do not change to accommodate human preference for a different sort of order.
We didn't make the world or its laws physical, moral or spiritual. God did. Thus, there is a "set" milieu in which human life is lived; we can't pick and choose among the laws of the world of which we approve, and just "flush" the rest. Nor can we simply "redefine" or "recreate" the existential milieu in some other way at will. Human nature itself is divinely constituted, just as are the natures of all beings that live. The laws pertaining to each is what makes the particular being what it is and not some other thing.
None of this so far is "optional" for man. This is just to say that human choice, while it is free, is not unlimited: Rational choices are limited by the given nature and laws of the living world within which the living man must act.
But I sense the question you really want answered is whether God influences man directly, as in "speaking" to men. Okay. Here goes:
Q: Does God speak to man?
A: Yes. God speaks to souls; and if a man is "listening," he will hear. Depending on a man's response to the divine appeal, God influences the affairs of men in this world.
More -- the soul is designed to resonate with its Creator. But if we are not open in our souls to the divine appeal, we will not hear it. The closure of the soul to God makes us deaf to the divine drawing to all that is Good for man and the world -- all truth, goodness, beauty, love, and justice in all created nature find their eternal Source in the Living God. If a man is "deaf" to God's truth, then how can we say that he has chosen something freely, truly? His freedom becomes illusory. Or to put it another way, what he thinks of as his freedom is merely license -- and a very temporary license at that.
It may seem paradoxical, but freedom is necessarily, inseparably joined to responsibility: One cannot exist without the other. God made us in love, for love; He wants us to return our love -- to Him. In the final analysis, I really think that human freedom ultimately boils down to the reply each individual soul makes to God: Yes, "I love You and, thus, I will honor Your Laws"; or No, "I don't need you, dude." The latter is what Satan said. And if we reply similarly, we will share Satan's fate in due course.
So call me a lunatic, OWK, if you think that's just. But you asked sincere questions; and I've tried to answer them sincerely -- straight from my heart and soul and mind. warm regards, bb.
Sorry? Me too.
What though the field be lost?
All is not lost; th' unconquerable will,
And study of revenge, immortal hate,
And courage never to submit or yield.
Infernal world! and thou, profoundest Hell,
Receive thy new possessor—one who brings
A mind not to be changed by place or time.
The mind is its own place, and in itself
Can make a Heaven of Hell, a Hell of Heaven.
What matter where, if I be still the same
. . . Here at least/ We shall be free . . .
we may reign secure; and, in my choice,
To reign is worth ambition, though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.John Milton, Paradise Lost (I:251-263)
That's definitely an excellent suggestion, MGHinTN! While we're on the subject of writings of C.S. Lewis, may I also suggest The Great Divorce? If one wants to understand how truly awesome human freedom is, the latter work will absolutely give one chills! Thank you so much for writing -- bb.
Miracles
Lourdes as an example of documented events unexplained by science and reason.
Check out the local news accounts of the time for yourself. I am sure you have the research capability, and you would trust the researcher.
Regards,
Everything that God created is good, even the bodies and souls of those who damn themselves by choosing against Him. It seems that God would not annihilate something that is good in its essence: body and soul. Rather, since God is Justice, he will allow those who choose against Him to damn themselves, sentencing themselves to eternal punishment.
I agree with eternal punishment; annihilation is eternal punishment. Bodies, created good, are destroyed all the time; check out Hiroshima, highway of death, pictures from Rwanda, Sudan, Afghanistan, etc.
"Soul" as the bible defines it, it the combination of one's physical life and the body. Thus the Bible correctly speaks of "dead souls" and "destroying souls", that is to say, destroying life. Since Jesus speaks of God doing this in the judgment, this really isn't debatable.
The human spirit, our non-physical essence which gives us intellect (see 1 Corinthians 2), returns to God upon our death. (Ecclesiastes) It reunites with our body upon resurrection (see Jesus' resurrection of the Jarius' daughter; it says "her spirit returned to her".) God does not reveal what happens to the human spirit after the last judgment.
This, I think, is the meaning of all-consuming hellfire that lasts forever. The person who thereby suffers "forever" must be immortal to do it. The word "perdition" takes its root from the Latin word meaning "to lose." Logically, one can "lose something" yet still "be around" in some fashion after one loses it -- to suffer for all eternity for what one has lost, as the case may be.
Briefly, eschatologically speaking, there is no mention of hell fire lasting forever. The most we see in Revelation is that "the smoke of their burning rises forever", speaking of the Beast and false prophet. Revelation shows a new heaven and new earth, but no hell after all evil is destroyed.
Fortunately, there is no scripture speaking of eternal suffering. Part of the presumption of eternal suffering is that humans have an eternal soul which is eternally conscious. Rather, the Bible shows consciousness ceases with death (Ecclesiastes 3:19). The Bible speaks of death for Christians as "sleep", with the implication of unconsciousness.
Second, I think it's useful to consider the historical context in which the early Church came into being. I have heard the theory that the later Schoolmen of the Church "introduced" Plato and Aristotle into Christian theology -- "inauthentic" influences that were not present in the beginning of "authentic" Christian doctrine.
I agree with you; Greek influence has been present with the Church since Paul.
There were Greeks among the Twelve Disciples -- John and James come to mind.
Not possible; John was related to Elizabeth, Mary, and Jesus--all Jews. James was his brother. Why do you think they were Greeks?
And Paul was a hellenized Jew. I know that Reformed Christianity tends to deemphasize the classical component of Christian theology; but the fact of the matter is the inspired men who wrote the Gospels and the Epistles at the behest of the Lord were Greek by culture: They thought and spoke like Greeks to at least some degree. Though not made fully explicit in the New Testament, the Greek intellectual inheritance -- modes of thought and reasoning -- can be seen by a sensitive reader in the Gospel of St. John in particular. These modes developed the insights of the Israelitic sources in light of the New Dispensation brought to man by Our Lord Jesus Christ.
God chose to reveal the New Testement in Greek, so He wanted some of their influence. My complaint is against the early Church fathers who lifted Plato's and Aristotles beliefs along with their reasoning, without checking them against the Bible. Or at least, that is my understa
The soul is the form (in the classical Platonic/Aristotelian sense) of the body. Although every created thing has a form, the substantial form of man is unique. Since man can apprehend eternal things, his mind (soul) must be eternal.
I know there are references in the Bible to body, soul and spirit. I don't have an explanation for them. Perhaps spirit refers to the indwelling Spirit?
Define "Free Will".
Thanks.
**Netanyahu went on to say that this question turns on whether the United States can achieve“moral clarity” with respect to the position in which it now finds itself. For without moral clarity, our national will has no engine to drive it such that America can prevail in the long run. And this is a war that will take some time to issue in a clear victory. **
I cannot remember where Paul wrote that one can tell a Christian from others by the way they deal with Pain.
Their Faith produces perseverance.
Perseverance produces Strength of Character.
Strength of Character produces More Faith.
Seems to me that we in the USA have several distinct problems that cut us off from perseverance.
Number One- we are not a Christian Nation. All other reasons are moot.
Now we will see why a Good Leader is so important to a people. President George W Bush has put his Presidency and himself on the line by stating that even if the fervor of the country decreases he will not waver but will seek them out for his entire term. He will also need to keep us 'up' for this long haul. That is not an easy task.
The leader of FARC, a guerilla force in Columbia that sells drugs and is Communist, has declared that he also will join in this war with the USA and seeks to have the USA and it's people attacked in Columbia or the USA. He also desires to join with groups in the USA of like mind.
There are groups of like mind in the USA. The plot thickens.
Would one say, "We ain't seen nothin yet?
This may turn out to be the war of a thousand cuts. You see the Chinese are helping FARC. We don't have a 'two' war military. How many fronts will we be able to maintain against many guerilla forces outside our shores and many inside.
There are opinions I have concerning this entire affair that will remain silent.
Leadership is of great importance, whether Good or Bad. We have seen the personification of Bad. By the Grace and Mercy of God we hope to see Good Leadership for years to come. We need it now more than ever in the history of this great Nation.
We NEED to be Under God, quickly.
"This too shall pass." That does not mean it will be easy, else why would one need Faith.
As to the other points you raise, it might help to make this distinction: the immortality argument can be distinguished from the eternal life argument and that the first demonstrates that the soul is related to something that is not physical in nature per se, and that the belief of the second can be legitimately retrieved from Jewish sources.
The photographer, Mark D. Phillips, swears there was no doctoring of the photo. One can see a diabolical visage in it, I would say.
Hello Slingshot! So nice to see you. The thought has struck me that in stating "you're either with America in this fight or you're with the terrorists," President Bush has basically set up a "Good vs. Evil" contest and has made it very easy for us to tell which side an individual, organization, or sovereign nation-state "is on." He has stated the problem in terms that are crystal clear from a "moral clarity" standpoint, and they have global implications. (Some of our "friends" around the globe coddle and assist terrorist organizations and their state sponsors...so things could get very "interesting"....)
And I have a feeling the President's clear statement regarding America's moral resolve wasn't just rhetorical grandstanding: As you say, he is a Good Man. He has spoken in such a way that the "bad man" -- one who has chosen to reject the moral categories of civilized order -- will tend to misunderstand or underestimate him. The "bad man" may miscalculate as a result: I don't think this rag-tag band of terrorist criminals and the states that nurture and support them really understand America or the West very well; and their ignorance makes them bold. On the other hand, not to understand the enemy one faces can be terribly dangerous.
But as you say, Slingshot: "This, too, will pass." That it will! I don't "do" prophecy; but it seems to me there will be much pain and suffering before it does pass -- and not just in America. I pray for God's mercy on the all the innocents who get caught in the cross-fire. And that God's infinite justice will prevail. God bless President Bush, and God bless America. Peace, bb.
There are degrees of punishment in the Bible. There are not degrees of annihilation. Annihilation is not punishment.
Rather, the Bible shows consciousness ceases with death (Ecclesiastes 3:19). The Bible speaks of death for Christians as "sleep", with the implication of unconsciousness.
It depends on the perspective of the viewer. On the other side of death, in Hades (the abode of the dead) the rich man in Luke 16 was neither unconscious nor annihilated. He was in torment. And don't tell me that it is a parable, as if Jesus would have used a patently absurd, illogical, false picture to illustrate some other truth.
Then you have Paul describing his own body as a tent, a temoporary dwelling, and stating that to be absent from the body, is to be present with the Lord.
Cordially,
We were speaking of human freedom. And I’ve been thinking about that some more. Toward the end of my last to you, I speculated that, ultimately, human freedom boils down to a Yea or a Nay (#24 above). That probably sounds pretty stark, maybe even bleak.
What I was trying to get at is beautifully illuminated in passages from C. S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce. I’d like to share a few insights, courtesy of a truly great English poet and seer. Here goes, with occasional commentary:
“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, “Thy will be done,” and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’”
IOW, the God who made man with reason and free will respects and takes very seriously what He made. If man chooses a route that leads away from God, God respects and honors the choice. In the end, the judgment of the Lord is merely man’s own self-judgment, self-imposed. So, man makes his own heaven or hell, in real-time. (And tends to have to live there in real-time.) Lewis continues:
“All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened….
“There is but one good; that is God. Everything else is good when it looks to Him and bad when it turns away from Him. And the higher and the mightier it is in the natural order, the more demonic it will be if it rebels.”
Also: “Hell is a state of mind…. And every state of mind, left to itself, every shutting up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind – is, in the end, Hell. But Heaven is not a state of mind. Heaven is reality itself. All that is fully real is Heavenly. For all that can be shaken will be shaken and only the unshakeable remains.”
Speaking of what we can expect to remain after this nasty “shaking”: We cannot know that at the present juncture. We’re still conducting “strategic reconnaissance.” If I may hazard a guess in that regard, the battlefield on which our present war is to be conducted is almost entirely psychic – or more accurately, intellectual/spiritual. In the sense that we are primarily engaged in a battle of Mind (for Mind), unhampered by the necessity of defending physical assets or supply lines. A war unconfined to particular, targetable military assets or pieces of real estate, and definitely not constrained in the least by the U.N. Charter on Human Rights.
So, this “Yea or Nay” business seems to have global proportions these days, as President Bush made starkly clear. So, now, what kind of a pickle do we Americans find ourselves in?
On the one hand, America must stand for justice or betray her legacy. (Then the other guy wins.) On the other hand, we have to achieve unconditional victory -- against the “latest and greatest,” Islamist incarnation of Mob, Inc. -- which has global pretensions of grandeur. Not to mention global resources.
In the final analysis, it seems to me that the “global” problem of terrorism could be expeditiously solved if it were regarded as a problem of individual choice: Where do I stand on the acute problem of Good v. Evil as it is now being mortally contested in our common world of human experience? And what am I personally going to do about it?
I can’t answer that question for anybody but me.
It seems fitting to give C. S. Lewis the last word here: His dialogue in The Great Divorce, between the protagonist (Lewis himself I gather) and his Teacher, the Scots poet George MacDonald. (Dante chose Virgil as his guide; Lewis chose MacDonald as his). Believe it or not, I imagine Lewis’ insights have a direct bearing on profiitable ways to think about Osama bin Laden and the mortal threat he carries against America and the West. (JMHO):
CSL: “What some people say on Earth is that the final loss of one soul gives the lie to all the joy of those who are saved.”
GM: “Ye see it does not.”
CSL: “I feel in a way that it ought to.”
GM: “That sounds very merciful; but see what lurks behind it.”
CSL: “What?”
GM: “The demand of the loveless and the self-imprisoned that they should be allowed to blackmail the universe: that till they consent to be happy (on their own terms) no one else shall taste joy: that theirs should be the final power; that Hell should be able to veto Heaven…. Son, son, it must be one way or the other. Either the day must come when joy prevails and all the makers of misery are no longer able to infect it: or else for ever and ever the makers of misery can destroy in others the happiness they reject for themselves. I know it has a grand sound to say ye’ll accept no salvation which leaves even one creature in the dark outside. But watch that sophistry or ye’ll make a Dog in a Manger the tyrant of the universe.”
CSL: “But dare one say – it is horrible to say – that Pity must ever die?
GM: “Ye must distinguish. The action of Pity will live for ever: but the passion of Pity will not. The passion of Pity, the Pity we merely suffer, the ache that draws men to concede what should not be conceded and to flatter when they should speak truth, the pity that has cheated…will die. It was used as a weapon by bad men against good ones: their weapon will be broken.”
CSL: “And what is the other kind – the action [of pity]?”
GM: “It’s a weapon on the other side. It leaps quicker than light from the highest place to the lowest to bring healing and joy, whatever the cost to itself. It changes darkness into light and evil into good. But it will not, at the cunning tears of Hell, impose on good the tyranny of evil. Every disease that submits to a cure shall be cured: but we will not call blue yellow to please those who insist in still having jaundice, nor make a midden [i.e., a town dump] of the world’s garden for the sake of someone who cannot abide the smell of roses.” Sounds about right to me. But it’s time to call it a day. Goodnight dear Freepers and God bless each and every one -- bb.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.