No Place For the Devil? Why? (page 2)

peacefulpete

no devil is necessary for that.

No talking flying snakes, no Adam, no Eve, no Eden, no Elohim is necessary for that.

Here is my two cents for what it's worth. The Christian need to believe that "evil" is incarnate in the Devil is that they spring from a dualistic religious philosophy ala Zoroastrianism (a Persian religion that predates Christianity and rivals Judaism having been born about 3200 years ago). In Zoroastrianism, there is good (the creative spirit) in direct opposition is Angra Mainyu (the hostile spirit). It is the need to see the potential for evil as something they can separate from themselves (i.e., I am not even capable of doing what Hitler did because that potentiality does not exist in me--it exists in "other"). When, in my opinion, the potentiality exists equally in all things--which ultimately are No-thing. Confused? Yea, me too.

Of note, Judaism did not have any reference other than the poetic work of Job (the rabbis, incidentally do NOT take this book literally--they view it as a piece of poetry ala the Odyssey) to a personified Satan. There is, instead, Yetzer Ha Ra (the evil inclination in all of us) which rivals or more accurately balances out the Yetzer Tov. A midrashic tale is told of a group of rabbis in a village when it was rocked by sexual scandal prayed to have all Yetzer Ha Ra removed. All woke the next morning and there was absolutely NO productivity (no reason to milk the cows--the cows gave no milk, no eggs produced, no reason to get out of bed) until Yetzer Ha Ra was restored. It is man's drive (mostly sexual in nature) that makes the world go round according to the rabbis. One cannot have one without the other. Yetzer Ha Ra left unchecked, the revs say, mankind would be like an ocean of fish, one swallowing the other until nothing was left. Later, the rabbis did add a personification of Satan but it is not widely accepted that Satan is a real person opposed yet created by God.

Now, what fascinates me even more is how we come to the mythos and imagery of devil from a Christian POV. He mirrors Pan, the greek god of LUST. Also the horned hunting god of the Celts, Cernnunos. Horned, horney, cloven hooved, seductive shepherd/hunting gods always out to seduce the nymphs (and anything else). The Christian repugnance for sex, lust and paganism got all wrapped up in one. They launched a successful campaign to demonize sex and paganism by putting the face of their god on evil. Whatever that is.

~Brigid

daystar

Brigid

Brigid

Aaaah, how I bask in thy approval, my dark master....

~Brigid

Narkissos

Great post Brigid.

Just one detail remark:

Of note, Judaism did not have any reference other than the poetic work of Job (the rabbis, incidentally do NOT take this book literally--they view it as a piece of poetry ala the Odyssey) to a personified Satan.

There is also Zechariah 3 which, like the Prologue of Job, refers to the satan -- a functional title rather than a personal name: the satan is actually a servant of Yhwh, who acts in the role of prosecutor (or witness for the prosecution): he is a potential enemy of man, not an enemy of Yhwh. And the use of the plural (the satans) in 1 Enoch suggests that several members of Yhwh's "court" may have played this role.

Only in 2 Chronicles 21 (rewriting 2 Samuel 24) does Satan (anarthrous, possibly taken as a personal name for the first time) acts as the direct cause of sin (instead of Yhwh in 2 Samuel).

Some discussion here: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/67503/1.ashx

Brigid

Wow, Narkissos! I bow to your obviously superior knowledge on said subject! Where have you done your studying and with whom?

Well, I'm having guests over tonight! You guys have a great weekend!!!!

~Brigid

Inquisitor

Hellrider

The snake that tempted Adam and Eve was not the Devil???

Where did you read that? Link me up with the thread?

INQ

peacefulpete

Inquisitor, The Genesis story is rather obviously an adaptation of preexisting myth. The Ashera (woman) associations with trees and serpants probably lies at the root. The "rib" element may have come from the Babylonian version of the same mythos wherein the goddess' name which is Ninurna (rib) heals the man's side after being struck for eating the food reserved for the gods. The snake/snakes in many of these myths winged (also source of seraphim imagery) which explains the part about being cursed to stay on the ground. NonCanonical Jewish works explicitly say the serpant was winged. Naturally as Jewish thought became more sophisticated the ancient imagery changed meaning with it. As has been discussed recently Satan as an arch rival to God is a rather later development within Judaism and to this day is not popular. The writer of the section of Rev. that identifies a "Satan" as the "original/ancient serpant" was adapting the myth to his theology not revealing some secret hidden for the 700 years since the Tree story.

Inquisitor

Thanks for the feedback, peacefulpete.

Though i must say, I've always been skeptical about associating one myth with another. I mean, does the fact that the babylonians have a similar myth to the Genesis story necessarily mean that one myth contributed to another? Wouldn't that be the same method of association that the WTS employs in labelling the Trinity doctrine a pagan teaching?

INQ

peacefulpete

Wouldn't that be the same method of association that the WTS employs in labelling the Trinity doctrine a pagan teaching?

And?

Of course Christianity's Trinity was an adaptation of earlier mythos. No religion is born in a vaccum. In the case of the Trinity it took generations of Christians to formulate their Christology to meet the intellectual necessity. The Trinity is a very sophisticated solution to some perennial problems with monotheism. It seems each generation is capable of only very few original ideas. More often pioneers in theology or any other pursuit adapt and modify the familar out of some necessity.

No Place For the Devil? Why?

Share this