Shamoo, Xev ... to all God's children--er, something ....
What, then, is the purpose of the Devil?
As macabre as it is to bring up here, what about rape victims? After all, as society generally has it ... oh, hell, I won't even say it. But you get the point.
Besides, I'm actually with you on that point:
We should try, one day, a philosophical topic on the nature of Evil:
In all my time at Sciforums, not one Christian has given me a logical reason for (speak nothing of proof) the Devil. And, if I might take the liberty of the image, perhaps that is the Devil's secret. By placing the burden of evil on an irrelevant concept, we largely surrender our ability to counteract or even cope with evil. Although I can't find my copy of Brust's To Reign in Hell, there is an interesting blurb on the back cover that may have come from Brust himself (or else, I think, Zelaszny): From all my readings on the devil, two things are clear: God is all-powerful and Satan is no fool. There seems to be a contradiction here. (Take that as a slight paraphrase until I find the quote.)
To hold "evil" and "sin" as synonymous for the sake of the point: Tay-Sachs? Ebola? The simpler form of the question is why God, knowing that humankind would fall at Eden, went forward with the plan. Should we say that God could not create the cosmos any other way? What, then, restrains God? It seems that, should we subscribe to the Bible, we are unacceptable to God by his will, and we suffer by his will. The Devil--such as this topic started with--is a useless concept at best, and a sad diversion at worst. It seems to me a little like a father who wants his kid's first job to suck so that the kid can have the same "character-building" experience he did. And I've known a few of those people, who delight in their children's suffering. At least they have a prominent role model; that's some excuse, but it doesn't cut it. Hell, I've heard fathers argue that $6.00 an hour is worth being groped and harassed by your boss. ("Are you sure that's what's really going on? Maybe you're perceiving it wrong .... You need this job, you know.")
Or is that also macabre? Let's all have a groan.
One of the reasons that I accept the definition that God is greater than that which can be conceived is that it takes issues of morality out of God's hands and returns it to human beings. One cannot understand the purpose of evil, nor can one, with such a God, quantify evil. Therefore we perceive suffering and, in our human sympathies, attempt to alleviate it. It only matters how one got hurt insofar as one must determine how to alleviate or end the suffering. But the "why is this happening" aspect of evil is a mere distraction. To focus on "defeating the Devil" in any direct sense is an excuse to allow the continuation of suffering. Technically there is no evil except that upon which we agree. Wipe out a million babies in a holocaust of fire--yeah, I'm right there with you that it's horrible, but what difference does it make to the Universe itself? It only matters to us, e.g. If a tree falls in the forest ....
Of the pareidoliacs, though, I think my favorites both come from Washington state. In one case, Catholic Hispanic field workers (as well as white, apocalyptic-Protestant citizens) flocked to see the image of the Virgin in the iridescent sheen on the back of a highway sign outside Yakima, Washington. In the other, there was an image of the virgin appearing on a wall in the rectory of a church. And here is where the basic scientific process pays off. The Reverend, after seeing the phenomenon several times, had a flash of insight about the conditions and timing of the apparition. His experiment proved correct: the image of the Virgin on the wall was an amorphous pattern in a lampshade--when the sun hit the lampshade at the right angle, it projected light on the wall. When turned to a specific position, the reflection resolved the shape of the Virgin Mary. Simple interferences such as a bird flying through the sunlight outside the church could cause motion in the light, implying a living sense. But, yeah, the reverend figured it out. A somewhat-sensible man, he could not abide such idiotic faith.
But soon enough, we'll be able to look at each other and exclaim, "Christ on a Chalupa!"
thanx,
Tiassa
Russel, Jeffrey Burton. Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1984
Shamoo
What, then, is the purpose of the Devil?
Xev
As macabre as it is to bring up here, what about rape victims? After all, as society generally has it ... oh, hell, I won't even say it. But you get the point.
Besides, I'm actually with you on that point:
Because you're right ... this seems to be the end result of it.
We should try, one day, a philosophical topic on the nature of Evil:
What is actually important in the above extract is just how much is there. I mean, he goes on about this, trying to put into context how people arrived at the Devil. And no, it's not supposed to make logical sense. But sympathetically, understanding the frailty of the human conscience, it does, in fact, make some sense. It would be quite interesting to see our fellow posters' standards for good and evil.
In all my time at Sciforums, not one Christian has given me a logical reason for (speak nothing of proof) the Devil. And, if I might take the liberty of the image, perhaps that is the Devil's secret. By placing the burden of evil on an irrelevant concept, we largely surrender our ability to counteract or even cope with evil. Although I can't find my copy of Brust's To Reign in Hell, there is an interesting blurb on the back cover that may have come from Brust himself (or else, I think, Zelaszny): From all my readings on the devil, two things are clear: God is all-powerful and Satan is no fool. There seems to be a contradiction here. (Take that as a slight paraphrase until I find the quote.)
To hold "evil" and "sin" as synonymous for the sake of the point: Tay-Sachs? Ebola? The simpler form of the question is why God, knowing that humankind would fall at Eden, went forward with the plan. Should we say that God could not create the cosmos any other way? What, then, restrains God? It seems that, should we subscribe to the Bible, we are unacceptable to God by his will, and we suffer by his will. The Devil--such as this topic started with--is a useless concept at best, and a sad diversion at worst. It seems to me a little like a father who wants his kid's first job to suck so that the kid can have the same "character-building" experience he did. And I've known a few of those people, who delight in their children's suffering. At least they have a prominent role model; that's some excuse, but it doesn't cut it. Hell, I've heard fathers argue that $6.00 an hour is worth being groped and harassed by your boss. ("Are you sure that's what's really going on? Maybe you're perceiving it wrong .... You need this job, you know.")
Or is that also macabre? Let's all have a groan.
One of the reasons that I accept the definition that God is greater than that which can be conceived is that it takes issues of morality out of God's hands and returns it to human beings. One cannot understand the purpose of evil, nor can one, with such a God, quantify evil. Therefore we perceive suffering and, in our human sympathies, attempt to alleviate it. It only matters how one got hurt insofar as one must determine how to alleviate or end the suffering. But the "why is this happening" aspect of evil is a mere distraction. To focus on "defeating the Devil" in any direct sense is an excuse to allow the continuation of suffering. Technically there is no evil except that upon which we agree. Wipe out a million babies in a holocaust of fire--yeah, I'm right there with you that it's horrible, but what difference does it make to the Universe itself? It only matters to us, e.g. If a tree falls in the forest ....
Of the pareidoliacs, though, I think my favorites both come from Washington state. In one case, Catholic Hispanic field workers (as well as white, apocalyptic-Protestant citizens) flocked to see the image of the Virgin in the iridescent sheen on the back of a highway sign outside Yakima, Washington. In the other, there was an image of the virgin appearing on a wall in the rectory of a church. And here is where the basic scientific process pays off. The Reverend, after seeing the phenomenon several times, had a flash of insight about the conditions and timing of the apparition. His experiment proved correct: the image of the Virgin on the wall was an amorphous pattern in a lampshade--when the sun hit the lampshade at the right angle, it projected light on the wall. When turned to a specific position, the reflection resolved the shape of the Virgin Mary. Simple interferences such as a bird flying through the sunlight outside the church could cause motion in the light, implying a living sense. But, yeah, the reverend figured it out. A somewhat-sensible man, he could not abide such idiotic faith.
But soon enough, we'll be able to look at each other and exclaim, "Christ on a Chalupa!"
thanx,
Tiassa
Russel, Jeffrey Burton. Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages. Ithaca: Cornell Univ. Press, 1984