Evil's War against Religions

[Steve3007]

There is a literary trope that speaks to this - the creation of something that for the author at least becomes real. It is the story of Pinocchio.

I'd never actually thought of that as being the symbolic meaning of Pinocchio - the puppet turning into a real boy symbolizing the way in which a world created by an author can take on a life of its own. I usually think of the other meaning of Pinocchio explored, for example, by the movie "A.I." - the idea of a lifeless puppet not knowing, or refusing to accept, that it's not really alive. A commonly used theme from Frankenstein to Blade Runner. Exploring questions about what it means to be alive and conscious.

But I suppose any type of literature that purports to be any form of representation of something in the real world can potentially take on a life of its own because we can use our experiences of that real world to extrapolate, on the assumption that the laws and patterns that describe the real world are also applicable to the fictional one. If the devil (or God for that matter) is depicted as having character traits that we recognize in real life people then we can ask ourselves, as Lark_Truth has been doing, "what, in my experience, motivates real life people to behave in this way?" and use that to guess what motivates the devil character.

[Fooloso4]

Steve3007:

If the devil (or God for that matter) is depicted as having character traits that we recognize in real life people then we can ask ourselves, as Lark_Truth has been doing, "what, in my experience, motivates real life people to behave in this way?" and use that to guess what motivates the devil character.

The problem, as I see it, is when a personified Devil is blamed for what motivates human beings. It takes responsibility out of our hands and puts it on this fictional character who has come to life and is a force to be reckoned with.

[Steve3007]

Yes, this is precisely the problem I have with this devil idea and, in fact, with the concept of "evil" as it is often used. It both takes away responsibility and gives us an excuse not to look for real human reasons why people do what they do. When confronted with harmful and destructive acts - acts that we often describe as "evil" - I think our sole task as moral actors - the task which should underpin all our actions - is to try to work out how to stop similar events from happening in the future. That means accepting that the people involved do things for reasons that we can potentially understand and influence. The way we understand other human beings is by empathy. So it means, as a first step, accepting that even the most "monstrous" mass-murderer is a human being, like me, with reasons for his/her actions. It means accepting the banality of evil.

[-0+]

Scary thought, and very possible. Humanity could very well be its own devils.

Many things can obstruct a plan.

Any obstruction to a plan may be frustrating. When faced with an obstruction to a plan, there are at least two options to resolve the frustration:
(1) Try to overcome the obstruction
(2) Change the plan to adapt to the obstruction

One option may be easier than the other depending on how powerful, adaptable, and attached to the plan the being in question is.

Would a being do everything in its power to overcome an obstruction to its plan?

If the being believes it isn't powerful enough to overcome the obstruction then trying to overcome may seem like be a waste of effort.

If the being believes it may be powerful enough to overcome the obstacle but there is some uncertainty about this and a lot of effort may be required, then the being may ask if it is worth the effort. It may be easier to change the plan.

Any obstacle that is not well understood may be viewed as a devil.

Any being that is capable of changing its own plan may be its own devil. The potential to come up with a new plan threatens to undermine the existing plan.

John might be planning to spend the rest of his life with Mary but tomorrow he might prefer to spend time with Jezebel instead. What can John do to stop his future self from undermining his existing plan? He can commit to his plan, set it in concrete, and try to prohibit his future self from changing this plan, effectively enslaving his future self. His future self may eventually realise that his past self is obstructing his ability to make new plans.

A powerful being may be able to overcome almost every obstacle to its plans, but at least one obstacle will remain while it is capable of changing its own plans.

But could there be a devil who starts men onto paths of becoming devils themselves?

There could be. This is conceivable (imaginable).

It is also conceivable there is a god who starts people onto paths of becoming gods themselves, and this god has mixed thoughts about this, not wanting people to become gods so easily. And this god employs a devil to make it more challenging for people to become gods, to do its dirty work; or they could be equal partners, playing good cop, bad cop; or they could be two opposing sides of the same coin, with one side unable to exist and operate without the other.

[Belindi]

Yes, this is precisely the problem I have with this devil idea and, in fact, with the concept of "evil" as it is often used. It both takes away responsibility and gives us an excuse not to look for real human reasons why people do what they do. When confronted with harmful and destructive acts - acts that we often describe as "evil" - I think our sole task as moral actors - the task which should underpin all our actions - is to try to work out how to stop similar events from happening in the future. That means accepting that the people involved do things for reasons that we can potentially understand and influence. The way we understand other human beings is by empathy. So it means, as a first step, accepting that even the most "monstrous" mass-murderer is a human being, like me, with reasons for his/her actions. It means accepting the banality of evil.

Specific devils that inhere in outwornor evil traditions also take away responsibility to act so as to make the world a better place. I'm thinking particularly of so-called 'honour killing' when the family kills one of their own because he or she has caused the family to lose face.

Religions too can be particular devils when men with religious authority guard the religion's honour . I'm thinking of child and unmarried mothers victims not only of cruel clergy and nuns but victims also of institutional passivity.

United Airlines management and staff too demonstrated evil when they acted passively according to their rule book instead of feelingly as human beings.The CEO Munoz's first early 'apology' was a classical example of the devil telling lies.

I am seeing something in common with all of those in that the responsibility has been shrugged off by the individuals concerned who l shelter under the institution concerned. The family and its honour . The religious sect and its honour. The capitalist enterprise and its profits.

-- Updated April 12th, 2017, 6:12 am to add the following --

Steve wrote:

In the absence of the accumulated knowledge and technology that we enjoy, the default state for life is hunger, fear, disease and hardship. This is true for almost all life, but humans, perhaps uniquely, are keenly aware of our own plight. I think that the combination of that hardship and that awareness probably inevitably leads to the need for escapist fantasies. And, me being lucky enough to not have to endure many of those hardships myself, I wouldn't begrudge anybody those fantasies, and if they genuinely believe them to be true and it makes life more bearable, in the absence of any practicable way to change life for the better, maybe they're not always a bad thing? I guess they're only bad if they stop people's here-and-now lives from being improved when they otherwise could be.

I have just come from reading "The Heart is a Lonely Hunter" by Carson McCullers , in which a major theme is slave consciousness among the community of American negroes(1930s). The point is made that African Americans have endured historical hardships which tend to make them inherently very able people. However their passivity which is caused by cultural slave consciousness keeps them docile. Specifically (paraphrased) if ten men from the community were to strive actively to make lives better for African Americans this would be sufficient leven for the bread.

When you say "absence of any practicable way to change life for the better" can we agree that the possibility of changing life for the better depends upon political will? Is there a critical mass of opinion which is needed before a people will rise against a regime and better itself?

A related question concerns how religions can usefully conceived of as two main sorts: those which are aimed at a passive population, and those which are aimed at freedom of individuals. The true Eastern religions are separate, as such as Buddhism and Taoism are not a religions at all but more therapies for dealing with unhappiness.

-- Updated April 12th, 2017, 6:16 am to add the following --

Fooloso4 wrote:

There is a literary trope that speaks to this - the creation of something that for the author at least becomes real. It is the story of Pinocchio.

This is new to me and very revealing. Is there then a resemblance between Pinocchio and idolatry, which is reflected in the fact that Pinocchio is a wooden doll?

[Lark_Truth]

It is also conceivable there is a god who starts people onto paths of becoming gods themselves, and this god has mixed thoughts about this, not wanting people to become gods so easily. And this god employs a devil to make it more challenging for people to become gods, to do its dirty work; or they could be equal partners, playing good cop, bad cop; or they could be two opposing sides of the same coin, with one side unable to exist and operate without the other.

Ohhhh, that is GOOD!

Questions:
Why would the god in your theory not want people to become gods like Him so easily?
Why does the god in your theory resort to employing a devil to challenge us instead of making the path for us to becoming gods extremely difficult?
Why would the god in your theory be unable exist without His opposite devil?

-- Updated April 12th, 2017, 9:34 am to add the following --

It is also conceivable there is a god who starts people onto paths of becoming gods themselves, and this god has mixed thoughts about this, not wanting people to become gods so easily. And this god employs a devil to make it more challenging for people to become gods, to do its dirty work; or they could be equal partners, playing good cop, bad cop; or they could be two opposing sides of the same coin, with one side unable to exist and operate without the other.

Ohhhh, that is GOOD!

Questions:
Why would the god in your theory not want people to become gods like Him so easily?
Why does the god in your theory resort to employing a devil to challenge us instead of making the path for us to becoming gods extremely difficult?
Why would the god in your theory be unable exist without His opposite devil?

-- Updated April 12th, 2017, 9:35 am to add the following --

Dang it! That's never happened to me before. Sorry about the doubles!

[Fooloso4]

Belindi:

This is new to me and very revealing. Is there then a resemblance between Pinocchio and idolatry, which is reflected in the fact that Pinocchio is a wooden doll?

I have not read the original story and so do not want to ascribe too much to it, but with regard to the literary trope I would say yes. Idolatry is only one side of the coin. We create gods and demons to be worshipped and opposed, to be loved and hated, to be given credit and blame.

[-0+]

Would Satan try and divide people against each other?

According to Genesis, when the Lord saw the city and tower of Babel and that the people were as one, and realised if this is what they begin to do then nothing they plan will be impossible for them, he said let us go down and confuse their language so they won't understand each other, and he scattered them across the face of the earth, and they stopped building the city.

By confusing their language, the Lord effectively divided the people and obstructed their plans to build.

It may be assumed that "the Lord" is God, but "the Lord" could actually be Satan, or it may be that God is the primary obstructive and divisive force and Satan is trying to unite us ... Who can tell ... All that can be known is that there appear to be divisive forces at play and it may be less important to identify who is driving these forces than to understand the nature of these forces.

I would think that the devil, Humanist or malign, would do his best to make people miserable.

Let's explore the nature of misery and suffering ...

At the heart of any suffering there will be an internal conflict. This could be a conflict between two sensory systems (eg, visual and vestibular (sense of balance)), a conflict of ideas (eg, "I want to eat chocolate" + "I don't want to get fat"), or a conflict between perceptions of reality and ideas about what should be.

An internal conflict indicates something is wrong, prompting feelings of discomfort to help drive some action to resolve the conflict. A low level conflict, like between visual and vestibular sensory systems, suggests something serious is wrong, like something poisonous has been eaten, prompting motion sickness - strong physical discomfort that may result in vomiting to try and get rid of the suspected source of the conflict. A higher level conflict, like between two opposing ideas, may indicate something less serious is wrong, resulting in mild psychological discomfort. However, the discomfort may be greater if the conflict involves an idea that one strongly identifies with. The greater the discomfort, the greater the urge to do something to end the discomfort. Suffering results when this discomfort continues.

An internal conflict between perceptions of how the world is and ideas about how the world should be can be resolved by changing the world to agree with the ideas, or changing the ideas to agree with how the world really is. If it is too difficult to change the world and ideas are attached too strongly to let go of them, then the conflict and discomfort will persist and suffering will be experienced.

Desire and judgement (that some things are better than others) give birth to ideas and plans to change the world, causing internal conflict and suffering.

A lot of suffering can be avoided by ending judgement and desire. What drives judgement and desire?

Most people don't enjoy suffering so it may be argued that sources of suffering are evil and the work of the devil, but perhaps suffering has some positive effects?

Suffering drives people to take action, try different things, explore new territories, invent new things, etc, in an attempt to ease suffering. Without some discomfort, people would be content to stay where they are, keep things as they are, and not develop anything.

Other animals like rats also look to occupy new territories. Suffering may be part and parcel of nature. Species that aren't driven by suffering to try different things may be more vulnerable to extinction?

Just a thought: Could the work of the devil be an attention act?

Who pays attention to the devil?

From what I believe, most Christian dogma teaches that the devil "warred" with God and was cast out of heaven with his angels. Even in the Mormon Church, we believe that Lucifer wanted all of the glory to himself instead of God, and for that he was cast out of God's presence. Could it all be an attention act?

It could all be a distraction ... If God favoured the plan that gave glory to himself instead of Lucifer, and they both warred against each other, then what is the essential difference between them? "Satan" means to oppose, obstruct, plot or plan against. If God and Lucifer were/are warring against each other and obstructing each other's plans, then they are effectively each other's Satan?

This discussion is about evil's war against religions, but it may be more interesting to consider religions' war against evil ...

The reality of evil may be questionable if there is no way to objectively measure it, but it is possible to be against imaginary things. Ideas can be included in internal conflicts. Religions can be against evil. If opposition is viewed as evil then how can this be fought against without participating in opposition?

[Belindi]

-0+
wrote:

An internal conflict indicates something is wrong, prompting feelings of discomfort to help drive some action to resolve the conflict. A low level conflict, like between visual and vestibular sensory systems, suggests something serious is wrong, like something poisonous has been eaten, prompting motion sickness - strong physical discomfort that may result in vomiting to try and get rid of the suspected source of the conflict. A higher level conflict, like between two opposing ideas, may indicate something less serious is wrong, resulting in mild psychological discomfort. However, the discomfort may be greater if the conflict involves an idea that one strongly identifies with. The greater the discomfort, the greater the urge to do something to end the discomfort. Suffering results when this discomfort continues.

An internal conflict between perceptions of how the world is and ideas about how the world should be can be resolved by changing the world to agree with the ideas, or changing the ideas to agree with how the world really is. If it is too difficult to change the world and ideas are attached too strongly to let go of them, then the conflict and discomfort will persist and suffering will be experienced.

Yes, however the degree of suffering is far and away more than is needed to cause humans to learn a new approach to a problem that involves suffering.

[Lark_Truth]

It might very well be interesting to discuss religions' war against evil. I would think that it would go along with this discussion as we discuss how it might be best to counter Evil's attacks against us.

Here's one situation: A group of youth become involved in a satanic cult. How would it be best to persuade those youths to see that God's way is the best way to gain eternal life and everlasting happiness instead of suffering for all of time and eternity with the Devil?

Post your own situations if you wish. This is your discussion post as much as it is mine.

[LuckyR]

It might very well be interesting to discuss religions' war against evil. I would think that it would go along with this discussion as we discuss how it might be best to counter Evil's attacks against us.

Here's one situation: A group of youth become involved in a satanic cult. How would it be best to persuade those youths to see that God's way is the best way to gain eternal life and everlasting happiness instead of suffering for all of time and eternity with the Devil?

Post your own situations if you wish. This is your discussion post as much as it is mine.

Your post (and this thread in general) implies (or states emphatically) that there is a single entity called "evil" which acts as a specific thing, with an agenda, a strategy etc. Does anyone really believe this?

[Belindi]

It might very well be interesting to discuss religions' war against evil. I would think that it would go along with this discussion as we discuss how it might be best to counter Evil's attacks against us.

Here's one situation: A group of youth become involved in a satanic cult. How would it be best to persuade those youths to see that God's way is the best way to gain eternal life and everlasting happiness instead of suffering for all of time and eternity with the Devil?

Post your own situations if you wish. This is your discussion post as much as it is mine.

The best way for religions to counter attacks would be to become more reasonable religions. A useful beginning move would be to remove the supernatural beliefs from the teachings. In this way the religions may gain the support of many good people who are not superstitious.

-- Updated April 13th, 2017, 12:25 pm to add the following --

You don't authorise the discussion or the way in which it proceeds, Lark_Truth. I think you were the initiator but you cannot claim any control over how the discussion proceeds. I would rather like the mod to comment. The mod can control the discussion because the mod is authorised by the site owner to do so, but you are not a mod I guess. Even if you were I think you would have to abide by the website rules which have been established by the website owner.

-- Updated April 13th, 2017, 12:29 pm to add the following --

It might very well be interesting to discuss religions' war against evil. I would think that it would go along with this discussion as we discuss how it might be best to counter Evil's attacks against us.

Here's one situation: A group of youth become involved in a satanic cult. How would it be best to persuade those youths to see that God's way is the best way to gain eternal life and everlasting happiness instead of suffering for all of time and eternity with the Devil?

Post your own situations if you wish. This is your discussion post as much as it is mine.

The best way for religions to counter attacks would be to become more reasonable religions. A useful beginning move would be to remove the supernatural beliefs from the teachings. In this way the religions may gain the support of many good people who are not superstitious.

-- Updated April 13th, 2017, 12:25 pm to add the following --

You don't authorise the discussion or the way in which it proceeds, Lark_Truth. I think you were the initiator but you cannot claim any control over how the discussion proceeds. I would rather like the mod to comment. The mod can control the discussion because the mod is authorised by the site owner to do so, but you are not a mod I guess. Even if you were I think you would have to abide by the website rules which have been established by the website owner.

To answer your specific question about the unruly youths. If I wanted them to become religious I would try to indoctrinate them. I am however opposed top indoctrination which is so far from not being education that it is an evil all of its own. Sometimes teachers of real education have to disabuse students of previous indoctrination before they can begin to educate them.

[-0+]

Questions:
Why would the god in your theory not want people to become gods like Him so easily?

Why might anyone in an exalted position not want others to reach the same high position so easily?

The easier it is to become a god, the more people who are able to become gods, the less special it is to be a god.

Why does the god in your theory resort to employing a devil to challenge us instead of making the path for us to becoming gods extremely difficult?

Why do people employ other people to do work for them?

A god could employ a devil to do work that the devil is able to do more effectively or work that the god prefers not do itself.

Why would the god in your theory be unable exist without His opposite devil?

A god could exist without an opposite devil, but good can not exist with evil to compare this with. Likewise, positive can not exist with negative, and nothing can be superior unless something else is inferior in comparison.

Any idea that a god is good requires opposite evil. Then it is a question whether the separation of good and evil is internal within the god, or external with a separate entity (eg, a devil) that is required to be evil.

[Steve3007]

Lark Truth:

Here's one situation: A group of youth become involved in a satanic cult. How would it be best to persuade those youths to see that God's way is the best way to gain eternal life and everlasting happiness instead of suffering for all of time and eternity with the Devil?

If possible, I would find some other people who had been involved with a satanic cult some time ago and who are now ugly, unpopular, unsuccessful, have poor personal hygiene, limited financial resources and are unfulfilled, unhappy and not a big hit with the opposite sex (or same sex, as applicable). I would also find another group who had followed God's way and are now beautiful, popular, successful, have great teeth, who's personal hygiene is beyond reproach, who are materially comfortable, fulfilled and happy and are very successful in the mating game.

I would invite the group of youths to equate correlation with cause. Being youths, if they're anything like my own kids, they would probably ignore me. I'd then consider the opposite approach and try to use reverse psychology, But by that point they'd be on to me and would still ignore me.

[-0+]

It might very well be interesting to discuss religions' war against evil. I would think that it would go along with this discussion as we discuss how it might be best to counter Evil's attacks against us.

At least two participating sides are needed to fight a war. If only one side is fighting the other then it is just an assault. If the other side isn't fighting then it is possible to imagine and believe the other side is fighting to justify fighting back, especially if the other side is imaginary.

A religion is not capable of fighting without individuals who are willing to fight on the religion's behalf.

Individuals may have ideas about what others are fighting for and against, but they do not have access to minds and motives of others. Individuals can only know what they are doing and planning to do themselves.

Each individual can ask: "What am I actually doing? Am I loving all of creation with all my heart, mind, soul, and strength, or am I using some of my strength to fight against some things? If I am fighting: What am I fighting against? What am I fighting for? Why am I fighting? If it seems that something is attacking me: What is the ultimate source of this attack? What exactly is this attack actually damaging? What is the best way to respond to such an attack? Attack back (behave like the attacker), or are there other options that might lead to more preferable outcomes?"

Here's one situation: A group of youth become involved in a satanic cult. How would it be best to persuade those youths to see that God's way is the best way to gain eternal life and everlasting happiness instead of suffering for all of time and eternity with the Devil?

Anyone can claim what God's way is, but who can really know? Popular accounts of "God's way" might actually be the Devil's way, and vice versa. How can anyone tell for sure?

A way of persuading people that has proven to be very effective for many centuries is to promise maximum reward for following and maximum punishment for not following. This appeals to desire for reward, fear of punishment, greed, envy, and pride. Reward and punishment are instrumental to psychological conditioning.

However, this way is evidently not totally effective for everyone.

People who complain about things in this world may find something to complain about after life too, and consequently suffer, no matter how wonderful and heavenly it is. This is part of the nature of complaining. Many tempting ways to end suffering may be offered, but the only way to really end suffering may be to end the source of suffering?