Bravo hit the nail on the head. I've said it before and I'll say it again. "God" is not "religion" religion is business an income stream for clerics that want to brand capture the masses. Now is their anything wrong with "religion" not necessarily some people need it, others don't and that's how it should be. "Churchiantiy" I love it! So true Christianity was hijacked and turn into Churchianity tragic but true.
As to evil it damn sure exists. How do I know? I was an orphaned black marketed baby sold to two freaks it's why I'm in the USA today (yeah you read it correctly) and was systematically abused for two decades. I've live among and faced of evil too many times in my life to list. I wrote a memoir details on my substack page. Evil is not the absence of good evil is just that, stand alone evil, evil unto itself. I've face evil and felt my skin crawl, the hair on my neck tingle and my gut telling me I'm in the presence of something very very bad evil. There is good in this world but it's not because evil is absent you've just lucked out and avoided evil for the time being. It's still all around us.
"A human being has so many skins inside, covering the depths of the heart. We know so many things, but we don't know ourselves! Why, thirty or forty skins or hides, as thick and hard as an ox's or bear's, cover the soul. Go into your own ground and learn to know yourself there."
The problem with this interpretation - evil as the work of a dark god - is that it begs the question of why God created him. The whole thing comes down to the conflict between evil and the three omnis. If God is omnibenevolent and omniscient, why did He create evil? The existence of evil seems to require one of those to be dropped. If God didn't create evil, then he didn't create everything, is therefore not omnipotent. Without all 3 omnis, God isn't really God - a god perhaps, but not the God of the philosophers.
If I recall, in the Silmarillion, the creator deity wasn't omniscient, and therefore didn't anticipate Sauron's rebellion.
Actually, there's tension between the omnis and free will, too. Omniscience in particular doesn't seem compatible with it, at least not if it implies perfect foreknowledge. Perhaps a more limited form of omniscience, in which God has perfect knowledge of what has been and what is, but does not have perfect knowledge of what will be, could resolve the issue.
One of the problems with a strict definition of omnipotence is that it literally gives God ALL power, which by necessity leaves creation with NO power. It also would thus seem to imply strong determinism. This is where the free will argument fits in. God is only omnipotent in the sense that all things are in God, and God's power is therefore in all things (panentheism). Every creature, from subatomic particle to terrestrial god, has some real degree of that power, i.e. some degree of self-determination or free will. In process theology, there are some things God can't do. He can't force anyone to do anything.
"Hartshorne says that a universe with multiple freedom or creativity is a universe where the non-identical twins of opportunity and risk are inevitable. As already noted, process theists do not believe in a God that plays with loaded dice. What James’s image adds to this picture is the idea that a world-order with the opportunity for genuine good and the risk of genuine evil is of greater value than a world-order devoid of these opportunities and risks."
I like your take on omniscience, too. God may have full awareness of what's going on, but the degree of freedom that is part of creation means the future can never full be known. I think Whitehead called this something like "the contingent nature of God"- the aspect that responds and adapts to the changing world.
As for dark gods, perhaps they are largely self-created. On a basic level, they're beings who have chosen, repeatedly and consistently, to make the worst possible choices. God doesn't directly create them, but their existence is a risk (maybe an inevitability) inherent in a world with the possibility of genuine goodness. And it's through creativity that others, via God's influence, can learn to defeat them, avoid their influence, or create something better out of the ashes of the destruction they create.
The free will property, when combined with a panentheistic outlook, makes evil more or less inevitable. Since any given fragment of the universe necessarily operates on limited information, suboptimal decisions get made, which - depending on how poor the information is - manifest as evil.
There's also the lion/gazelle analogy. To the gazelle, the lion is evil. To the lion, the gazelle is ... not evil, just food ... but the lion certainly doesn't think of itself as evil (there's a connection here with Nietzsche's good/evil vs good/bad master/slave morality distinction). In fact, if the lioness doesn't kill the gazelle, her cubs starve ... which would be evil. From the gazelle's point of view, a world without lions might be better than one with them (at least until they overpopulate and starve), but is a world without lions really a better world?
The lion/gazelle analogy extends to human relations, too. Certainly Russians getting slaughtered by Turks consider the Turks evil; the Turks, obviously, don't see it that way. Subjective perspective plays a big role in what gets defined as evil, and what gets defined as good. Which is no argument not to do anything about it: evil should be opposed, at the level at which one experiences it. To not do so would be, well, evil.
The key takeaway from both the lion and the gazelle is that it is Good when both of them struggle to do right by their own nature. When the lion gives up the hunt to lie with the lambs or the gazelle gives up its flight to surrender itself to the jaws of the lion, we feel that something is wrong.
Exactly. But that's from our human perspective, watching it all unfold on the Serengeti from the detached, voyeuristic comfort of our couches. From the gazelle's perspective, it certainly isn't good that the lion is chasing it.
Then again I could be wrong about that last part. Gazelles probably enjoy the adrenaline rush from a good sprint ... although not so much the part where the lion's teeth clamp down on its neck.
Looking at it from a theological angle, you've got God the prey, God the predator, and God the observer, with the moral flavor of any given interaction very much depending on perspective.
>although not so much the part where the lion's teeth clamp down on its neck.
Nature may be red in claw but it isn't cruel. Most animals' bodies release chemicals to get them to go limp and numb the pain as death approaches.
This is actually what the purpose of depression was meant to be. A way of numbing the pain and going limp. People who are depressed are literally in a near-death state.
Not what you were driving at, but I wanted to share lol
Nature isn't USUALLY cruel. Chimps have been known to eat the intestines of monkeys. While they're still alive. Ain't no amount of endorphins that will make that a pleasant experience.
Then there's digger wasps. It isn't known if the venom they inject in the spiders their larvae eat alive (limbs first, organs next, nervous system last) disable the spider's will or also its ability to feel pain. Maybe the spider is too blissed out to notice its being eaten, or maybe it's fully aware of the larva chewing through it's body, feels every single bite with searing agony but just ... can't ... move....
Yeah, the subjective angle is tricky. In many cases, and in much human history, choice is the selection from among a group of different degrees of bad options. Maybe in many cases, the best option is still a bad one, but just the least worst. And maybe there is a best option that is actually good in all senses, but the nature of circumstances make it next to impossible to see and put into effect. Our lack of information blinds us from seeing it.
Based on our limited perspectives, we see whatever we're aiming at as good, even if it might not be from a wider perspective. It's the drunk mentality, where getting wasted really does seem like the best option in the moment, even if in the longterm, and among a wider circle of friends and family, it's ultimately destructive. And there are those who are so convinced and entrenched in this mode of being that they seek to convince others of it (epitomized by the dark god).
As for the lion-gazelle, you and Rolo make good points. But a man is not a lion or a gazelle, but has more options (at least, some do). Men can change/develop/self-create to a degree that animals can't. We can be lions when the situation calls for it, or gazelles. In the case of a man, we feel something is wrong when he behaves as a gazelle when he should be a lion, and vice versa. So on top of the subjectivity problem, there is the contextual problem.
BTW, I loved seeing Odysseus brought up. Most badass character in literary history.
Odysseus is an excellent example of the perspectival function. He's a good guy in the Iliad. Obviously, he's the protagonist in the Odyssey; therefore considered a hero. In the Æneid, though, his name is cursed; sensibly enough as it's told from the point of view of the surviving Trojans, who consider Odysseus to have been an impious, morally bankrupt deceiver.
It may be worthwhile to expound a little on Ponerology.People who are unfamiliar with biological roots of psychopathy or the 70 odd years of research into it will immediately misinterpret or dismiss such notions as discriminatory. I've seen this happen elsewhere with people thinking that psychopaths emotionally ''suffer'' from not being able to feel empathy.How one can suffer emotionally without actually having said emotions however is a question that remains ignored.
Augustine's position that evil is the absence of good and deviation from God's plan has never been part of Christian doctrine, neither Catholic, nor Orthodox. It has been an inspiration for quite a few heresies though, and a favorite topic of academic debate since the scholastic period of the Middle Ages. God's plan for man was renamed predestination and became a central tenet of Protestantism.
Christian doctrine still affirms that the devil is a force independent of God and the actual ruler of this world. It cannot be any different because in the Gospel Christ himself calls Satan the "Master of this world" and demands that his disciples be in the world but not of this world. Thus evil happens in the world because it is ruled by Satan. Why does Satan exist then ? There is a story about the fall of the angels. I suggest keeping it at that. Why ? Because our understanding of the celestial realm is limited by what has been revealed to us and by what mystics have gleaned through their trips. So not much. Hence the devil exists and was created by God.
Could we know more about the celestial realm ? I doubt it because our minds function with concepts derived from earthly experience and are inadequate at grasping spiritual realities. How many metaphors did Christ use to describe the Kingdom of God ? More concretely the notion of infinity is derived as a limit to increasingly large quantities. Is this infinity-as-upper-limit adequate at capturing the powers of God vs the powers of Satan ? Careful observation of small numbers of atoms, protons, electrons has revealed that time does not exist at that level. The notion of time is derived from chains of small changes observed by the eye and it is already insufficient for what we observe in the material world. Using this flawed notion to capture the knowledge of God or Satan about past, present, future is futile. I could go on about the notions of continuum or of space, apparently partially fungible with time in its flawed sense. The consequence is that discussions using the notions of omnipotence or omniscience are pure verbiage or philosophical mind games unrelated to reality.
The conclusion of this is that we should be humble, recognise the stark limits of our knowledge. Once the notions of infinity, point, continuum, space, time, energy, form improve so will our theological understanding grow.
>Christian doctrine still affirms that the devil is a force independent of God and the actual ruler of this world. It cannot be any different because in the Gospel Christ himself calls Satan the "Master of this world"
I believe this to be true as well. However, I have always butted heads with both Catholics and Orthodox priests when discussing the issue. I think its because the notion is too gnostic. But then that famous passage where Christ confronts Satan who claims to be the ruler of this world comes to mind.
>The conclusion of this is that we should be humble, recognise the stark limits of our knowledge.
I find this perspective very helpful and judge you have the best map I've yet seen for this issue of Evil, including the multi-generational professional victimizer guild that apparently delights in torturing and murdering our people. Have you seen the Orea Linda Codex/Book?
I judge that the Orea Linda book appears to provide a better map to reclaiming our destiny than the Augustinian's interpretation of the Abrahamic God. Sadly, my ancestors did not keep to the teachings of their ancestors regarding refusing to allow slavers and deceivers among them. That does not mean we cannot see the error of our ways and reform. I judge we must not continue the sins of permitting poison and poisoners.
Of course. I'm probably biased to value the Orea Linda more highly because I identify with those people https://www.bitchute.com/video/hjKzRvNVm91P/ as my ancestors, and I judge that the poisoning we are experiencing during my lifetime is a continuation of the poisoning methodology practiced by the enemies of the People of Frya, so long ago.
Your well-written essay amounts to a proof by contradiction.
Why are we all so ready to accept the idea that there's some kind of an all powerful God? I find this monotheistic idea actually a reversion to a psychological state of infantile dependence, where we rely upon some benevolent powerful guy/gal/whatever who is watching over and [protecting everything, especially us. As your struggle with this issue demonstrates, the existence of evil is incompatible with a benevolent and omnipotent God.
Many who see evil in the world react by praying to God, urging and/or expecting him to do something about it. In fact, history has shown that when evil is corrected, individuals are invariably responsible. In that sense, I lean more in the direction that evil is fought by some God-within-us, not all powerful, not necessarily fully moral, but only a positive spiritual force we each can muster to better face and correct the evils we encounter. This picture is admittedly unsettling, in that there's no guarantee of success, and we may even get mangled in these endeavors. It's an moral and intellectual exercise in humility to finely judge how much courage, skill, and moral strength we actually have, to do what we see to be appropriate.
This doesn't necessarilty rule out powerful spirits, but exactly how powerful they are, and where they sit on a moral spectrum are issues that I'll leave that to those who might have actually met some. Maybe some of these spirits even reside within ourselves; I don't know.
Fascinating line of inquiry. Although the terms Good and Evil refer to something very real, when it comes to understanding the ultimate nature and origins of these realities, we've got questions that seem to admit of no tangible, well-defined answers. I think your approach is wise: seeking pragmatic rules of thumb and techniques for navigating a world where these larger metaphysical realities are instantiated and play out. Beyond a "this principle seems to get good results when I apply it" sort of thing, I don't know if we can hope for any real resolution of these questions. But any helpful insights of techniques you can share will be much appreciated!
I've been really enjoying this series so far! Keep up the excellent work!
I bother you with another comment. An attempt at explaining the mass murder of Slavs orchestrated by the Chosen people. God concluded a few covenants with the Jews and made them promises, some of them unconditional. Even though the Jews rejected Christ, God has kept his old promises towards them. Hence when the devil manages to subvert the Jews and make them do his work, he turns God's old promises to his own advantage.
I am no bible expert so I remember only one striking promise made to Abraham: his descendants will hold or possess the cities/strongholds/gates of their ennemies. So God enabled the Jews to take control of Moscow and St Petersburg after the fall of the tsar. Guided by Satan's hench-angels they subsequently conquered Russia and murdered millions. God also enabled the Jews to take control of Berlin and other German cities in the aftermath of world war i. Similarly God enabled the Jews to seize control of Washington, New York, Los Angeles, even though they currently do devil's bidding.
A traditional Catholic trope has been that Satan's might will be reduced when the Synagogue returns to God and recognises Jesus as the Messiah.
>I am no bible expert so I remember only one striking promise made to Abraham: his descendants will hold or possess the cities/strongholds/gates of their ennemies. So God enabled the Jews to take control of Moscow and St Petersburg after the fall of the tsar. Guided by Satan's hench-angels they subsequently conquered Russia and murdered millions. God also enabled the Jews to take control of Berlin and other German cities in the aftermath of world war i. Similarly God enabled the Jews to seize control of Washington, New York, Los Angeles, even though they currently do devil's bidding.
In the OT, Yahweh promises the Jews that they will conquer the world so is the key word you're looking for here "let" or "helped"?
>Hence when the devil manages to subvert the Jews and make them do his work, he turns God's old promises to his own advantage.
5D chess. Patriots are in control. Secret trials for Hillary soon.
>God concluded a few covenants with the Jews and made them promises, some of them unconditional.
Source: the Jews themselves.
>A traditional Catholic trope has been that Satan's might will be reduced when the Synagogue returns to God and recognises Jesus as the Messiah.
Which is why the Church has been so lenient and accommodating to the Jews. Gotta wait for them to convert. Convenient.
Good topic. Very important and thanks to Churchiogy and its Modern minion, Materialism, consigned to the trash heap that is now Public Discourse.
I would have liked to see more exploration of what evil is rather than arguments about the nature of a God that caused it - or not. I recently wrote a series of short essay on my substack about this issue because of late have become increasingly aware that the world is largely run by what can best be described as Evil People or an Evil Mentality. That Evil is something real, whether or not material, and important to consider.
The Buddhist tradition treats it by postulating the Six Realms of Being in this our overall Realm of Desire, in which case Evil is that which creates Hell, the lowest of the six. But this is largely a self-centered view in terms of what happens to the Self when it pursues wicked/unfortunate/negative/selfish/conflicted ways. So it doesn't discuss Evil per se, rather behavior that causes confusion and suffering, the result of which is becoming a Denizen of Hell, either torturing others or being tortured oneself. That said, the language can be graphic and moving, especially for young people (though Buddhism is no longer a dominant paradigm in most countries which before Modernism were considered 'Buddhist' so those cultural elements are fading away rapidly). That said, the formal teachings also go into extensive detail as to what creates bad/evil karma and what creates good/good karma so there is a whole extremely detailed noetic science to it in the Abhidharma that has not been well translated or transmitted.
That said, your interest is in the Angels and Demons universe, so the dry, analytical, objective Buddhist approach is not where you are headed. The Tantrics of course are filled with Demonology and Deities of all sorts - many looking indistinguishable interestingly, but that's an entirely different bailiwick.
My working understanding of Evil, as far as have thunk it through personally of late, is that it is that which deliberately turns away from the Good, nearly always by deceptively mocking or imitating. And this is all based on valuing Values, something McGilchrest has laboriously posited, in what I regard a contemporary philosophical breakthrough, as an ontological element, or building block, of our world / reality (which I call an 'experiential continuum' in contrast to the objective reality construct of materialist Scientism). This relates to a higher-lower soul notion in that there are two directions: towards the lower and coarser (into form, matter, lit. materialism, selfhood-individuation, the basis of the demonic) and higher and subtler (towards the formless, metaphysical and less individuated, the basis of the angelic). Something like that.
Interestingly, when Horden had his NDE he traveled to more formless realms with evolved souls close to the One Sould, some in his own spiritual lineage with whom he enjoyed extensive further training, but on the way 'up' he passed by millions of souls in Christian Heaven. (So he gives more credence to the power of belief!) For those who have incorporated such belief into their world view, it seems they do indeed go to such places, though at some point the karmic deposits such beliefs have engendered will be exhausted and those souls will leave this temporary refuge (or torment) and get back with the underlying program which is some sort of back and forth dynamic - Universal-One > Particular-Many < Universal-One.
The experiential continuum we inhabit is one in which the universe wishes to engender particularities of experience, otherwise it's just All One All the Time, which is the same as nothing. We are all aspects of the Universe experiencing itself, i.e. experiencing experience, which is qualities. So we are in a universe of limitless self-engendering, self-perpetuating qualia which is the universe playing with itself basically. There is no past of future only a continuously unfolding Creation in the ever-present - like clouds forming and dissolving endlessly. Something like that.
So from the formless and undifferentiated comes form with differentiation, but also appreciation for qualities which leads to pleasure versus pain, higher versus lower, yin versus yang, light versus heavy, coarse versus subtle. This differentiation principle, which originates from the One-to-Many-in-Experience dynamic, is the origin of both Good and Evil. Separating oneself from the higher soul in essence drives the soul into deeper, darker and more dense states of being which also include pain inflicted on self and others, aka Evil.
But this all comes from experiencing the value of Values which do indeed distinguish between what is good and natural and what is evil and unnatural, healthy versus unhealthy, appreciative versus unappreciative, noble versus debased, selfless service versus self-serving and so on. Something like that.
Thanks for raising this important topic. For a detailed Biblical explanation of the continuing conflict between good and evil, I recommend the book, The Invisible War by Donald Grey Barnhouse.
" That there are hostile ethnic groups that want to destroy us."
When looking for examples of evil, this seems to be the default primary source of evil in the conservative worldview. Why is that? Isn't the most obvious and overwhelming practice of evil the class oppression that has been occurring as long as there have been ruling classes in human society - hence for at least the last five thousand years? Do conservatives ignore class violence because they think it somehow "leftist" to acknowledge it?
The yellow vests were one such rebellion in France. They were thoroughly gassed and beaten by the anti-riot police. A little known fact is that many people in the police asked to be transferred to other duties or outright resigned because they loathed this task.
Sorry, we live in a post-Nuremberg world now. Should we ever make our way out of this nightmare, the law of the land and precedent dictates that they be punished just the same.
I don't think you can confine evil to a single ethnicity (or political party). Satan's minions have infiltrated all "groups."
As for the Old Testament, my current understanding is that was pertinent to the Judahites of the Abraham line, that God chose them to introduce the religion of one God, fulfilled his promise to give them Israel, and that his covenant with them ended when they killed his son, Yeshua, who he sent to "collect the harvest," and then refused to acknowledge Yeshua as the Messiah even tho he fulfilled all the prophesies.
And further, that John advised the *former*Judahites who did accept Yeshua as their Messiah to escape to the hills when they observed certain events. And 2 years later, those signs appeared and the Romans leveled Jerusalem and slaughtered all the Judahites who were gathered there for a major holy event.
I've read that the "Jews" who claim to be God's "chosen" are descended from the converts, not Abraham, and that dna studies show little to no semitic influence.
Iow, the Old Testament covenant ended 40 years after the Crucifixion and Resurrection. And the Jews claim to be God's "chosen" and owed Israel is based on misrepresentation and fraud.
At this point, I believe there are many paths to realizing God. I think Yeshua is the "surest" path simply because if you keep your focus on him and his message of love, it's harder for evil to gain a foothold in your soul.
>I've read that the "Jews" who claim to be God's "chosen" are descended from the converts, not Abraham, and that dna studies show little to no semitic influence.
Check those DNA results again, the Khazar hypothesis doesn't hold up. Its literally the same people only with more European blood now than before.
>Iow, the Old Testament covenant ended 40 years after the Crucifixion and Resurrection. And the Jews claim to be God's "chosen" and owed Israel is based on misrepresentation and fraud.
Churchian cope. The Old Testament is clearly about a different God than Christ.
I had to look up "Khazar hypothesis", lol. Wikipedia shows it still argued about, including the dna. Like everything else, the "establishment" group & the "dissenters." I automatically distrust the establishment these days.
I did see that Ashkenazi Jews migrated from eastern to western Europe vs Sephardic being from Spain.
"The Old Testament is clearly about a different God than Christ."
Well they certainly don't act like the same God. The old testament God to me seems pretty childish, getting mad at & destroying his creation over & over.
>Well they certainly don't act like the same God. The old testament God to me seems pretty childish, getting mad at & destroying his creation over & over.
Bravo hit the nail on the head. I've said it before and I'll say it again. "God" is not "religion" religion is business an income stream for clerics that want to brand capture the masses. Now is their anything wrong with "religion" not necessarily some people need it, others don't and that's how it should be. "Churchiantiy" I love it! So true Christianity was hijacked and turn into Churchianity tragic but true.
As to evil it damn sure exists. How do I know? I was an orphaned black marketed baby sold to two freaks it's why I'm in the USA today (yeah you read it correctly) and was systematically abused for two decades. I've live among and faced of evil too many times in my life to list. I wrote a memoir details on my substack page. Evil is not the absence of good evil is just that, stand alone evil, evil unto itself. I've face evil and felt my skin crawl, the hair on my neck tingle and my gut telling me I'm in the presence of something very very bad evil. There is good in this world but it's not because evil is absent you've just lucked out and avoided evil for the time being. It's still all around us.
"A human being has so many skins inside, covering the depths of the heart. We know so many things, but we don't know ourselves! Why, thirty or forty skins or hides, as thick and hard as an ox's or bear's, cover the soul. Go into your own ground and learn to know yourself there."
- Mister Eckhart (1259-1328)
Thank you. Sympathies. I can't even imagine your experiences.
Hoping you had opportunities for vengeance.
Vengeance, as Justice, is important.
The problem with this interpretation - evil as the work of a dark god - is that it begs the question of why God created him. The whole thing comes down to the conflict between evil and the three omnis. If God is omnibenevolent and omniscient, why did He create evil? The existence of evil seems to require one of those to be dropped. If God didn't create evil, then he didn't create everything, is therefore not omnipotent. Without all 3 omnis, God isn't really God - a god perhaps, but not the God of the philosophers.
If I recall, in the Silmarillion, the creator deity wasn't omniscient, and therefore didn't anticipate Sauron's rebellion.
Actually, there's tension between the omnis and free will, too. Omniscience in particular doesn't seem compatible with it, at least not if it implies perfect foreknowledge. Perhaps a more limited form of omniscience, in which God has perfect knowledge of what has been and what is, but does not have perfect knowledge of what will be, could resolve the issue.
>The existence of evil seems to require one of those to be dropped.
Yep. Or that the Good part be dropped. Or as you said, one of the three omnis.
One of the problems with a strict definition of omnipotence is that it literally gives God ALL power, which by necessity leaves creation with NO power. It also would thus seem to imply strong determinism. This is where the free will argument fits in. God is only omnipotent in the sense that all things are in God, and God's power is therefore in all things (panentheism). Every creature, from subatomic particle to terrestrial god, has some real degree of that power, i.e. some degree of self-determination or free will. In process theology, there are some things God can't do. He can't force anyone to do anything.
From https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/
"Hartshorne says that a universe with multiple freedom or creativity is a universe where the non-identical twins of opportunity and risk are inevitable. As already noted, process theists do not believe in a God that plays with loaded dice. What James’s image adds to this picture is the idea that a world-order with the opportunity for genuine good and the risk of genuine evil is of greater value than a world-order devoid of these opportunities and risks."
I like your take on omniscience, too. God may have full awareness of what's going on, but the degree of freedom that is part of creation means the future can never full be known. I think Whitehead called this something like "the contingent nature of God"- the aspect that responds and adapts to the changing world.
As for dark gods, perhaps they are largely self-created. On a basic level, they're beings who have chosen, repeatedly and consistently, to make the worst possible choices. God doesn't directly create them, but their existence is a risk (maybe an inevitability) inherent in a world with the possibility of genuine goodness. And it's through creativity that others, via God's influence, can learn to defeat them, avoid their influence, or create something better out of the ashes of the destruction they create.
Or something like that.
The free will property, when combined with a panentheistic outlook, makes evil more or less inevitable. Since any given fragment of the universe necessarily operates on limited information, suboptimal decisions get made, which - depending on how poor the information is - manifest as evil.
There's also the lion/gazelle analogy. To the gazelle, the lion is evil. To the lion, the gazelle is ... not evil, just food ... but the lion certainly doesn't think of itself as evil (there's a connection here with Nietzsche's good/evil vs good/bad master/slave morality distinction). In fact, if the lioness doesn't kill the gazelle, her cubs starve ... which would be evil. From the gazelle's point of view, a world without lions might be better than one with them (at least until they overpopulate and starve), but is a world without lions really a better world?
The lion/gazelle analogy extends to human relations, too. Certainly Russians getting slaughtered by Turks consider the Turks evil; the Turks, obviously, don't see it that way. Subjective perspective plays a big role in what gets defined as evil, and what gets defined as good. Which is no argument not to do anything about it: evil should be opposed, at the level at which one experiences it. To not do so would be, well, evil.
The key takeaway from both the lion and the gazelle is that it is Good when both of them struggle to do right by their own nature. When the lion gives up the hunt to lie with the lambs or the gazelle gives up its flight to surrender itself to the jaws of the lion, we feel that something is wrong.
Exactly. But that's from our human perspective, watching it all unfold on the Serengeti from the detached, voyeuristic comfort of our couches. From the gazelle's perspective, it certainly isn't good that the lion is chasing it.
Then again I could be wrong about that last part. Gazelles probably enjoy the adrenaline rush from a good sprint ... although not so much the part where the lion's teeth clamp down on its neck.
Looking at it from a theological angle, you've got God the prey, God the predator, and God the observer, with the moral flavor of any given interaction very much depending on perspective.
>although not so much the part where the lion's teeth clamp down on its neck.
Nature may be red in claw but it isn't cruel. Most animals' bodies release chemicals to get them to go limp and numb the pain as death approaches.
This is actually what the purpose of depression was meant to be. A way of numbing the pain and going limp. People who are depressed are literally in a near-death state.
Not what you were driving at, but I wanted to share lol
Nature isn't USUALLY cruel. Chimps have been known to eat the intestines of monkeys. While they're still alive. Ain't no amount of endorphins that will make that a pleasant experience.
Then there's digger wasps. It isn't known if the venom they inject in the spiders their larvae eat alive (limbs first, organs next, nervous system last) disable the spider's will or also its ability to feel pain. Maybe the spider is too blissed out to notice its being eaten, or maybe it's fully aware of the larva chewing through it's body, feels every single bite with searing agony but just ... can't ... move....
Truth well said.
Yeah, the subjective angle is tricky. In many cases, and in much human history, choice is the selection from among a group of different degrees of bad options. Maybe in many cases, the best option is still a bad one, but just the least worst. And maybe there is a best option that is actually good in all senses, but the nature of circumstances make it next to impossible to see and put into effect. Our lack of information blinds us from seeing it.
Based on our limited perspectives, we see whatever we're aiming at as good, even if it might not be from a wider perspective. It's the drunk mentality, where getting wasted really does seem like the best option in the moment, even if in the longterm, and among a wider circle of friends and family, it's ultimately destructive. And there are those who are so convinced and entrenched in this mode of being that they seek to convince others of it (epitomized by the dark god).
As for the lion-gazelle, you and Rolo make good points. But a man is not a lion or a gazelle, but has more options (at least, some do). Men can change/develop/self-create to a degree that animals can't. We can be lions when the situation calls for it, or gazelles. In the case of a man, we feel something is wrong when he behaves as a gazelle when he should be a lion, and vice versa. So on top of the subjectivity problem, there is the contextual problem.
BTW, I loved seeing Odysseus brought up. Most badass character in literary history.
>BTW, I loved seeing Odysseus brought up. Most badass character in literary history.
Yeah I always thought that Odysseus being used as a plaything by the gods was an interesting perspective about human/divine relations.
Odysseus had balls the size of King Kong's. Today most WOKE soy boys have the balls of a flea.
The whole Book of Job was basically a rip-off of Greek mythology (along with the rest of the OT lol).
I wonder if Gmirkin realizes just how revolutionary his work is.
Odysseus is an excellent example of the perspectival function. He's a good guy in the Iliad. Obviously, he's the protagonist in the Odyssey; therefore considered a hero. In the Æneid, though, his name is cursed; sensibly enough as it's told from the point of view of the surviving Trojans, who consider Odysseus to have been an impious, morally bankrupt deceiver.
It may be worthwhile to expound a little on Ponerology.People who are unfamiliar with biological roots of psychopathy or the 70 odd years of research into it will immediately misinterpret or dismiss such notions as discriminatory. I've seen this happen elsewhere with people thinking that psychopaths emotionally ''suffer'' from not being able to feel empathy.How one can suffer emotionally without actually having said emotions however is a question that remains ignored.
Thank you Rolo for another excellent piece.
Augustine's position that evil is the absence of good and deviation from God's plan has never been part of Christian doctrine, neither Catholic, nor Orthodox. It has been an inspiration for quite a few heresies though, and a favorite topic of academic debate since the scholastic period of the Middle Ages. God's plan for man was renamed predestination and became a central tenet of Protestantism.
Christian doctrine still affirms that the devil is a force independent of God and the actual ruler of this world. It cannot be any different because in the Gospel Christ himself calls Satan the "Master of this world" and demands that his disciples be in the world but not of this world. Thus evil happens in the world because it is ruled by Satan. Why does Satan exist then ? There is a story about the fall of the angels. I suggest keeping it at that. Why ? Because our understanding of the celestial realm is limited by what has been revealed to us and by what mystics have gleaned through their trips. So not much. Hence the devil exists and was created by God.
Could we know more about the celestial realm ? I doubt it because our minds function with concepts derived from earthly experience and are inadequate at grasping spiritual realities. How many metaphors did Christ use to describe the Kingdom of God ? More concretely the notion of infinity is derived as a limit to increasingly large quantities. Is this infinity-as-upper-limit adequate at capturing the powers of God vs the powers of Satan ? Careful observation of small numbers of atoms, protons, electrons has revealed that time does not exist at that level. The notion of time is derived from chains of small changes observed by the eye and it is already insufficient for what we observe in the material world. Using this flawed notion to capture the knowledge of God or Satan about past, present, future is futile. I could go on about the notions of continuum or of space, apparently partially fungible with time in its flawed sense. The consequence is that discussions using the notions of omnipotence or omniscience are pure verbiage or philosophical mind games unrelated to reality.
The conclusion of this is that we should be humble, recognise the stark limits of our knowledge. Once the notions of infinity, point, continuum, space, time, energy, form improve so will our theological understanding grow.
>Christian doctrine still affirms that the devil is a force independent of God and the actual ruler of this world. It cannot be any different because in the Gospel Christ himself calls Satan the "Master of this world"
I believe this to be true as well. However, I have always butted heads with both Catholics and Orthodox priests when discussing the issue. I think its because the notion is too gnostic. But then that famous passage where Christ confronts Satan who claims to be the ruler of this world comes to mind.
>The conclusion of this is that we should be humble, recognise the stark limits of our knowledge.
Fair enough.
I now feel compelled read your Reactionary Metaphysics series from the beginning, so I will see your arguments in context.
https://roloslavskiy.substack.com/p/reactionary-metaphysics-i-faith-vs
https://roloslavskiy.substack.com/p/reactionary-metaphysics-ii-problems
https://roloslavskiy.substack.com/p/reactionary-metaphysics-iii-are-all
https://roloslavskiy.substack.com/p/reactionary-metaphysics-iv-the-superiority
https://roloslavskiy.substack.com/p/reactionary-metaphysics-v-the-ethnic
https://roloslavskiy.substack.com/p/reactionary-metaphysics-vi-spiritual
Hi, another interesting article. I recommend the book " Evil: The Shadow Side of Reality
by John A. Sanford " I think you may be interested , and possibly ideas you have not thought of yet.
Have fun
Thanks for the lead.
I find this perspective very helpful and judge you have the best map I've yet seen for this issue of Evil, including the multi-generational professional victimizer guild that apparently delights in torturing and murdering our people. Have you seen the Orea Linda Codex/Book?
typo:
This should sound sound familiar
> Have you seen the Orea Linda Codex/Book?
Yes, of course. Do you have something to share about it?
I judge that the Orea Linda book appears to provide a better map to reclaiming our destiny than the Augustinian's interpretation of the Abrahamic God. Sadly, my ancestors did not keep to the teachings of their ancestors regarding refusing to allow slavers and deceivers among them. That does not mean we cannot see the error of our ways and reform. I judge we must not continue the sins of permitting poison and poisoners.
There's a lot more than the Oera Linda to work with.
Classic greek stories, gnostic metaphysics, rig vedas, etc.
Of course. I'm probably biased to value the Orea Linda more highly because I identify with those people https://www.bitchute.com/video/hjKzRvNVm91P/ as my ancestors, and I judge that the poisoning we are experiencing during my lifetime is a continuation of the poisoning methodology practiced by the enemies of the People of Frya, so long ago.
Your well-written essay amounts to a proof by contradiction.
Why are we all so ready to accept the idea that there's some kind of an all powerful God? I find this monotheistic idea actually a reversion to a psychological state of infantile dependence, where we rely upon some benevolent powerful guy/gal/whatever who is watching over and [protecting everything, especially us. As your struggle with this issue demonstrates, the existence of evil is incompatible with a benevolent and omnipotent God.
Many who see evil in the world react by praying to God, urging and/or expecting him to do something about it. In fact, history has shown that when evil is corrected, individuals are invariably responsible. In that sense, I lean more in the direction that evil is fought by some God-within-us, not all powerful, not necessarily fully moral, but only a positive spiritual force we each can muster to better face and correct the evils we encounter. This picture is admittedly unsettling, in that there's no guarantee of success, and we may even get mangled in these endeavors. It's an moral and intellectual exercise in humility to finely judge how much courage, skill, and moral strength we actually have, to do what we see to be appropriate.
This doesn't necessarilty rule out powerful spirits, but exactly how powerful they are, and where they sit on a moral spectrum are issues that I'll leave that to those who might have actually met some. Maybe some of these spirits even reside within ourselves; I don't know.
Fascinating line of inquiry. Although the terms Good and Evil refer to something very real, when it comes to understanding the ultimate nature and origins of these realities, we've got questions that seem to admit of no tangible, well-defined answers. I think your approach is wise: seeking pragmatic rules of thumb and techniques for navigating a world where these larger metaphysical realities are instantiated and play out. Beyond a "this principle seems to get good results when I apply it" sort of thing, I don't know if we can hope for any real resolution of these questions. But any helpful insights of techniques you can share will be much appreciated!
I've been really enjoying this series so far! Keep up the excellent work!
I bother you with another comment. An attempt at explaining the mass murder of Slavs orchestrated by the Chosen people. God concluded a few covenants with the Jews and made them promises, some of them unconditional. Even though the Jews rejected Christ, God has kept his old promises towards them. Hence when the devil manages to subvert the Jews and make them do his work, he turns God's old promises to his own advantage.
I am no bible expert so I remember only one striking promise made to Abraham: his descendants will hold or possess the cities/strongholds/gates of their ennemies. So God enabled the Jews to take control of Moscow and St Petersburg after the fall of the tsar. Guided by Satan's hench-angels they subsequently conquered Russia and murdered millions. God also enabled the Jews to take control of Berlin and other German cities in the aftermath of world war i. Similarly God enabled the Jews to seize control of Washington, New York, Los Angeles, even though they currently do devil's bidding.
A traditional Catholic trope has been that Satan's might will be reduced when the Synagogue returns to God and recognises Jesus as the Messiah.
>I am no bible expert so I remember only one striking promise made to Abraham: his descendants will hold or possess the cities/strongholds/gates of their ennemies. So God enabled the Jews to take control of Moscow and St Petersburg after the fall of the tsar. Guided by Satan's hench-angels they subsequently conquered Russia and murdered millions. God also enabled the Jews to take control of Berlin and other German cities in the aftermath of world war i. Similarly God enabled the Jews to seize control of Washington, New York, Los Angeles, even though they currently do devil's bidding.
In the OT, Yahweh promises the Jews that they will conquer the world so is the key word you're looking for here "let" or "helped"?
>Hence when the devil manages to subvert the Jews and make them do his work, he turns God's old promises to his own advantage.
5D chess. Patriots are in control. Secret trials for Hillary soon.
>God concluded a few covenants with the Jews and made them promises, some of them unconditional.
Source: the Jews themselves.
>A traditional Catholic trope has been that Satan's might will be reduced when the Synagogue returns to God and recognises Jesus as the Messiah.
Which is why the Church has been so lenient and accommodating to the Jews. Gotta wait for them to convert. Convenient.
Good topic. Very important and thanks to Churchiogy and its Modern minion, Materialism, consigned to the trash heap that is now Public Discourse.
I would have liked to see more exploration of what evil is rather than arguments about the nature of a God that caused it - or not. I recently wrote a series of short essay on my substack about this issue because of late have become increasingly aware that the world is largely run by what can best be described as Evil People or an Evil Mentality. That Evil is something real, whether or not material, and important to consider.
The Buddhist tradition treats it by postulating the Six Realms of Being in this our overall Realm of Desire, in which case Evil is that which creates Hell, the lowest of the six. But this is largely a self-centered view in terms of what happens to the Self when it pursues wicked/unfortunate/negative/selfish/conflicted ways. So it doesn't discuss Evil per se, rather behavior that causes confusion and suffering, the result of which is becoming a Denizen of Hell, either torturing others or being tortured oneself. That said, the language can be graphic and moving, especially for young people (though Buddhism is no longer a dominant paradigm in most countries which before Modernism were considered 'Buddhist' so those cultural elements are fading away rapidly). That said, the formal teachings also go into extensive detail as to what creates bad/evil karma and what creates good/good karma so there is a whole extremely detailed noetic science to it in the Abhidharma that has not been well translated or transmitted.
That said, your interest is in the Angels and Demons universe, so the dry, analytical, objective Buddhist approach is not where you are headed. The Tantrics of course are filled with Demonology and Deities of all sorts - many looking indistinguishable interestingly, but that's an entirely different bailiwick.
My working understanding of Evil, as far as have thunk it through personally of late, is that it is that which deliberately turns away from the Good, nearly always by deceptively mocking or imitating. And this is all based on valuing Values, something McGilchrest has laboriously posited, in what I regard a contemporary philosophical breakthrough, as an ontological element, or building block, of our world / reality (which I call an 'experiential continuum' in contrast to the objective reality construct of materialist Scientism). This relates to a higher-lower soul notion in that there are two directions: towards the lower and coarser (into form, matter, lit. materialism, selfhood-individuation, the basis of the demonic) and higher and subtler (towards the formless, metaphysical and less individuated, the basis of the angelic). Something like that.
Interestingly, when Horden had his NDE he traveled to more formless realms with evolved souls close to the One Sould, some in his own spiritual lineage with whom he enjoyed extensive further training, but on the way 'up' he passed by millions of souls in Christian Heaven. (So he gives more credence to the power of belief!) For those who have incorporated such belief into their world view, it seems they do indeed go to such places, though at some point the karmic deposits such beliefs have engendered will be exhausted and those souls will leave this temporary refuge (or torment) and get back with the underlying program which is some sort of back and forth dynamic - Universal-One > Particular-Many < Universal-One.
The experiential continuum we inhabit is one in which the universe wishes to engender particularities of experience, otherwise it's just All One All the Time, which is the same as nothing. We are all aspects of the Universe experiencing itself, i.e. experiencing experience, which is qualities. So we are in a universe of limitless self-engendering, self-perpetuating qualia which is the universe playing with itself basically. There is no past of future only a continuously unfolding Creation in the ever-present - like clouds forming and dissolving endlessly. Something like that.
So from the formless and undifferentiated comes form with differentiation, but also appreciation for qualities which leads to pleasure versus pain, higher versus lower, yin versus yang, light versus heavy, coarse versus subtle. This differentiation principle, which originates from the One-to-Many-in-Experience dynamic, is the origin of both Good and Evil. Separating oneself from the higher soul in essence drives the soul into deeper, darker and more dense states of being which also include pain inflicted on self and others, aka Evil.
But this all comes from experiencing the value of Values which do indeed distinguish between what is good and natural and what is evil and unnatural, healthy versus unhealthy, appreciative versus unappreciative, noble versus debased, selfless service versus self-serving and so on. Something like that.
Thanks for raising this important topic. For a detailed Biblical explanation of the continuing conflict between good and evil, I recommend the book, The Invisible War by Donald Grey Barnhouse.
Wasn’t Augustine a Manichaean before converting to Christianity?
Yep.
" That there are hostile ethnic groups that want to destroy us."
When looking for examples of evil, this seems to be the default primary source of evil in the conservative worldview. Why is that? Isn't the most obvious and overwhelming practice of evil the class oppression that has been occurring as long as there have been ruling classes in human society - hence for at least the last five thousand years? Do conservatives ignore class violence because they think it somehow "leftist" to acknowledge it?
>class oppression
The problem is that the peons are so loathsome and pathetic that they're begging to be oppressed.
Feel free to organize a prole rebellion and prove me wrong though.
The yellow vests were one such rebellion in France. They were thoroughly gassed and beaten by the anti-riot police. A little known fact is that many people in the police asked to be transferred to other duties or outright resigned because they loathed this task.
ah, they asked nicely did they?
Sorry, we live in a post-Nuremberg world now. Should we ever make our way out of this nightmare, the law of the land and precedent dictates that they be punished just the same.
I don't think you can confine evil to a single ethnicity (or political party). Satan's minions have infiltrated all "groups."
As for the Old Testament, my current understanding is that was pertinent to the Judahites of the Abraham line, that God chose them to introduce the religion of one God, fulfilled his promise to give them Israel, and that his covenant with them ended when they killed his son, Yeshua, who he sent to "collect the harvest," and then refused to acknowledge Yeshua as the Messiah even tho he fulfilled all the prophesies.
And further, that John advised the *former*Judahites who did accept Yeshua as their Messiah to escape to the hills when they observed certain events. And 2 years later, those signs appeared and the Romans leveled Jerusalem and slaughtered all the Judahites who were gathered there for a major holy event.
I've read that the "Jews" who claim to be God's "chosen" are descended from the converts, not Abraham, and that dna studies show little to no semitic influence.
Iow, the Old Testament covenant ended 40 years after the Crucifixion and Resurrection. And the Jews claim to be God's "chosen" and owed Israel is based on misrepresentation and fraud.
At this point, I believe there are many paths to realizing God. I think Yeshua is the "surest" path simply because if you keep your focus on him and his message of love, it's harder for evil to gain a foothold in your soul.
>I've read that the "Jews" who claim to be God's "chosen" are descended from the converts, not Abraham, and that dna studies show little to no semitic influence.
Check those DNA results again, the Khazar hypothesis doesn't hold up. Its literally the same people only with more European blood now than before.
>Iow, the Old Testament covenant ended 40 years after the Crucifixion and Resurrection. And the Jews claim to be God's "chosen" and owed Israel is based on misrepresentation and fraud.
Churchian cope. The Old Testament is clearly about a different God than Christ.
I had to look up "Khazar hypothesis", lol. Wikipedia shows it still argued about, including the dna. Like everything else, the "establishment" group & the "dissenters." I automatically distrust the establishment these days.
I did see that Ashkenazi Jews migrated from eastern to western Europe vs Sephardic being from Spain.
"The Old Testament is clearly about a different God than Christ."
Well they certainly don't act like the same God. The old testament God to me seems pretty childish, getting mad at & destroying his creation over & over.
>Well they certainly don't act like the same God. The old testament God to me seems pretty childish, getting mad at & destroying his creation over & over.
Yes, it's so clear that a child could see it.