|
|
|
January 30, 2007
You win, I'm Satan! End of argument.
In my post about the Moscow Mayor's comments (that gay parades are Satanic), one of the things that came up was whether Krishna is Satanic. Here's why I think a lot easier to opine on whether gay parades are Satanic than whether Krishna is Satanic. Because nearly everyone believes in (I mean in the sense of understands that there is) such a thing as a gay pride parade, and that there are gay people. Whether they are Satanic depends on two things: 1. Whether you believe in Satan; and 2. Whether gay parades share a sufficient number of his (or her; depending on the sex of angels) attributes that they can be considered Satanic. This makes the analogy at least managable, as simple logic can be applied to at least one side of the comparison. One thing exists; the other thing might or might not. Where it gets problematic is the definition of Satanic, because the existence of Satan is not easily demonstrated, and beyond that, the attributes of Satan are by no means universally agreed upon. It has, for example, been argued that Satan is a medieval adaptation of Nature's God Pan (aka the "Horned God"). And of course if the horned god is nature and Satan, then Satan is Nature, and (like nearly all world leaders) we are all Satanic to a certain degree and so on. It's an emotionally charged mess, because of a lack of readily agreeable definitions. But calling Krishna Satanic makes calling gays Satanic almost child's play. There's a definitional threshold on both sides of the equation. As someone who does not believe in Satan or Krishna, for me to even entertain the idea that Krishna is Satanic (or Satan is Krishnatic) requires a quantum leap in suspending disbelief. It is my opinion that both of these deities are made up. Yet I don't want to disrespect anyone's religious beliefs, so I tend to assume for the sake of argument that both exist. And I must bear in mind that what's fantasy for me is dogma for others. So, while I can entertain the comparison, it's on the level of "Is Santa like Bacchus?" Not satifisying for those who believe in Oddly enough, those who claim Krishna is Satanic would seem to believe in both. Does that mean that to them, Krishna is not made up? To stay with the example, in the case of Satan and Krishna, there are four possibilities: 1. Both Satan and Krishna are made up; 2. Only Krishna is made up, but Satan exists; 3. Only Satan is made up, but Krishna exists; 4. Both Satan and Krishna exist. How is a reasonable and logical person supposed to choose from the above possibilities? By tallying up the number of people who believe in one or the other, and go with the winner? By looking at the "date of manufacture" to determine which deity was referenced first in human writings? Some combination of both? Or by believing neither without tangible proof? (The problem with me is that while I do believe in God, I am extremely skeptical of human religious writings.) These sorts of things make it tough to have reasonable discussions. Not that an unreasonable discussion isn't occasionally entertaining. In the early 90s I remember actually spending time in chat rooms! (Yes, true confession time!) Lest anyone think the chatting was all dirty, I remember one time I argued well into the early morning with someone whose screen name is long forgotten, but who wanted to discuss religious issues vis-a-vis homosexuality, which he maintained was sinful. I was feeling very patient, and I thought I had done a great job of making allowances for what seemed to be a substantial educational disparity between us, and suspending my disbelief as best I could. All I wanted this person of unknown age or sex to do was to engage in logical thinking, and after hours (during which he asked me to "please wait") he brought some new person into the chat room who claimed he was the first person's minister. I started over with that person, and the argument turned into demands to know who I was, where I was, and finally, an accusation that I was "Satanic" and had been trying to "trick" the first person. This struck me as grounded in frustration, as well as an unanswerable, ad hominem attack, and I just wanted to sleep. The worst part of this is that I wasn't trying to win an argument. I just wanted to know exactly what this person thought, and it seemed to me he wasn't thinking so much as he was being told what to think. I only wanted to know why he thought it, and that was ultimately deemed "Satanic." I'll have to say, it ended an argument which could never have been won. That's because Satan by definition can't win for losing. posted by Eric on 01.30.07 at 08:02 AM
Comments
An argument from authority, where the opponents disagree on which authority is acceptable, is like Eric said, sometimes entertaining. More heat than light generated, though. Too bad there's no way to tap that heat to make electricity, we could solve the energy problem once and for all. Stewart · January 30, 2007 11:24 AM Wait a minute... Eric Wilner · January 30, 2007 11:48 AM
In Christian doctrine (or dogma, as you wish), Satan is the Deceiver, the source of all lies. Before he tricked the willing dupes in the Garden, Sin was unknown. It was there, but dormant. After the Fall, Satan is said to roam the Earth, looking for tricks to play. His main tactic is speciousness: to look nice, but be rotten on the inside. ("Haha", he says, "a child out of wedlock. What fun! Ooh, look -- a man with a weakness for alcohol I can entice to spend his paycheck!") Homosexuality is thought to fall into this category: Satan uses your innate tendency toward this particular error, tricking you into thinking that MOTSS are for you. All 'idolatry' (the worship of false gods) is said to come from Satan, though opinion is split on whether the gods themselves are creations of Satan or merely human creations that Satan plays up to trick us. Krishna falls into that category, one way or the other. So the answer is that to the extent Satan exists, both Krishna and Gay Pride marches are his doing. He doesn't cause all sin, but certain ones, like being proud of the ability to do bad things, bear his sulphuric stench. Socrates · January 30, 2007 02:49 PM Satan is a Zoroastrian concept picked up by the Jews in Babalonian captivity. M. Simon · January 30, 2007 03:29 PM M. Simon · January 30, 2007 03:37 PM I have a biography of ol' Scratch buried under my other works on antiquity. In Hebrew, Satan just means "adversary"; in the Old Testament, he's God's prosecuting angel. "By definition", if Satan did match up against God, and win, then Satan would have no-one to be adverse against. Death by self-contradiction! [disclosure] I tend to agree with the Yezidis (and, a little, with the Muslims). Satan's had a bum rap. What (non-existential) evil there is in the world is caused by men. During the Last Day, if there is one, Satan's going to tell his followers that he too is a believer and that they were all responsible for their own actions. David Ross · January 30, 2007 09:12 PM Both Satan and Krishna can exist. In fact, it would be inline with what the Bible says. It is sophistic to argue that the first commandment really means "gods" like money, power and sex. These are idols, according to Old Testament theology. It takes a lot of definition-raping to be able to argue that the Bible speaks of only one god. It only commands us to worship one god, the God of Israel who is the one who created all other gods. The general nature of Satan is described in the Bible: 1) Tempts us to sin, ie fall away from God. The question is, how much does any pagan god fit the description of Satan or one of his fallen angels? In many cases, a lot. The gods of the Aztec were particularly horrific, for example. Their natures are completely in line with what the Bible describes as demonic. MikeT · January 31, 2007 10:58 AM The main god of the Aztec was, basically, the Roman conception of Mars. Huitzilopochtli (sp?) was a god of Aztec supremacy through warfare and discipline. Ashur of Nineveh was the Biblical-era deity closest to the Aztec ideal. If I *really* wanted to engage in a flamewar I'd say that YHWH in his guise as Lord of Hosts also fits this bill. The Bible didn't approve of Assyria but it wasn't terribly well informed about Assyrian religion. The Bible's main enemy was Canaanitism; and the Canaanite "demons", the occasional child sacrifice excepted (and Israel had no right to complain: c.f. Judges 11), weren't nearly as bad as the Bible makes them out to be. David Ross · February 1, 2007 12:54 AM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• War For Profit
• How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide • I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight • Wind Boom • Isaiah Washington, victim • Hippie Shirts • A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? • Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists • PETA agrees -- with me! • The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
You seem shocked that people who accept God as an ultimate authority try to use arguments-from-authority. Why?
Isn't it just as much an inappropriate use of logic to examine the wherefores of God's commands as it is an inappropriate use of science to declare God nonexistant due to the lack of scientific proof?