Finding the Devil in the Post

I do not "dismiss into Hell" all those who disagree with me.

People can no more dismiss people into hell, then they can declare a walrus to be a gorilla.

No human has the job, because "going to hell" is a reflection of reality, not a mere reward or punishment at the end of a game.

People live in time and make choices. These choices impact their souls (as Plato saw) and then they die. The soul lives on after death (see J.P. Moreland's "Body and Soul" for some arguments for the soul). At that point it lives where it must.

Hell is the place for those who cannot endure the pleasure of paradise. They are not ready for it. Who will be there? Those who want to be based on their choices in this life.

For more on this doctrine, one might see Moreland or C.S. Lewis.

As for a "condescending" tone, I would be sorry to have it and know my limitations as a writer (and of these com boxes). I hope folk will read me as charitably as I read their comments. . . disagree with arguments or point me to good books.

I am always looking to learn.

John Mark

Hello Kert1,

I am glad that you are an ally of Mr. Reynolds and believe similarly. Your posts have been intellegent and your belief and heart are apparent, and that is a beautiful thing.

I do not negate or seek to degrade belief in God. I believe in God and have since I was very young. My belief is markedly different than the common evangelical stance, indeed christianity in general. I take issue with exclusivity. This is where I have been challenged by Mr. Reynolds in the past, as well as many who profess belief in some form of divinity. Mr. Reynolds has said time and time again that he and fellow evangelicals are correct, and that others are wrong. Show me how. Bibles do not count, as they are suspect compilations of story, written without corroboration or substantiation. Ditto with the Qu'ran, Torah, Gita...

No God is validated, even as we believe in God. Negation of others beliefs because they are different than ones own is plainly arrogant, not to mention grossly presumptuous.

In many ways I like the essays of Mr. Reynolds. I appreciate his mind as well as his love of the God that he perceives and his heart with it. But he dismisses into "Hell" those that believe differently that he does. Perhaps Mr. Reynolds gets posts that are condescending because he is.

John Mark,
Thank for you insightful blog. I for one think believe most of what you have written and thank you for giving reasonable logic. I may be the only one it appears from the posts.

What I can’t quite understand is how you have the stomach and time to answer all these questions. Especially when most are very condescending. It is one thing to disagree but it another to claim you are flat out wrong and don’t use your brain. And that is one of the nicer posts.

Obviously blogs aren’t about dogma. They are about discussion and sharing our beliefs. I learn much from both sides but I am just growing weary of the near constant anger that is expressed. It’s just not fun to discuss ideas when you become a target. I don’t know how you do it but keep up the good work. God bless.

Of course Satan exists, just like all gods, ghosts, angels, and other pretty wingy things exist ... as beliefs in the minds of the people who believe in them.

John Mark's belief is a good example.

If you don't believe me, just ask them!

Hello Paganplace,

I came to recognize that I was having trouble for a 'bad' word that I didn't think would be considered unacceptable. I should have known that bi-itch would be reason for rejection. But it makes no sense. I call my dogs that thirty times a day...

It is just one more proof that dogs are unconditional lovers. Many humans by comparison just suck. Meaning to blow, backwards. Just to be clear.

"I am just catching up with what has been discussed here. Seems that Paganplace has been busy at the keyboard, no joke. You as well."

Well, Gods forbid anyone should take some time to discuss matters, eh? You can call someone Satanic in a fart. Nuance, as certain preachers and media always complain, takes time and attention.

The post length limits are mostly to frustrate those who'll cut and paste half the Bible across every thred on the site.

To wit, trolls.

But, hey, perhaps Mr. Reynolds will return, perhaps meet some of these folks he tries to soft-pedal justifications about telling the masses are 'Satanic.'

It could happen.

Mr. Reynolds,

I realize that a word in the last one was holding it up, so I made the adjustment. Hopefully this will go through easier.

I add to the chorus of appreciation for your involvement in discussion of your essay. It takes time and attention past the composing of your original opinion, and exposes you to plenty of opposition as well as the hope for communing with allies. Cheers!

I am just catching up with what has been discussed here. Seems that Paganplace has been busy at the keyboard, no joke. You as well.

I always check into your weekly addition. You get me riled up more than most, for various reasons, and with my attention invoked so I am sure to read your posts. I have fallen out of commenting on your thread for a bit. I don't take much to the fundamentalist position and have little stomach for it. As I have said on your thread often, it is far to exclusive, is not inclusive of other ways, self-righteous in the belief of being right with others obviously wrong, arrogant.... Oh hell, I could go on, but it would become just a rant.

I believe in God, whatever that is. Intelligent design makes sense to me, just definitely not in the form that Christians present it. So, I do not believe in God in the form that He is held by Christians, or many others for that matter. So Devil is a metaphor, to me. 'Evil' is real, as is Good. It is the way of the world. But the personification of Evil into a singular entity is dangerous, as it is dangerous to funnel All That Is Divine into a personified God. It diminishes the Divine Creative into a near human being so that we can wrap our tiny brains around the concept. It belittles Unity, or the One, that you call God.

The Devil is just humanizing Divinity as well, in my belief. It is a metaphor for the separation and individuation that humans experience. We know that there is something far greater than what we are experiencing of ourselves, as we are at the core a part or that Greatness, but don't live it. What you call the Fall, caused by Original Sin. Turning away from Union while individuated from it.

Mr. Reynolds,

the continuation of above post:

In the Devil we recognize the awareness that we are those that turned away from Union, but not wanting to take responsibility for it we give our choice to disregard God and place ourselves as sovereign to an imaginary Evil Entity. The devil made me do it. Eve was the Eve-il bit-ch that caused human suffering. Adam was hoodwinked, and hussy-whipped. Kill all snakes. Sex is evil. On and on without taking responsibility.

Mr. Reynolds,

the continuation of above post:

Humans, individuated and often divorced from Union with the Divine, find it easy to see everything as separate from themselves, themselves separate from Everything, label it all as friend or foe, right or wrong, truth or lie, and stand in judgment of it as if their perspective was truth.

Parts on and two are not being posted yet. Seems that one submission to this thread is too many, so I will have to wait to put them up. A shame, but hopefully a short lived one.

Part three:

It is therefore easy for man to consider God as they consider the rest of Creation. Individuated, with personality and human characteristics. Just as Greeks and Romans before, Sumerians and Egyptians before them, Christians personalize God and personalize the Devil.

It is a lie that your science of knowing God has force fed the masses for centuries. It is a lie that dis-empowers humanity rather than elevates humanity, because it encourages mediocrity and non-responsibility with their spiritual selves.

If all one need do is say Jesus is Savior, one need not work, in this life, to perfect themselves. To be forgiven in this case is to be damned. Personal spiritual responsibility is removed when admission into the afterlife is assured. Spiritual lethargy is the result, among other 'evils. Humanity goes asleep, spiritually speaking. And has.

This is your Devil, Mr. Reynolds. Science. Your science of knowing God. Leastwise the Abrahamic ones.

But then, that is where most of the culture of the Devil comes from, in todays world, no?

Please forgive my sarcasm or acidity here. I have gone through many beliefs on my spiritual journey, and being born again was no small part of it. I do not disbelieve in Jesus now at all, but my Jesus is not the one hoisted by evangelicals, or by the Catholics that I was born into. I resent the degradation of the message that I believe has been done for the empowerment of church and theology and the resultant disempowerment of the people. Current day fundamentalism in the world is the result of theocratic lies. The Devil...

Satan was created by Man in Man's image, just as much as the Cults of Abraham created their god in Man's image.

All of the Evil necessary to destroy the world and keep Humans killing each other for 2500 yrs exist satan in and jehovah/allah, as they were created by warlords, Abraham, Constantine and Mohammed.

The closest real thing to satan can be found on any Saturday or Sunday morning behind a pulpit, altar or on the floor of the mosque. If there were a satan he could do no better job than those cults priesthoods at keeping humans in darkness, ignorance and acting as vassals of greedy, power hungry men.

Until humanity stops making excuses for its nature and starts working through science and rational thought for fundamental change in its behavior, we will continue to act no different than humans of the past. Actually, humans were probably better before Abraham. Prehistory humans had to get along to some degree because life was just too hard before we learned from warlords how to steal others wealth with our armies of gods warriors.

There is no devil, no god, no nothing. The older I get, the closer I perceive humans to lower forms of animals. Missionary gumbo, yumbo yumbo yumbo. It is depressing these silly superstitions persist and will be here long after I die. Maybe if we had longer lifespans we wouldn't be such a silly race. That's it, lets work harder on that idea.

John Mark Reynolds

You did not understand my point.

My point is that there is really no such thing as knowledge. For no one knows what is true and what is not true. In every case, it is up to each one of us, as individuals, to judge what is true and what is not true.

We have our own sensory experiences, that convey information about the world, but even this information is not necessarily true. And then we have information from other people. Some of this information comes from religious texts, and some of it comes form scientific papers.

Your determination of what is true and what is not true is determined by the credence or credibility that you give to the various sources from which you acqire information. This all amounts to acquiring knowledge reflecrve of truth as an art.

Obviously, you are heavily reliant on sources of information that I would put into the category of "supersition" and I do not suppose that I will ever talk you out of any beliefs derived from these sources until you yourself make the necessary mental adjustments with regards to superstious belief.

And likewise, you do not extend a reasonable credibiliy to science, because it conflicts with your other beliefs, and you do not seem to understand it very well.

Having said all of that, it is my judgement in contrast to your own, that existence of Satan and the Devil has no credibility, and it in fact wildly absurd, to the point of being a silly belief.

I know right off the bat that anyone who believes in Satan has a criteria for the evalutaion of information as valid knowledge that is completely different, even alien from my own criteria for these things.

If that is your belief, then, as I said, I do not suppose there is anything that I can say to change it.

Oh. Also. Your neighbors would appreciate it if you'd be a little less casual about bandying your definitions of 'Devil' around, particularly when in concert with your idea of 'pagan.'

Some of the folks you pull the sheep clothing over do seem to get the wrong idea sometimes.

It's ....given to produce a certain discourteousness in your otherwise, I'm sure purely virtuous folk.

By the way, Mr. Reynolds:

"Satan's existence is suggested by human experience and the Bible and is confirmed by reading the Washington Post."

I submit that this is insufficient 'confirmation' for you to invoke Plato or whatever else you think you know to start telling other people you think you get to label my life 'evil' every week.

I do appreciate you showing signs of at least *trying* to read why you don't seem to get taken too seriously, here.

I'm gonna just put this out there, but, could you perhaps entertain the possibility that it's not so much about any ultimate evil in the universe 'persecuting your righteousness' as that you basically talk out your 'fundament' on a weekly basis?

Anyway. *Augustine?* Basis for being an authority on Paganism? Man thought yer Satan was responsible for women existing every time he got a stiffie.

Kinkier than a Himalayan slip n' slide.

Introduced the form of many of your neuroses about even *dreaming* about sex.

Also many spanking methods.

Gods.

Try again.

(Yep, actually, I do think Mr. Reynolds' column may have shorter post limits than most. Ironic given the long diatribe he just himself posted, but here we go:)

Mr. Reynolds, apparently, thinks so little of the religious path of millions, that he can claim some kind of 'former membership' while showing less than no understanding:

"Having been a pagan and because my favorite non-Biblical writer was a pagan (Plato), I know that not all pagans are followers of Satan either through misapplication. They are certainly not intentionally."

Ah, so, you're the 'ex-Pagan' who somehow neither learned to capitalize the religion as a proper name while believing that Pagans worship a 'misidentified' personification of your 'Satan?'

Or are you deliberately obfuscating the fact you have no idea what you mean when you say the word? Even if you claim to be an authority over millions of others?

Plato may have been a Pagan thinker...

His thoughts, however interesting, weren't really *about Pagan religion.* Tended to presume a unitary authority to an ordered world, actually, at least as translations have been permitted to come down to us, but they were about *thought,* less than what you monotheiss call 'theology,' in that way.

"The problems with paganism are many, but for me came down to the Incarnation."

Not a problem for Pagans, I assure you. Whoever told you they were teaching Paganism and said there was anything about someone being descended of a God and thus having some authority over everything.. .

I mean... I don't see any problem there that non-Pagans didn't demand.

I'm sure we'd get along with your Jesus fine. Just maybe say, 'What, you think cosmology is genetic or something? Talk to Atlas about that or sumfin.' :)

You trivialize other people's religions, sir, so dismissively claiming, 'Done that,' when you clearly have so little clue who and what you're talking about.

Mr. Reynolds, ...suddenly claiming he has 'authority' to say Pagans are 'misidentifying' *his* Satan, perhaps cause he's entered the lucrative profession of the 'Ex-witch Satanic Panic 'Occult Expert?'

Oh, nah, he just read some Plato. Now he knows *all about* my peoples. Yah.

" For an extended view of what paganism looked like to a thoughtful Christian at the time, I enjoy "City of God" by Saint Augustine."

Augustine didn't know 'Paganism.'

Augustine was tortured by his own penis, the idea of 'women,' (as minions of same 'Satan' and some really messed-up views of other humans. And decided to get a bunch of people to ritualize it.

These were the only dudes allowed to blog in their day. He wouldn't even make the crank file at Fox now. :)

Augustine was actually a major victim of the rationalism in Classical thought, once it was admixed with the fallacious idea of 'textual authority.'

An argument's only as good as its givens. And a *really* good one leads you to question them.

Not claim some authority to bypass accountability for them and call whatever you don't like, 'Influence of some ultimately-evil being.'

Plato probably wouldn't put up with that, once he realized you were just talking about a bad idea you credulously believe, not the application of virtue.

Frankly, sir, Pagan religion is not one and the same as the peripatetic school, or whatnot. These thinkers were part of a Pagan world, real and whole, not defined by books yer man Augustine and some others saw fit to preserve. :)

Pagans are real people again, now, Mr. Theologian. You can't just go saying, 'I Was A 'pagan,' like you know diddle about it, just cause maybe you figure it plays to claim you were 'bad' or 'benighted' at some previous point.

And if you wanna invoke Plato, don't base all that text on what you could clip out to misconstrue an argument.

This how you decided to believe that the fate of your soul depended on you deciding to believe something?

And you wanna start saying it's all about needing to associate me with *your* Satan?

Hrm.

Hi, Mr. Reynolds. A lot of stuff you left us here with. I do hope you read later, it's likely to be drowned out by all the usual 'Satanic accusations.'

But if you've dug back what's likely this far, here's a start:

"Of course, it is nonsense to say traditional Christians have mostly been wrong when they applied their beliefs. You list some things Christians did wrong, but give no credit for the things Western civilization did right."

You ignored my qualifiers, when you characterize my statement. When you apply your idea of 'evil' or 'Satan' in political or social ways, yes, you're near always *wrong.*

There is goodness in you, (even if you tend to try to take all credit for cultures that barely survived your rise to temporal power) ...but when you do good, it's almost invariably *in spite* of your dualistic impulses, if it's not, more often, really about putting your devils and judges aside and being as authentically-human as you can.

You pose the rest of the world, now, as somehow incapable of these emotions, and actions, cause you evince a need that all goodness comes from Christianity.

This is not so.

And certainly, all that comes from Christianity is *not* good. Most *especially* when you start invoking or projecting your 'Devil.'

This is Part 2 of my post since trying to send the entire thing at one time seems to cause it to be "held up".

Your second statement, "2. We have reasons from religious literature to think that the Devil exists." is equally problematic. As a former Christian, I've spent a lot of time reading the bible, reading books about the bible and attending bible study groups. Unfortunately, my personal research has convinced me that the bible is nothing more than a compilation of writings from dozens of people. I would need a separate thread and quite a few pages to present my evidence to you that has lead me to this conclusion. But suffice it to say that the bible is filled with contradictory, historically inaccurate events. Reading about where and how to purchase slaves while never finding in either the new or the old testaments a single definitive statement condemning slavery is just one of many dozens of examples of why the bible is morally suspect in addition to being historically inaccurate.

Alongside of Satan the bible is filled with other, fantastic creatures for which there is no realistic evidence. The idea that most mental illness is caused by demons or demonic possession would normally cause one to send for the professional help. However, when it comes to religion people can profess belief in the most incredible ideas – turning a wafer into flesh, building a boat big enough to house all known species that ever existed (including 39,000 species of beetles alone) and yet remain with the acceptance of society.

For this reason, the idea that the bible supports something the idea of Satan certainly provides no real justification anymore than it would to claim that a mental health professional should really look into demonic possession as one of the possible causes of mental illness.

Finally, you said “3. The existence of the Devil seems consistent with human history and in fact helps explains certain events”. Really? There is something that has been historically verified for which the devil represents the best explanation science can come up with? On the contrary, I can’t think of a single historical event that has been confirmed by reputable historians for which the best explanation is God. Can you name one event that has been historically verified for which the best explanation available is God?

Dear Mr. Reynolds,

I join DITLD in thanking you for clarifying your column and responding to questions and comments submitted in response to your original column. I also stand with Daniel in opposition to your conclusions simply because your column and subsequent clarifications, seem to provide no support other than "I believe".

Here are a couple of examples:
You said, "1. We have reasons from private experience to think the Devil exists."

This statement in and of itself certainly cannot be challenged. We have no way of knowing whether these private experiences were whispers in your ears, visions, dreams, etc. Using the California lottery analogy further, if I said to you "I have private reasons to believe I will win the lottery next week." you would have no basis from which to judge the truthfulness of that statement. Maybe I have inside information or I'm working with someone who works with the lottery commission or maybe I'm just hoping so much that it becomes real to me, almost like a divine revelation. How would you know based on my statement?

Dear Mr. Reynolds,

I join DITLD in thanking you for clarifying your column and responding to questions and comments submitted in response to your original column. I also stand with Daniel in opposition to your conclusions simply because your column and subsequent clarifications, seem to provide no support other than "I believe".

Part 1 added to see if it was a length issue.

Of course, I meant to type "no disrespect intended" by my failure to comment further.

When Mrs. Reed tried to improve my "keyboarding" skills I should have listened. Of course, Daniel will point out that this is not the only course in which I should have paid more attention . . .

Thanks to everyone who commented on this thread. This is a good time for me to say "good bye" as I have a book project demanding more of my time this weekend. Now disrespect intended if I cannot post again!

John Mark

TW Matthews:

Since I too have had posts "disappear" or be "held" you can assume it is not always the content!

I hope we get to read what you wrote.

My comments are being held by the blog owner. I don't think there is anything derogatory or inflammatory about the post. I did write it in Word and then copied it into the comment area.

Could that be causing a problem because of the control characters embedded by Word?

Norrie,

If a good drunk would save the world, wouldn't that be great! (Nice choice in beverages, by the way!)

Sadly, it doesn't and in fact (as Plato says in Laws II) often reveals that people are pretty bad when they "mellow out."

BTW: it is a gross oversimplification that "fear of the Devil" led Christians to do anti-Semite or other deeds. Sometimes, since as I pointed out "fear" which is the antithesis of love is often his tool in stirring up strife. The Devil delights in being fear and (to borrow an old line!) cannot bear to be mocked.

However, fear is not the only bad motivator, especially fear of Satan. People who did not believe in devils managed to kill quite a few people in the Soviet Union after all.

Nor are the "tolerant" immune to "helping" others in ways that smack of a totalitarian impulse.

As I say in the post, evil is and is often positively inhuman. Nobody and no philosophy is immune.

God who is Love wins, but people often don't choose the winning side.

I've found that the best antidote to the Devil is to partake of The Holy Spirit (a.k.a. Talisker 90 Degrees Proof).

Pagan Place,

I do not want to be misunderstood.

Deceived "Christians" are responsible for and have been responsible for many evils in the world. Since there are more of us than almost any other group, we have done a great many wrong things.

Of course, it is nonsense to say traditional Christians have mostly been wrong when they applied their beliefs. You list some things Christians did wrong, but give no credit for the things Western civilization did right. Those interested in more than what I can put in a comment box with my fading eyes might read the popular level book "What Is So Great About Christianity."

Having been a pagan and because my favorite non-Biblical writer was a pagan (Plato), I know that not all pagans are followers of Satan either through misapplication. They are certainly not intentionally.

The problems with paganism are many, but for me came down to the Incarnation. For an extended view of what paganism looked like to a thoughtful Christian at the time, I enjoy "City of God" by Saint Augustine.

You seem to overlook something key in this observation, Mr. Reynolds:

"The irrational, wicked, continuous, and destructive hatred of the Jewish people has a bloody and sordid history. Anti-Semitism has sponsored so much wickedness that it is reasonable to suspect diabolical force behind it."

Actually, the 'diabolical force' was the agenda that Jews were servants of the Devil cause they didn't agree with certain control-oriented Christian religious ideas.

The historical record shows, in fact, that it's the same *fear of your Devil* which *led* to these acts, not only against those thought 'Witches,' but most especially Jews and lepers, often with very elaborate conspiracy theories as to how all these were doing 'evil' in service to far-distant Islamic powers in the Middle Ages.

While you may turn it all to claim it's self-evident you're right about your 'Satan,' actually, I think it's self-evident that that belief and application is ...pretty much always *wrong.*

At least when you take it to politics or dogma.

You claim, it seems, that Pagans hang out with a 'Misidentified' Satan.

This is the same witch-hunt nonsense that comes *from* some of the worst ages of 'Satan-fighting' anti-Semitism in European history, only you figure since we can type too, and say how we're really actually nice folks doing our own thing, that we must actually be *doing* what you claim we do when you can't see, and just not know it.

Certainly not better than you, who can quote a Bible to justify *lying and hurting people* as if we're characters in that selfsame book of yours.

Not everything spiritual we may experience is, as you seem to believe, either a) on your political/theological side or b) 'deceptions of your Satan.'

Actually, you monotheists' *worst* problem is that most of the spirit world does *not* revolve around what we 'think,' and to that part of *us* is about *what we bring with us.*

It does not exist in some distant-from-humanity-separate realm that exists only to be 'judged.'

If you pre-judge whatever you might see that seems bigger than you, then if you *did* have the attention of some spirit no friend of humans, well, the *easier* it'd be to fool you into, say, thinking it was OK to hurt things or elect bad rulers in the name of 'God.'

Wouldn't you think?

Goodness is simpler than that.

Bad spirits? Mostly just amplify what you bring with you. Play on fears, and hatreds, and the interaction generates more.

Like memes.

Not unlike, even, 'flamewars,' when they take hold in mass consciousness, perhaps with the help of fearmongers, representing, say, some, 'Absolute Power.'

This is how holocausts happen. Not cause someone didn't obey your book. Half the time, the both of yer sides have the same 'book.'

theology or divine revelation?

the study of divine revelation is the most honorable,most realistic ,most comperhensive,most needed,simply because it is about the creator god who created this life and what is going out in this life .

what is delusional and irrational is to form an opinion about god or mankind or even the satan without refereing to both,

1-the creator god word
2-the creation

some say god doesnot exist
some say god is only a spirit
some say god is 3
some say god begoten a son
some say god begotten daughters
some say god is a metaphor
some say god is a symbolism
some say god is a multi heads

can mankind in his right mind ask the same questions about the creation?does the creation exist?is mankind a metaphor?is the sun and the moon only a spirit?
is mars the son of the sun?

the fact is ,
juchristianity failed to even tell mankind about the characteristics of the creator god is he one or 3 is he incarnate in man or man incarnat in god or both is it the son or the father?in serious contradiction to the logic and wisdom of this universe.

human theology or (philosiphy)failed to identify god .

what is needed is divine revelation to tell mankind the nature of god and the nature of mankind and the nature of satan.

please read ibn timyia,671-728 H

the accordation between revelation and rationalation.

My frequent interlocutor Daniel says:

"It is possible to make up an argument for anything; it is possible to believe anything; it is possible to have faith in anything."

I reply:

I wish (in some ways) that this were true. I have not found it possible to believe quite a few things that would be to my short term advantage (atheism is one example) or that would be fun to believe (in fairies for example) or that would make me feel good about myself.

My good friends who are not what I call in these posts extreme or radical secularists (the Dawkins types) cannot believe some things I can. I don't think they are "crazy," but then they don't think things that seem compelling to me (the existence of God) are crazy either. We think the other is wrong and carry on rational discourse. We agree on many things (the importance of civil discourse is one!).

Here is hoping we can keep carrying out such discourse . . . but I can assure you that I at least am sadly incapable of believing just anything I wish.

A mistake people make is to think that Christians want the Devil to exist and so argue for his existence. It is not that we wish this sad and bad thing were true, but that we are compelled by the evidence and our experience to believe it.

I certainly wish there was no Devil! Sadly, best reason and best experience has led lots of well informed people to the knowledge that there is such a being.

We may be wrong, and I for one am open to arguments against my general position, but don't embrace the position because we wish it to be true.

Side Comment of Belief and Wishes:

I should add that embracing a position (even a somewhat improbable one) because one wishes it to be true is NOT inherently irrational. I have argued elsewhere that in some situations (where the pay out is very high and the risk is very low), it might be rational to make a "bet" on the truth of a claim against a fair bit of evidence. However, this does not make it rational to believe just anything!

Suppose you had a 1 in 10 chance of winning the California lottery instead of the ridiculous odds now in play. Your risk is pretty low . . . and your winnings would be very great if you won. You have a decent chance of winning, so in fact you should play despite the odds being 9 in 10 that you would win nothing.

You have a brain, but you do not use it. It is possible to make up an argument for anything; it is possible to beleive anything; it is possible to have faith in anything.

But I am not interested in believing in anything. I am interesteed in knowing what is true. There is no simple recipe for knowing what is true and what is not true. It is kind of an art. Some people are simply no good at it. You are one of thoe people. Not only are you no good at it, you do not even seem to really care. Caring to know is the first part of knowing.

You say that belief in Satan is a simpler explanation. But to read what you have written, that does not seem to be the case. You have written something that I think is fantastically complex, to the point of virtual incomprehensibililty. In fact that is how you write everything.

I do not want to pick apart everything you say and explain how each point after point is wrong. All I would say, and I aay it pleadinly, and without much hope, is for you to use your brain. If you are not going to use your human brain, then you may as well have a monkey brain.

Why a person like you would waste your intellectual capacity lobbying for the eixstence of Satan is totally TOTALLY beyond me.

But go ahead, suit yourself.

Daniel,

You say:

"I think that Devil imagery is either a sign of ignorance, or else a sign of mental weakness and perhaps pathology."

I comment:

That seems a bit extreme. Jesus uses it in the New Testament. He does not seem mentally weak, ignorant, or pathological.

C.S. Lewis, a decent Oxford don, used the image. He was certainly not ignorant or weak. His life does not seem pathological.

Daniel,

I know you don't agree.

The Bible suggests the existence of the Devil, including references from the Lord Jesus Himself.

Human experience, including some things I have witnessed, are more simply explained with a devil than with a spiritual world containing only the Divine.

This is not the most important doctrine of the Faith, but it is a doctrine.

In a blog post, I can only point to what I believe and give general reasons for why I believe it . . . but I have suggested two books.

I hope they are helpful!

"1. We have reasons from private experience to think the Devil exists.
2. We have reasons from religious literature to think that the Devil exists.
3. The existence of the Devil seems consistent with human history and in fact helps explains certain events"

These three points are not true. You may believe them, and your clicque may believe them but "we" do not believe them. I do not believe in the Devil because I have no reason to believe. It is an irrelevant belief. There is no evidence that there is a Devil and there in no reason to hope or wits there were a Devil.

It is just a big nothing issue. The Bible says almost nothing about Satan or the Devil. It is mostly simply invented, or borrowed from the religions that transiently influence Judaism under the Bablylonian Captivity several centuries before the time of Jesus.

I think that Devil imagery is either a sign of ignorance, or else a sign of mental weakness and perhaps pathology.

John Mark Reynolds,

While I seldom agree with you, I respect the fact that you take time to answer questions. Very few of the panel do so.

I should add that the argument (roughly) is that:

1. We have reasons from private experience to think the Devil exists.
2. We have reasons from religious literature to think that the Devil exists.
3. The existence of the Devil seems consistent with human history and in fact helps explains certain events.

Therefore: it is reasonable to think the Devil exist.

Of course, the existence of the Devil is dependent on disputable claims, but that is true of most things in philosophy or any other field. One should read standard works in Christian philosophy (my favorite philosopher is Swinburne or on a more popular level Moreland) for arguments in favor of the premises of an argument.

Of course, belief in a personal Devil is a "secondary" Christian belief far less central than belief in God or in the work of Jesus.

Hello,

This is the author, finally able to sign in on the new system.

Let me clear up a confusion: While I don't think you can see Satan's work (for certain) in the particular, I think there is evidence from human experience for his actions in general. It is a cumulative case. You can often tell something is happening in general that you cannot know for certain in the particular.

I don't think the evils of human history are all the Devil's fault. One can contribute to a problem (by encouraging it) without being responsible.

As for "science,' I am using the term in the classical sense. Not all fields are natural sciences . . . and do not have to use the same rules. Those interested in more information on what I mean might read JP Moreland's book "Christianity and the Nature of Science."

Fairy tales are serious literature and can teach us a great deal. They are worth attention and get it in many literature departments, but sadly the Bible is not one. It might not be true, but it is not a fairy tale!

As for why one might want to take the Bible seriously, I would suggest "Scaling the Secular City."

I appreciate the time people spend responding (and am sometimes able to respond). I probably cannot respond again on this thread.

John Mark Reynolds

You seem like a very confused and confliced person. Perhaps if you click on this link, it might touch your heart.

http://www.throughmyeyesdvd.com/

I do not believe that Satan exists.

Once again, it is the easiest explanation for some people, that requires the least amount of brain-power; just sit back and believe the tale told to you, passed on in a succsssion generations, stretching back into the fog of antiquity, and who knows where it started, or why.
Yet that is not my explanation for "bad" things in the world. I believe that we feel joy and sadness, each together, in contrast, and cannot know either without the other. We are aware of pain and pleasure, repose and struggle, light and darkness only because of their contrasting natures.

Peace is not really a happy kingdom with a wise ruler; peace is really an equilibrium of tensions and a synchronization of rythms, which includes and accounts for all that is good and bad in the world and in the human heart.

“Theology, the science of knowing God, helps protect humankind from these beings.”

Theology is not a ‘science’. Theology is the study of god(s), etc, but since religions and their deities cannot be measured, counted, smelled, folded, calculated, tested, etc. that study cannot be considered a science by any stretch of the definition.

“Nobody save a prophet can look at the Post and be sure what God or the Devil is doing at any given moment or in any given news story”

Look at what you are saying…. You are saying that no one but a ‘prophet’ can even be sure that god or the devil is doing anything anywhere or at any given moment, period. Thus without a ‘prophet’, we do not know for sure if ANYTHING is being manipulated or managed by God or Satan.

“Over time in the hideous works of Stalin, Hitler, or Mao humankind can begin to discern a touch of the diabolical”

But we do not know for certain if God or Satan was intervening in any of these atrocities, do we?

“No man can blame devils for bad choices or pass off his personal moral responsibility, but many men are aware of the persuasive power of Satan's pleading for evil.”

What a pile of circular-logic rubbish… You are certain he exists, though you don’t know when or where or if he actually is manipulating certain things… everything he can do can be done with or without his influence, so everything bad or evil may be the work of Satan on men’s’ hearts, or it just may be the man himself…
AND it’s never actually Satan’s fault either, it is OUR fault either way, Satan or no Satan…. So what is the point?

Can you possibly see the absurdity? Why does god need a thug to test us anyhow?

Hell would be having to spend an eternity with this guy.

I'm not quite understanding how the evils that have occurred over the history of Earth prove that Satan exists. That humans are capable of horrible things? Absolutley. The existance of Satan? No. In fact, to blame it on an intangible being that we believe exists, with no concrete proof that it does, is irresponsible and feeble thinking. It's how many of the Evangelists and Fundamentalists caught committing the acts they vehemantly preached against would explain themselves: Satan or "The Devil" made me to it. Nonsense! We are all responsible for our actions and our destinies.

There have been atrocities committed throughout history, however, I think it's proposterous to belive that some mythical being is at the epicentre.