Understanding adversarial religious figures

[Zoness]

Inspired by another post I made today, I decided to make a new thread addressing the subject of understanding Satan, or other religious adversarial figures. As this is a Christian forum, this thread is sort of geared towards Satan, though feel free to discuss any figure. In the case of Satan specifically, I've heard many Christian explanations for him: he is a fallen angel sent to cause trouble in the world, he is evil to god's good (dualist) or he doesn't exist at all and humans are completely responsible for their own suffering.

Many people associate certain symbols as "Satanic" or evil for reasons that are not always clear or have been lost to time. Other sorts of beasts and folklore have also been attributed to him. Sometimes he is depicted as a goat, in contrast to a sheep representing a good Christian. Some have compared him to Baphomet who is an entirely different figure but with imagery popularized by Eliphas Levi in the 19th century.

In the modern day there are several Satanist groups, most of them are atheist but some are in fact theistic. Sometimes religious zealots attribute political actions to Satan, such as secularists winning court cases against ten commandments displays or ensuring equal rights for other religions or the teaching of evolution. Christians have called other Christians Satanic even; Catholics, Unitarians, Mormons, liberal Lutherans and Baptists have all been at the end of this at one time or another.

Does your religion have an adversarial figure? If so, what are they called and how would you describe them? What is their role in the world? Do they literally exist or are they allegorical?

What are your thoughts on other religions' adversarial figures?

Short of complete derailment, other tangential subjects are allowed as long as they're connected to the OP. I look forward to seeing your thoughts.

 

[awitch]

Does your religion have an adversarial figure? If so, what are they called and how would you describe them? What is their role in the world? Do they literally exist or are they allegorical?

I can't think of any adversarial figures. There aren't two sides battling it out.

What are your thoughts on other religions' adversarial figures?

Definitely don't believe in a literal devil but symbolically, Satan (or devils in general) is a pretty neat idea, but I'm one of those people that likes to personify things. Satan's portrayal in pop culture is usually pretty hilarious whether we're talking about cartoons, video games, or horror movies.

I did really enjoy the video games Diablo I and II with the whole story of devils and angels battling it out with humans caught in the middle, but the third one was really disappointing.

 

[juvenissun]

Inspired by another post I made today, I decided to make a new thread addressing the subject of understanding Satan, or other religious adversarial figures. As this is a Christian forum, this thread is sort of geared towards Satan, though feel free to discuss any figure. In the case of Satan specifically, I've heard many Christian explanations for him: he is a fallen angel sent to cause trouble in the world, he is evil to god's good (dualist) or he doesn't exist at all and humans are completely responsible for their own suffering.

Many people associate certain symbols as "Satanic" or evil for reasons that are not always clear or have been lost to time. Other sorts of beasts and folklore have also been attributed to him. Sometimes he is depicted as a goat, in contrast to a sheep representing a good Christian. Some have compared him to Baphomet who is an entirely different figure but with imagery popularized by Eliphas Levi in the 19th century.

In the modern day there are several Satanist groups, most of them are atheist but some are in fact theistic. Sometimes religious zealots attribute political actions to Satan, such as secularists winning court cases against ten commandments displays or ensuring equal rights for other religions or the teaching of evolution. Christians have called other Christians Satanic even; Catholics, Unitarians, Mormons, liberal Lutherans and Baptists have all been at the end of this at one time or another.

Does your religion have an adversarial figure? If so, what are they called and how would you describe them? What is their role in the world? Do they literally exist or are they allegorical?

What are your thoughts on other religions' adversarial figures?

Short of complete derailment, other tangential subjects are allowed as long as they're connected to the OP. I look forward to seeing your thoughts.

Every religion MUST HAVE adversarial figures.
The difference is on what is the purpose of having them.

 

[awitch]

Every religion MUST HAVE adversarial figures.

No, they don't, no matter how many capitalized letters you use.

 

[AV1611VET]

Zoness, I hope you don't mind me enumerating your questions; it makes it easier to answer.

1. Does your religion have an adversarial figure?
2. If so, what are they called and how would you describe them?
3. What is their role in the world?
4. Do they literally exist or are they allegorical?
5. What are your thoughts on other religions' adversarial figures?

1. Yes.

2. Satan and his fallen angels.

3. Satan's goal is to be like his Creator. He has set up an infrastructure on the earth consisting of himself as the head honcho, followed by his nine muses that are in charge of music & education, followed by a Pantheon of "deities," followed by a caste of "worker bees" doing menial tasks. IN MY OPINION.

4. They literally exist.

5. See answer #3 above.

 

[juvenissun]

No, they don't, no matter how many capitalized letters you use.

Name one which does not.

 

[awitch]

Name one which does not.

I replied in post #2 that my religion does not have an adversarial figure.

 

[ananda]

Mara is a title in early Nikayan Buddhism, referring to various adversarial deities who desire to entrap beings using a variety of methods from escaping the sensual samsaric world, whether knowingly (they're malevolent) or unknowingly (they're delusional). These methods include teachings which obviously entrap practitioners (e.g. hatred, violence, etc.) or not so obviously, with more sublime teachings which are nevertheless still rooted in samsara (e.g. love, promises of wealth, pleasures of heaven, etc.)

In this sense, Mara can refer to both well-meaning but delusional deities, and to "demons" (a demon is understood to be a heavenly deity with malevolent intent in early Buddhism). Jehovah, Satan, Jesus, Allah, Iblis, Vishnu, Lakshmi, Krishna, Shiva, etc. can all be considered "Maras" - at least until they become more enlightened.

These Mara deities are both literal and allegorical in a sense, as they can exist simultaneously in the mind and independently. The mental realm is considered literally real, just in a different sense than the physical realm (Early Buddhism recognizes dependent re-origination in the sense that "A" can cause "B", and "B" can also cause "A"; mind-made objects does not necessarily mean "unreal", and can exist independently).

 

[AV1611VET]

These Mara deities are both literal and allegorical in a sense, as they can exist simultaneously in the mind and independently.

Well ... that clarifies it, doesn't it?

 

[ananda]

Well ... that clarifies it, doesn't it?

To put it more succinctly: The mental plane is "real" from a Buddhist perspective, perhaps even more real than the physical plane.

What is "mental" and what is "real" are usually seen as opposed in Western thought, e.g. "X wasn't real, X was just something he imagined/felt/thought up". This is not the case in Buddhism.

 

[dlamberth]

Does your religion have an adversarial figure? If so, what are they called and how would you describe them? What is their role in the world? Do they literally exist or are they allegorical?

There are no adversarial figures in the spiritual path I follow. They just don't exist in a non-duality world.

What are your thoughts on other religions' adversarial figures?

I see adversarial figures in other religions' as an attempt to explain or even justify suffering.

 

[dlamberth]

Every religion MUST HAVE adversarial figures.

That's not true at all.

 

[dlamberth]

Name one which does not.

Universal Sufism.

 

[AV1611VET]

To put it more succinctly: The mental plane is "real" from a Buddhist perspective, perhaps even more real than the physical plane.

Over here, we use the term "mental" as a synonym for "insane."

Can you give me an example of something that is more real mentally than physically?

It seems to me, if I conjure up a glass of water mentally, then walk away; someone else cannot drink it in my absence.

But if I physically pour myself a glass of water, then walk away; someone else can drink it in my absence.

 

[ananda]

Over here, we use the term "mental" as a synonym for "insane."

Can you give me an example of something that is more real mentally than physically?

It seems to me, if I conjure up a glass of water mentally, then walk away; someone else cannot drink it in my absence.

But if I physically pour myself a glass of water, then walk away; someone else can drink it in my absence.

We are defining "real" in different ways.

You appear to be defining "real" in terms what can be objectively experienced by others.

I define "real" (or, something more real than the prior definition) as that which affects the consciousness/observer/actor. Mental objects (e.g. ideas, concepts, thoughts, feelings) possesses arguably far more influence over the conscious actor than physical objects.

 

[AV1611VET]

I define "real" (or, something more real than the prior definition) as that which affects the consciousness/observer/actor.

Like LSD?

(And I'm not trying to be cute.)

 

[ananda]

Like LSD?

(And I'm not trying to be cute.)

Sure, that is a physical object which can influence a mental world.

 

[dlamberth]

Name one which does not.

As I was meditating it came to me that generally those spiritual traditions that are panentheistic tend not to have adversarial figures. From my understanding it's because there's not much room in Panentheism for duality.

 

[Zoness]

Every religion MUST HAVE adversarial figures.
The difference is on what is the purpose of having them.

My religion does not have adversarial figures such as a Satan-analogue. Many pagan religions do not have such figures. I believe Philosophical Taoism and Zen Buddhism also lack such figures. There might be some such figures in Shintoism (at least I know of some specific evil spirits) but like Hinduism, some people are selective of the spirits they believe in or don't believe that spirits influence the physical world.

 

[Zoness]

Mara is a title in early Nikayan Buddhism, referring to various adversarial deities who desire to entrap beings using a variety of methods from escaping the sensual samsaric world, whether knowingly (they're malevolent) or unknowingly (they're delusional). These methods include teachings which obviously entrap practitioners (e.g. hatred, violence, etc.) or not so obviously, with more sublime teachings which are nevertheless still rooted in samsara (e.g. love, promises of wealth, pleasures of heaven, etc.)

In this sense, Mara can refer to both well-meaning but delusional deities, and to "demons" (a demon is understood to be a heavenly deity with malevolent intent in early Buddhism). Jehovah, Satan, Jesus, Allah, Iblis, Vishnu, Lakshmi, Krishna, Shiva, etc. can all be considered "Maras" - at least until they become more enlightened.

These Mara deities are both literal and allegorical in a sense, as they can exist simultaneously in the mind and independently. The mental realm is considered literally real, just in a different sense than the physical realm (Early Buddhism recognizes dependent re-origination in the sense that "A" can cause "B", and "B" can also cause "A"; mind-made objects does not necessarily mean "unreal", and can exist independently).

Thanks for sharing, ananda. My knowledge in Buddhism is unfortunately quite lacking! I think I see what you mean by literal and allegorical. For example, a paranoid schizophrenic may be deluded by images that torture them, but this is a disease with physical explanation. However to the patient, the images are all too real in their experience. Even if they are not literally real, as in objectively measurable, they are real to that individual. Am I on the mark?