Understanding adversarial religious figures

[AV1611VET]

Why are goats seen as Satanic?

It's bcause of the story of the scapegoat in the Bible.

And an EXCELLENT read on sheep is a book called, A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23, by Phillip Keller.

 

[dlamberth]

It is the same thing.
For example, what would satan do to an innocent person? How would that person change?

Are you suggesting that it's Satan's doing when our ego's do something bad?

 

[juvenissun]

Are you suggesting that it's Satan's doing when our ego's do something bad?

Not entirely, but it is a normal possibility.

 

[Zoness]

It's bcause of the story of the scapegoat in the Bible.

And an EXCELLENT read on sheep is a book called, A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23, by Phillip Keller.

Thanks for the recommendation!

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks for the recommendation!

You're most welcome!

One story he told that really impressed me was that, when a shepherd wants to increase his flock, he will take them out where wild sheep are grazing and let them graze next to them.

Later in the day, when he calls his flock home, some of the wild sheep will come trotting back among them.

Jesus, our Great Shepherd, did the same thing with His flock ...

Luke 10:1 After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

 

[Chesterton]

I think ideas of bad existing is a different trajectory than are adversarial figures. For instance the image of ones ego causing bad things to happen does not make the ego an adversary.

My favorite line from the science fiction novel Dune is "Each man is a little war". I think the ego can be an adversary.

 

[TheOldWays]

My favorite line from the science fiction novel Dune is "Each man is a little war". I think the ego can be an adversary.

Good point. The great work of anyone i believe is to master themselves.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Why are goats seen as Satanic?

I think its because their nature is contrary to sheep, sheep can be easily herded by shepherds and are drawn as symbolic for Christians in the Bible whereas goats go their own way. Often you hear of a pastor tending is flock, since the word pastor literally means shepherd. Goats are usually depicted as creatures with Satanic attributes since there are a handful of pagan gods who have goat-like features and the popularization of images such as Baphomet draw more parallels between Christianity's greatest adversary and goats.

Something I find interesting is that being referred to as "sheeple" is a pejorative term meaning that people are too dumb to think for themselves and just go with the flow. I do agree that thinking for one's self is important, maybe I am more aligned to the goat here? Is thinking for one's self considered an evil or Satanic trait?

I need to do analysis of other religions to see their conclusions. I imagine they're greatly impacted by their geography, since goats were a feature of the Mediterranean region and not as prevalent in other places.

The problem here is the 19th century rejection of a Natural Order. Before Nietschean Supermen decried the herd mentality, it would not have been thought a negative trait to conform to the majority or follow authority. The idea was that as there is a natural order, a Way, or a Stoic Fate, it would be foolish to oppose it. The idea was to accept your situation, as the majority of mankind does, and in this way achieve harmony.

The Enlightenment took this further, by positting Social Contracts and their ilk, as they still acknowledged a Natural Law which man is beholden too. This is where Voltaire's "If there was no God, he'd have to be invented" lies. It is only once man 'goes it alone', rejects value as only subjectively ascribed, that a Herd Mentality, Sheeple, becomes pejorative. Now it is about the Superman rising above the artificial fetters of social forms and moral order, and to choose his own way. Where to 'be yourself' is a positive virtue. I don't know about you, but 'myself' is often abhorrent.

This has created an idea that rejecting authority, of rebelling, is in and of itself a positive trait - regardless of what is rebelled against. You must 'think for yourself', not critically review the intellectual tradition and stand on the shoulders of those that came before. If we choose to adhere to 'old-fashioned' notions, people are seen as reactionary or indoctrinated or what have you, making a shibboleth of what is novel and contrariness. This is the impulse that made Blake lift Milton's Satan to a Hero, of the Hipster eating Ethiopian instead of a burger, of making the New better than the Old. The fallacious idea that change is always progress, that we are moving forward to some dialectic paradise by cutting off the branches everything is sitting upon.

Perhaps related is the idea of Bad Faith, that we fail ourselves and achieve existential angst by mirroring ourselves in other people. If society is merely 'Sheeple', then I can embrace my 'flaws', and make them into virtues - as I only ascribe my own subjective value after all. We only don't do so from social sanction, Sartre's Hell is other people, so thus making my own desires and wants paramount. This is the Do as thou Wilt of Crowley, a more Satanic viewpoint I have never heard before.

For Satan tempted Eve by becoming 'as gods', meaning self-sufficient and not dependant upon the greater - wherein lies Pride, Selfishness and inability to differentiate Good action from Evil. For then All things are Lawful, if I can decide what is the Law, as Ivan Karamazov said - hence Dostoyevsky had the Devil come calling in his delirium.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It's bcause of the story of the scapegoat in the Bible.

And an EXCELLENT read on sheep is a book called, A Shepherd Looks at Psalm 23, by Phillip Keller.

I disagree. The Scapegoat is a precursor of Christ's Atonement.

I'd rather ascribe it to the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. There is also Pan and Silvanus, semi-goat Libertine gods of classical times. They literally embody many ideas of what came to be considered Sin - such as druken revelry and orgiastic goings on. They certainly played a significant part in the development of demonic imagery, I would think.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I wrote this on Satan in another thread:

I don't particularly care for the concept of the devil, but it is clearly there in the NT. Baudelaire said that a good trick of the devil was convincing people he didn't exist. There is more truth here than I feel comfortable with.

One of the best literary treatments of the devil is in Brothers Karamazov by Dostoyevsky. He lurks throughout in vague allusions and oaths by characters, before jumping to life in front of the 'atheistic' Ivan. Even here he isn't definitely corporeal, but our evil actions, our 'mutiny against God', makes us reject the world as given us by God. Or in CS Lewis' Perelandra, where the 'Bent One' torments Ransom, but almost in a petty way, like an uncouth school bully.

The devil is clearly closely connected to us, as in "get thee behind me, Satan", so perhaps he should be seen as an embodiment of human rebellion against God? What metaphysical connection this has to an entity, would always remain speculative. I wouldn't be surprised if the devil lurks in the collective unconscious.

Christianity is not a dualistic religion though, so the devil doesn't matter. What matters is faith in Christ. While there are forms of Atonement like Christus Victor that cite the devil, others do not, and Salvation need not be seen in such terms - in fact, such strongly dualistic thinking has historically been considered heresy.
Whether conceptualised as an entity, an archetype, a personification of Sin, or what have you - calling upon the name of the Lord, trusting in God, would exorcise it all the same.

To add specifically here, Peter was told to "get thee behind me, Satan" and Judas called a devil. Our failures are our own responsibility. We are beholden to our own sins.

This is why Dostoyevsky's treatment in Brothers Karamazov is so good. The Devil literally tells Ivan that he wants to "light a candle in Church like a merchant's wife". He says he wants to do good, so 'writes in the critical section'. For evil is not a real thing in itself, but a corruption of good. Even utterly evil acts are done for a 'good'. The murderer is chasing an inheritance or a feeling, the Holocaust or Gulags for a presumed future utopia. It is the ends justifies the means, in a way.
This is why an absolute dualism fails. Evil is an attempt to get a good thing by a short-cut, or try to gain something that is not yours to gain.

The Devil might be real that Ivan is seeing or conversing with, or might just be his own lowest and stupidest impulses. He tells Ivan things he knows, but also seems to invent things. The Devil himself is trying to get Ivan to believe he is real, by supplying reasoning for the latter and why he might not be. Man doesn't want a devil, for he wants to be his own god. "I know it is reactionary to believe in God, but surely you can believe in the devil?".

 

[AV1611VET]

I wrote this on Satan in another thread:

The devil is a fallen angel.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I wrote this on Satan in another thread:

"My dear friend, above all things I want to behave like a gentleman and to be recognized as such,” the visitor began in an excess of deprecating and simple-hearted pride, typical of a poor relation. “I am poor, but ... I won't say very honest, but ... it's an axiom generally accepted in society that I am a fallen angel. I certainly can't conceive how I can ever have been an angel. If I ever was, it must have been so long ago that there's no harm in forgetting it. Now I only prize the reputation of being a gentlemanly person and live as I can, trying to make myself agreeable. I love men genuinely, I've been greatly calumniated! Here when I stay with you from time to time, my life gains a kind of reality and that's what I like most of all." - The Brothers Karamazov, by Fyodor Dostoyevsky.

The scene is written ambigiously, that the devil might be real or only Ivan's hallucination, an external entity or an internal creation - or perhaps both.

 

[AV1611VET]

"... it's an axiom generally accepted in society that I am a fallen angel."

And according to Fyodor Dostoyevsky, what did said visitor do to warrant such a moniker?

I don't think this Fyodor Dostoyevsky realized that angels are a class of created beings outside the realm of humans.

If I was a fallen angel, I'd be ticked.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Adversarial figures in dualist (and quasi-dualist) world views have the pretty straightforward function of explaining the fact that things go wrong all the time in spite of the supposed presence of an all-good, all-just deity.
So when proto-Judaism went from "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil" to "God is all good and just, and not responsible for any evil", it was only natural to introduce a new evildoer.

Judaism proper eventually figured out that the whole concept of a "fallen angel" or supernatural enemy of God does not gel with monotheism, so their version of Satan is neither fallen nor God's adversary, but an enemy of MAN: God's quality tester, so to speak.

Christianity and its descendants stuck to the (possibly Zoroastrian-inspired) formula of a genuine rebellion in heaven, however, even if it makes little sense in the face of God's omnipotence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Adversarial figures in dualist (and quasi-dualist) world views have the pretty straightforward function of explaining the fact that things go wrong all the time in spite of the supposed presence of an all-good, all-just deity.

How does "all-good, all-just" prevent things from going wrong all the time?

That's like saying it is Greg Mathis' job to stop crime.

And what do you mean the "adversarial figure" has the function of explaining it?

Are you suggesting it is Satan's job to explain why things go wrong?

 

[dlamberth]

I think the ego can be an adversary.

What makes our ego so different from other creatures on Earth may be the consequences of being conscious. Is consciousness the true adversary? The Biblical myth story of Adam and Eve's fall seems to head in that direction.

 

[Chesterton]

What makes our ego so different from other creatures on Earth may be the consequences of being conscious. Is consciousness the true adversary? The Biblical myth story of Adam and Eve's fall seems to head in that direction.

I think human consciousness enables us to know good and evil, and to be able to choose to do good or evil in the way animals can't. So I wouldn't say it is the adversary, but it's a tool which makes us aware of the potential for evil, while enabling us with the ability to choose evil.

 

[Eyes wide Open]

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.

My religion is my life, so no, there are no adversarial figures, only aspects of my own personality that can be an obstruction, or my own internal dialogue and fears (negative self talk) that can create an essence where I become my own adversary, holding me back from connecting and expressing myself fully.


The way I see it, Satan, the devil, are descriptive words relating to early psychology and our desire to understand ourselves. Those words were probably of more benefit in their original language with the applied teaching than they are today.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

How does "all-good, all-just" prevent things from going wrong all the time?

Think about it.
You are all-powerful and all-knowing.
You design a universe.
Don't you think said universe would be *exactly* what you want it to be, instead of a battleground where a significant portion of everything is falling apart and very much NOT what you want and intend?

In other words, if there was an all-powerful deity, and said deity didn't want parasitic worms that eat the eyes of children to exist, then said worms would not exist.
The ancient Israelites were very unsentimental about this. Their God created good and evil, and even getting on his good side was a mixed blessing.
In a way, modern Jews are, too, because to them, Satan is an agent of God, not His adversary.

That's like saying it is Greg Mathis' job to stop crime.

I didn't even know who Greg Mathis is until I googled him, but really, you could have named anyone here. If Greg Mathis knew of every crime that was happening (potentially even before it happened), had the power to prevent it from happening or to completely eliminate the harm done to the victim, and yet did nothing except punish the perpetrator at some later point, he'd at the VERY least be charged with denial of assistance, potentially even abetting.

And what do you mean the "adversarial figure" has the function of explaining it?

Are you suggesting it is Satan's job to explain why things go wrong?

You really *are* literally-minded, aren't you? He's not explaining it, he's the explanation: "Bad things happen to good people" and "God loves us, wants to protect us and is all-powerful" clash? "Satan did it!"

 

[AV1611VET]

Jane, are you having trouble remembering what you said?

Let me refresh your memory:

Adversarial figures in dualist (and quasi-dualist) world views have the pretty straightforward function of explaining the fact that things go wrong all the time in spite of the supposed presence of an all-good, all-just deity.

Then when I respond to your post as you wrote it:

How does "all-good, all-just" prevent things from going wrong all the time?

You switch the premises:

Think about it.
You are all-powerful and all-knowing.

What gives here?

I'd like to know how the presence of an all-good, all-just deity means that things should be having the "pretty straightforward function of explaining the fact that things go wrong all the time."

Suppose said deity didn't want to explain it? what then?

And it's obvious to me you're not talking about JEHOVAH here, as you said "adversarial figure."

So you must be referring to Satan, in my opinion.

And Satan is not a deity, he is a fallen angel.

I'm confused here with what it is you want.