Speak of the Devil

 

Guess who's coming to dinner?

Last evening, I attended a Christian discussion group. Nominally, it was a group for those thinking about becoming Christian; but in reality, all but one were practicing Catholics.

The topic for the day, based on a video we had all just watched, was “how to resist evil.”

Striking to me, nobody seemed to have much concept of evil. They seemingly had not thought about it, and did not want to think about it. How is this healthy Christianity?

Challenged at one point with the question “what is evil?” there was general silence. Eventually one participant looked up the dictionary definition on her smart phone. 

When someone brought up demonic possession, the facilitator visibly balked. I pressed in with Biblical references; otherwise I think he was about to scoff at the idea. As if demons were anything more than an antiquated superstition!

This is the “happy happy joy joy” motivational speaker Christianity. It is lame, and goes in circles, because it lacks one leg. You cannot believe in God, and not the Devil. Otherwise you are lying to yourself.

Refusing to see evil does not make it go away. It ensures that evil thrives. 

“All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing.”

“The Devil’s greatest trick is convincing people that he does not exist.” The Devil loves the darkness.

Deny his existence, and you not only stop resisting evil around you, and in you. You begin to believe in all kinds of scapegoating and mad conspiracy theories involving the “other.”

Lucifer the Freedom Fighter

At a writers’ meeting I attended recently, the challenge was to write some familiar story from the point of view of the villain. One did Wile Coyote. One did Voldemort. Someone did Pontius Pilate. Someone tried to write about the fallen angels from the Devil’s point of view. Nothing especially shocking about that; Milton did the same. I do not recall the details.

But then someone piped up, “That’s not the way it really happened.”

“What actually happened was that Lucifer was God’s first son. Before Jesus. He was God’s favorite. But he objected to angels not having free will. So God threw him out of heaven.”

Someone else across the table raised an objection: “No, that’s not right.”

And she responded firmly. “You can’t dispute that. It’s the real history.”

The meeting just moved on.

I too was in no mood to challenge something so mad. Especially since she was so adamant. But I was left wondering where this came from, and how she could possibly feel such certainty. 

Of course Lucifer’s fall from heaven is not “history.” No historical account is beyond dispute, saying something is history does not end an argument, but even so, history is based on written records from the relevant time. No one was present at the war in heaven, taking notes. It is supposed to have happened at the beginning of creation, before the first man.

Nor does this woman’s account of Lucifer’s motive make any sense. If angels lacked free will, how could Lucifer himself rebel against God?

The Bible says Lucifer rebelled seeking to “make himself like the Most High.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, para 392-3:

“This ‘fall’ consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter's words to our first parents: ‘You will be like God.’ …

It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels' sin unforgivable. ‘There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death.’”

Lucifer and the fallen angels rejected God’s authority while in his presence. Just as the damned each individually and consciously choose hell at death, in the divine presence. This makes it unambiguous and irreversible. And for the reason Milton gives: “I would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.”

So, this strange idea does not come from history, as claimed. It is not from the Bible. It is not from Church tradition, and it is not a logical thought. Perhaps this woman was getting her “facts” from some gnostic tradition? But I can’t find anything like it in the gnostic texts. There do seem to be references to Satan as God's elder son in some Mormon scripture; but not the part about free will.

How can someone be so certain of something so strange and counter to traditional understanding, something she might have read somewhere once, that she would assert it adamantly to a room of perhaps twenty people?

Was I dealing with a madwoman? Yet some at the table knew her well, and nobody thought her insane. 

It seems to me a symptom of the present age. We have generally become untethered from any sense of truth or reality, so that anyone is free to believe anything, and impose it on those around them by strength of will. 

Thus men can decide to be women, or women men. People can continue to believe debunked claims like the mass graves hoax, or the January 6 insurrection hoax, or the Charlotte “fine people” hoax, or the Russia hoax. When you do not believe in God, you can believe in anything, and people believe what they want to believe. Or become paranoid.

This idea of Lucifer as the righteous rebel does sound like something someone might want to believe, if they wanted to deny sin, deny the authority of God, and claim the right to do what they will. 

Using Blogger's new AI tool to insert relevant links above. It appeared just today, and trying it out.

The Three Temptations of the Christ

 

I ponder whether Jordan Peterson is doing any good with his seminars on the Bible. I do not find him a clear thinker. An excerpt I happened to catch online recently seemed to me pretty weak. A view of faith and the tradition from the outside, and uncomprehending.

That may be the point. That may be what is needed for the greater public: an everyman to represent the audience, poking and prodding at this odd book and raising questions. What the heck is this all about? It may be a gateway for some.

Or it may be disastrous: an attempt to fit the Bible within Peterson’s false world view of clinical psychology.

The excerpt I heard was on the three temptations of Jesus in the desert, described to us by Matthew and Luke.

What struck me foremost was the Peterson panel’s need to discount the Devil’s clear statement in the gospels: “To you I will give all this authority and their glory, for it has been delivered to me, and I give it to whom I will.” The panel’s reaction sounded to me like denial. They refused to acknowledge that Satan is in charge of this world. They did not like to hear that. Peterson absurdly claimed that Satan was really offering Jesus rulership in Hell, even though the text says plainly “the kingdoms of this world.” Rulership is good, to Peterson, so long as you don’t accept Satan first. Hierarchy. Lobsters. Order. 

From this we see that Peterson himself craves power.

Which is probably why most people go into psychology. It is a perfect profession for bullies.

The panel was also puzzled that Jesus didn’t turn the rocks into bread. Why not? After all, bread is good, right? 

They didn’t seem to grasp the significance of a fast, and of honouring the commitment to fast. I think their confusion was why anyone would ever fast in the first place.

For the record, the proper understanding of the three temptations is simple, if you are familiar with Christian ethics. They are the three temptations we all face: the world, the flesh, and the devil.

 In offering the rulership of all the kingdoms of the world, “their authority and their glory,” Satan was offering the world.

In tempting Jesus to turn stones into bread and break his fast, Satan was offering physical pleasures: the flesh. We always think of sex here, no doubt, but food is also a pleasure of the flesh.

In tempting Jesus to throw himself down from the pinnacle of the temple and have angels rescue him, Satan was offering “the Devil.” The Devil is Lucifer; the essence of Lucifer is pride, self-will. To declare yourself God.

Throwing himself from the top of the temple and having angels catch him would after all, be the ultimate publicity stunt, issuing orders to God and showing God obeys him. “Putting God to the test.” Putting himself above God.

A more contemporary and secular description of the three temptations would be money, power, and fame. Money = the flesh; power = the world; fame = the Devil. They are about the same thing, the same temptations. They are the things that pull us off the rails. Are we missing any?

Now about the claim that the Devil is in control of the kingdoms of this world, and gets to choose their rulers: Those who become rulers are almost necessarily those who lust for power. Set up any system you like for choosing rulers, and this almost must remain true. It follows that the Devil is the ruler of this world: the temptation of power over others, which is always Satanic. 

This is no doubt why the emperor Constantine refused baptism until his deathbed. He understood that rulership was incompatible with true Christian virtue. It should be no surprise, if we continually find that our rulers and prominent politicians behave badly in their private lives. Good Christians are highly unlikely to find themselves in such positions.

The one possible partial exception is monarchies. Monarchies in effect select the ruler randomly, not because they want to rule. So monarchs may not be particularly power hungry.  This is why monarchies are a more benevolent form of government than dictatorships, even if the powers exercised are the same. But even within effective monarchies there are usually palace intrigues, power struggles, and needs to be ruthless to remain in power. Pity Lady Jane Grey.

A word as well on fasting, so incomprehensible to the psychological mindset. Fasting is of value in itself because, contrary to Freud, animal urges are not here to be satisfied; they are here to be disciplined. We are not animals. Otherwise there is no point to our existence. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by following the commandments of God. 

Psychology is so far from religion that I doubt the two can be reconciled. Making Jordan Peterson a false prophet.

The Devil As a Way to God

 

J. P. Sears has an interesting take on his conversion to Christianity. He says he started believing in the Devil before he started truly believing in God.

The presence of evil-and Satan, the source of evil, he says, is becoming ever more apparent. Lean away from evil, and where are you leaning?

So for Sears, accepting the reality of the Devil came first. Perhaps recognizing evil is a necessary step to true belief in God. Without it, you may have a nominal, lukewarm belief. But a belief without urgency is not a true belief. In fact, according to the Bible, it is better to be an atheist than a lukewarm Christian. Perhaps because that is more sincere, and shows you care about the issue.

“you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth.” Revelations 3: 15-16.

But Sears has another revelation.

“Anyone who wants to control you purposely pulls you away from God.”

They do so, he says, because their control is always based on fear. The ultimate fear is fear of death. Sears cites the climate crisis: do this or we’re all going to die! He cites the covid panic being used to justify totalitarian measures.

And those who believe in God, and an afterlife, are less afraid of death, and so harder to control. This is why totalitarian movements always reject religion, even persecute the church and the religious. 

But Sears is missing a trick. Christianity and its separation of church and state—thee state, after all, crucified Christ—makes this difficult, but in nations where other religions are dominant, the better tactic is to identify God’s will with that of the totalitarian state. Then the dissident has even greater reason to fear: he goes to hell. This is common in Islam—see Iran. It is arguably why democracy has been unsuccessful in those lands.

It is easier for narcissistic parents. Christianity is not so clear on the separation of church and family. It is there, but the average person actually thinks Christianity and “family values” are more or less synonymous; and that the commandment to “honour thy father and they mother” is without limists and imposes no obligations on the parent. 

So it is relatively easy for the controlling narcissistic parent to convince the child, not that there is no God, but that there is, and God hates them. 

This explains too why narcissistic parents will invariably put their children into moral dilemmas or encourage them to do immoral things. This explains why they will scapegoat the more moral or dutiful child. They want to convince the child that God is on the side of the parent, and total obedience is essential.

This is again why Jesus, in the Gospels, considers moral misdirection the essential form of child abuse.

“If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to stumble! Such things must come, but woe to the person through whom they come.”

“Mental illness,” CPTSD, is the result of this moral misdirection. The way out is first to plainly see evil as evil, as Sears suggests, and pull away. Too many are trapped here by a fear of God, because they have been taught to identify God with the autocratic parent.

In such a case it makes sense to first recognize the devil, the spirit of evil, and pull away from him. And you find God as a result.

What Rough Beast?

 

A random comment seen on Twitter, in response to a local school banning Mother’s Day: “woke destroys everything good.”

A simple statement, but truth is usually simple. I think it is deeply true.

Begin with the premise, known and accepted from ancient times, that the purpose of human life is to seek the good, the true, and the beautiful. This is so regardless of your particular religion, regardless even of whether you are a monotheist, a secularist, or a pagan. The absolute value of these three things is intrinsic, self-evident and beyond argument. You simply cannot coherently say that good is not good, or truth is not true. The response to beauty is immediate, unmediated, not a matter for judgment or doubt. The monotheisms merely posit a personal God as the ultimate source and essence of all three.

Now we see a contrary spirit, roaming the landscape as if to devour, a rough beast; which we currently call “woke.” It targets these three, goodness, truth, and beauty, as if a guided missile. 

Begin with motherhood; for the present epidemic seems to have begun here. It is an emblem of the good. In a healthy culture, motherhood is inviolate. Remember “motherhood and apple pie?” This is why the cow is sacred in India: as a symbol of motherhood. Individual mothers fall short, but motherhood itself is an image of selfless love, of wanting the best for the other; and this is the essence of the Good. Perhaps even more, the child’s reverence for the mother or father is an image of the proper loving attitude towards the divine. Which is why we pray the “Our Father.” 

And he said: “Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.”

For comparison, it is because they do not nurture their young that serpents and reptiles have become, everywhere, a symbol of moral evil.

Sometime in the early 1960s, the culture turned against motherhood and children. Witness feminism. The premise of feminism is that motherhood is bad; all else follows from this. And this was reinforced, suddenly, with a concern over “overpopulation.” Having children was bad. Indeed, they should be actively done away with. And then we have abortion. Now actually glorified as a kind of sacrament. We are now moving on to genital mutilation of children to ensure that the next generation is infertile.

Homosexuality became admirable, largely or entirely because it does not lead to motherhood and children. 

Parallel is the attack on “conventional morality,” i.e., morality as such, and the common constructivist claim of moral relativism. Churches are vandalized; priests and ministers jailed; crosses replaced by snowflakes. We are now “spiritual, but not religious.” Why the difference? Religion implies a commitment to moral conduct.

The term “woke” is itself an attack on truth. It means here the opposite of its literal meaning. The “woke” become like NPCs. If they think for themselves, if they diverge even slightly from the “narrative”—and this term is itself a denial of truth—they are no longer “woke.” They are like sleepwalkers, in sum. The concept of a “zombie apocalypse” has so captured the popular imagination in recent decades because it is exactly what we are experiencing, day to day.

“Political correctness,” a term that emerged in the 1970s in its current sense, as a shorthand for adherence to “woke” doctrine, is a systematic reversal of the meaning of words, an assault on truth and truth-telling. A spade must not be called a spade. “Exceptional children” are now not the most intelligent or talented, but the least. “Gender-affirming care” destroys one’s gender. “Pro-choice” strips the child, the father, the grandparents of all choice. “Reproductive rights” deny men’s reproductive rights. “Equity” means inequality. “Social justice” means systemic social injustice. “Anti-racism” means racism. “Antifascism” means fascism. “Community” means alienation from your neighbours in favour of strangers who share some political interest. “Health care” means killing, of unborn children or, more recently and increasingly, the old, the poor, the despondent.

The “deplatforming,” the “unfriending,” the censoring, the cancelling, and the “hate laws,” are also an assault on truth, because it is only through free discussion that truth can be sought or known. Now everyone must guard their speech, and anyone who seems to say what they actually believe is, for that reason, and apparently no other, condemned, perhaps fired. Witness Tucker Carlson. Witness Joe Rogan. Witness Trump Derangement Syndrome.

As for the assault on beauty: feminism made a virtue out of making oneself appear ugly. The current issue of “fat shaming” is in this mold: one is now obliged to accept a woman’s declaration that she is beautiful, regardless of one’s own senses. But then, just as often, if you say she is beautiful, you are harassing her. And this is surely at least  a part of the current celebration of crossdressing: the bottom line is that Dylan Mulvaney and other “drag queens” are grotesque, a parody of feminine beauty. 

As for the beauty of art, that has been under attack since perhaps R. Mutt in 1917. Witness more recently the pulling down of statues, of public art, the burning down of beautiful churches, the assaults on paintings in the galleries of Europe.

Many attribute it all to George Soros or to Klaus Schweib and the WEF. But this is not an adequate explanation. Even if they plan evil, these people would not have the power to do so much. They are themselves zombies. The real culprit has to be a powerful spirit with a capability for mind control, for possession, fascination, or ecstasy; these are the characteristics of the pagan gods, the daemons, the obsessions. And a spirit bent systematically on evil and the destruction of man. Perhaps you can, as the Rolling Stones once sang, guess his name. There is a spirit of destruction in the universe, who hates God and mankind.

The term “woke” is a funny little tipoff here. It seems borrowed from the Gnostics, the Satanic heresy that has dogged the monotheisms throughout the centuries. Gnostics imagine themselves superior to the general run of mankind, because they are “awake,” possessing secret knowledge. This puts them above concerns like morality or truth that delude the common rabble. They can create their own morality, invent their own truths. Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment was the type. Hitler was apparently an acolyte. Self-styled “elites,” along with those who have been pampered growing up, are particularly vulnerable to such thinking.

Where does this all lead? We must have faith. God is in control, and evil is self-limiting. It will go so far, and then it will collapse.