Jeff

The rational way to elucidate the meaning of a historical text is not to say, "ooh, I've had a religious experience concerning this person, therefore, whatever he said must be what I need him to say for me to continue to believe in him." Rather, it's see what is most plausible given what that person most likely was trying to say, given his social context and that of his audiences. When most historians, working as historians rather than ideologues, do that, they come out believing something a lot closer to what I believe. By your view, I might as well say that all talk of angels and spirits by the ancients was metaphorical UNLESS THEY SPECIFICALLY SAID OTHERWISE. This is what your view should allow for.

Iconoclast

I don’t disagree. I am only pointing out that the argument that demons literally exist and that they are free-will independent being based on Jesus speaking as though He presumed them to be just that is not a conclusive argument. I assume most people believe it is because Jesus being God would have known what the literal truth really was. But again, Jesus did not enlighten us about what literal reality is in many areas so why would He in this area? He argued with the Sadducees about the reality of resurrection and thus spirits that were resurrected people. I do believe that Moses and Elijah are currently existing “spirits”.

In terms of angels my view is that they are a real phenomenon. I just don’t believe that they are independent free-will beings or spirits. “Angel” comes from the Greek “angelos” which means messenger. I believe that angels are aspects of God Himself. Notice that the term “angel of the Lord” is used to refer to God Himself in the Old Testament. There appears to be a distinction between the different angels and the “angel of the Lord”. Also, it is commonly understood that there are different names for each angel that appear that carry the meaning of what type of “messaging” they are doing. Satan is referred to as “Hillel” or the “angel of light”. The myth is that then this angel “fell” to become Satan. This makes sense to me as “light” is the fundamental aspect of the material creation that inherently carries epistemic distance. This is because the speed of light is limited in our material creation. So, “Hillel” or God’s light – God’s perfect communication was limited to a finite speed when He created the universe in order to create epistemic distance which then created entropy. And this is what caused the “fall”.

The biggest reason for why I believe that Satan is a metaphor is that then the rest of the Bible can be understood in a much more straightforward and, more importantly, actionable way.

thanks,

Iconoclast

Post Edited (jefscott) : 8/9/2007 9:11:29 AM (GMT-5)

I'm glad you spelled it out so well, Corey (praying for your situation, BTW). Cause it makes me see another problematic implication of the metaphorical approach. Why even run the swine into the sea at all if it wasn't really a demon? What was the point of that? It causes us to keep looking for more and more metaphorical explanations for more and more things. It seems so less parsimonious.

But I want to clarify one thing about what I said about Greg. If I'm understanding him, he is saying that God wasn't even the one that caused pain in childbirth. That's the part I don't understand. That's the part that God takes credit for doing. I don't see how the problem of natural evil is relieved by saying Satan did it. But as far as his gap theory approach to the animal suffering, I can see how he can be more coherent, there--if one  finds the gap theory the most plausible interpretation in the first place.

Corey

But I just can't get there from here. I'm convinced that it was something more than a metaphor that departed from a man (making him healed) and entered a herd of swine (making them suicide.) Epilepsy (or any other infirmity known to science), last I checked, isn't transferable at command from a person to a herd of swine. How have you worked through this account?

Iconoclast

I posted the following some number of years ago on this site:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

Here is one possible underlying reality that can square with the metaphorical language being used in this passage:

Satan (Hebrew: ha-satan – The Adversary/Accuser – as in a court) is really referring to that “part” of us that is against God and each other - that part that accuses God and each other of causing us and our loved ones pain.

Some facts:

“Demon” comes from the Greek word “diamon” – which means “unseen agent” – interestingly enough the Greek word does NOT entail good or bad in its meaning – it is neutral in this respect – the Unix operating system uses the word “daemon” for system services that operate in the background.

“Angel” comes from the Greek word “angelos” which simply means messenger.

95% of our “thought” is unconscious. – Cognitive Science

The metaphors for Self are multi-“selved”. We have a “True Self” that is our “essence” (conscious part in control) and we have multiple other “selves” that are parts of us. “I was beside myself.” “That was the rum talking, not me.” This comes from the book “Philosophy in the Flesh” by Lakoff and Johnson.

Jesus said: If you have enough faith you can say to this mountain “jump into the sea” and it will be done for you. (We have a lot of power at our disposal depending on our faith)

Alternate interpretation based on these “meanings”:

Mark 5:1-17 The Healing of a Demon-possessed Man

The man had “legion” demons in him: his unconscious was totally fragmented into multiple “personalities” and they were ANGRY! We all have heard the stories of people who acting out of their “unconscious” passion have been able to lift cars. No one suggests that this comes from the power of a “demon”. Hypnotists have also learned how to actually talk to the multiple parts of a person’s unconscious. And these multiple parts are not necessarily malevolent or even angry. There are documented cases of a part of a person’s unconscious rationally protecting the conscious self from knowledge that would be damaging.

One more point that I find very interesting in this story. The demons asked to go into the pigs. Jesus let them. The pigs, ostensibly under demon control, killed themselves thus giving no home to the demons. Now one might argue that the demons were stupid or that Jesus tricked them and then Jesus caused the pigs to go into the sea. However I would like to offer another explanation. The multiple fragmented parts of the self were the very, very angry parts that also were accusing the “True Self” of being unworthy: “what have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God.” Notice also what Jesus said: “Come out of the man, you unclean spirit.” This language presupposes that the fragmented angry, accusing parts of the man are simply parts, they are NOT the True Self, they are NOT the man. Jesus is OK with the man – but not with the angry, accusing parts – they have to go. The True Self hears this and also hears Jesus commanding these other parts to leave – the man can now let go of the anger because he has been affirmed as being OK and in control – but wait the angry parts are also part of the man – they are also part of himself. They have served him and shouldn’t or can’t just be let go of – they must have their final angry expression and therefore justification. That final angry expression is for the man in his intense unconscious passion to send the pigs to their death. Jesus in his mercy is OK with this expression of anger.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< 

Again, I wrote this a long time ago. Semeia has a bit of a different take. She would say that it was really Jesus who sent the pigs to their death in a (successful) effort to convince the man that his “demons” were really gone. Psychology 101 is that the first step to helping someone to get better is to create hope in them – to convince them that they can and will get better. Conversion disorder is a psychological problem that manifests itself physically – seizures and such. The seizures (or what have you) are caused by the person’s own unconscious thoughts but they are unaware of it. If one can just convince that person that they are now well then their brain will often stop causing the problem in the first place – similar to the placebo affect.

So, in this particular case the angry sub-conscious parts of the man ask to go into the pigs. Jesus causes the pigs to go crazy and die (this is classic gestalt therapy on a grand scale) which convinces the man that his angry sub-conscious parts that are accusing him are gone and he can take back control.

I think Semeia’s account is more plausible. I do tend to believe that when we act out of our unconscious under times of great duress that we can do supernatural things. However, this sort of thing is less plausible and seems to happen very, very infrequently (if ever). Some evidence for this notion is that Peter walked on water on his own power. When he lost faith and started faltering Jesus then extended His power to help him. I think Jesus was being literal when He said that when we act out of faith we can move mountains. I just think that the kind of faith He was talking about is something that we don’t ordinarily have access to except in very, very special circumstances.

I think this view is much more plausible than demons. There is no question in my mind that the “legion demons” are really just that person’s multiple fragmented personalities. Multiple-personality disorder is well understood these days. There have been many, many documented cases of people with many distinct fragmented personalities. It almost always comes about from very severe abuse. This is clearly more plausible than literal demons.

The only aspect of this story that causes difficulty is Jesus sending the “demons” into the pigs. However, I think this is difficult for the literal demon interpretation as well. If they were real demons why would Jesus send them into the pigs? Was He being compassionate with the demons? At the expense of the farmer who lost all his pigs?!? How does this make sense? Why didn’t He just banish those demons to some place that they couldn’t cause trouble? And why would the demons want to go into the pigs? Why would the demons then make the pigs commit suicide? Where did the demons go then? Did Jesus allow the demons to escape so they could go inhabit someone else? If so, why let them kill the pigs first? If not, why not save the pigs and just banish the demons?

I cannot see how it makes any sense for Jesus to send the demons into the pigs if they really were demons. This is just not plausible to me. There had to be some value in letting the pigs all die else why would Jesus do that? I mean, if not for the sake of the pigs themselves then the poor farmer who just lost an enormous amount of money – perhaps a big part of his livelihood. Now, if the loss of the pigs was actually important to the healing of the man then sure, that would make some sense. My view is that the loss of the pigs was critical to the healing of the man. Psychological problems are really of our own (free-will) making. If we don’t want to let go of a psychological defense mechanism then nobody can make us. Not even God. Why? Because He gave us free-will and He does not seem to be willing to revoke it. So Jesus had to convince the man that he really was ok – that he no longer needed the defense mechanism. He no longer needed the fragmented personality in order to feel ok. The man asked for proof – for the angry accusing fragments to go into the pigs – and Jesus gave him that proof thus convincing the man that he was ok.

I believe that Jesus' main mission on earth was to convince us that we are already ok - that we are already unconditionally loved by God. I think Jesus dying on the cross is how far God is willing to go to convince us of His love for us. I mean, what more could He possibly do? So, this whole notion of Jesus doing whatever it takes to convince this man that he is ok makes a lot of sense to me.

thanks,

Iconoclast

Post Edited (Iconoclast) : 8/9/2007 10:51:16 PM (GMT-5)

Laika

Iconoclast and Semeia, I thought of another one:

"it turns out there is five times more material in clusters of galaxies than we would expect from the galaxies and hot gas we can see. Most of the stuff in clusters of galaxies is invisible and, since these are the largest structures in the Universe held together by gravity, scientists then conclude that most of the matter in the entire Universe is invisible. This invisible stuff is called 'dark matter'. There is currently much ongoing research by scientists attempting to discover exactly what this dark matter is, how much there is, and what effect it may have on the future of the Universe as a whole."

Since we don't know what the majority of matter in the universe is, how can we rule out an invisible cosmos of spiritual beings?  Think 'fat demons', masses of faeries in invisible peatbogs, sumo kami.....

Iconoclast

Nice try Laika, but everyone knows that demons can fly around with no visible means of propulsion. This must mean that they are not affected by gravity which means they cannot cause gravitational attraction no matter how many of them there are. Now, faeries as I recall have wings don’t they? Gives one pause… Then again there is something that physicists call “dark energy”. I guess that could be demons for all we know. But certainly not dark matter – that’s my point.

Unless of course, faeries can be converted into demons. Demons = Faeries * Speed of Light Squared?? 

thanks,

Iconoclast

But I still say that even if your metaphorical view is right, the most benevolent interpretation of Jesus' intelligence and motives is that he wasn't particularly worried about changing anyone's mind about the existence of Satan and demons.

Iconoclast

I agree. Jesus did not go after our belief in a literal Satan. Instead Jesus directly attacked the “Satan” – the “accuser” – the “judger” within us. This is most poignant in His attack on the Pharisees. The Pharisees continually sought to accuse Jesus. They stood in judgment of Him. The Pharisees are the quintessential man acting out of their own knowledge of good and evil and Jesus attacked them mercilessly. Jesus showed us that the way out of this is to act out of love. Jesus broke the letter of the law right in front of the Pharisees in order to heal other people. He showed us that it is not about law (knowledge of good and evil) but about love. Jesus did not give us theology He showed us how to act.

I don’t think the big issue is about whether we believe in a literal Satan – it is about how we act. Do we see “evil” out there and seek to eradicate it? Or do we see how people need help and seek to help them? This is the big issue.

To the extent that a belief in a literal Satan causes one to see “evil” out there and seek to eradicate it is the extent to which it is a harmful belief. Or to the extent that a belief in a literal Satan causes one to see their problems as being caused by demonic forces and thus prevents them from “looking in the mirror” is the extent to which it is a harmful belief.

But I don’t think that this is the main reason why people do this. It seems to me that Jesus’ most powerful act was to die on the cross for us and thus show us that we are loved unconditionally. I would guess that this must be the main issue. Because we have epistemic distance from God and experience pain we quickly begin to question whether He loves us – whether we are ok. And once we decide that we are not ok we start trying to feel ok by hiding and blaming - hiding our own problems and blaming others.

By the way, this whole notion of “acting our of own knowledge of good and evil” and its relationship to Jesus’ attack on the Pharisees comes from Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s book called “Ethics”. This was discussed in much detail on this board some time back. In fact, in so much detail a whole topic was devoted to it. This thread contains a lot of the dialogue: http://www.opentheismboard.org/default.aspx?f=11&m=37572

thanks,

Iconoclast

Post Edited (Iconoclast) : 8/9/2007 11:55:47 PM (GMT-5)

Rowdy Roddy Piper had this on his blog:

"The word “bridge” does not occur in the Bible. There may be two reasons. One is that God doesn’t build bridges, he divides seas."

meow

---

Iconoclast: I don’t think the big issue is about whether we believe in a literal Satan – it is about how we act. Do we see “evil” out there and seek to eradicate it? Or do we see how people need help and seek to help them? This is the big issue.

Jeff: I agree that this is the big issue. Because we must be able to do what God has willed us to do. At bare minimum, that means Satan can't ultimately prevent me from doing God's will. And while Greg may have more specific beliefs about the role of Satan etal, I think he, too, believes that we can ultimately do what God wants us to do.

Corey

I'm trying on these clothes, to see how they fit. One thing I found a bit surprising was when you said, "I do tend to believe that when we act out of our unconscious under times of great duress that we can do supernatural things." So, it's not that you're anti-supernatural per se. Or were you being hyperbolic? Do you think these things were truly transcendent, or may make use of some sort of physics of the universe that we don't scientifically understand yet? Were these miracles truly supernatural?

Iconoclast

I believe that what Jesus did was truly transcendent from our point of view. I believe that He actually did miracles – turning water into wine, healing people in ways our science cannot and so on. At the same time I do not believe that what He did is totally disconnected from the physics of universe. I think the physics of the universe allows for the kinds of things Jesus did.

Will we someday be able to discover how to manipulate this deeper physics of the universe the way Jesus did? Perhaps to some extent although I would guess that it takes having very little to no epistemic distance from God to fully effect this kind of deeper physics. In other words I would guess that manipulating this deeper physics is less a mechanical phenomenon and more a very deep awareness of how we are connected to God and to each other and to the material world. I do not believe that we are simply “mechanical devices” in a big machine that God created. I think the creation is intimately connected to God and that we are also but that we have “lost” our awareness of this deep connection and are seeking to regain it. I think that having “faith the size of a mustard seed” means recovering this connection in some real way - becoming connected again to the “Tree of Life” that is at our center.

However, I also believe that our path forward to regaining this connection is to quite simply act out of love using what we already know. I mean, if we don’t use the tools right in front of us to do God’s will why would He give us more powerful tools?

Corey

In general, it seems to me that in your view Jesus' life, death, resurrection was primarily a forensic excercise, a way of compellingly making a point. Help me out and unpack it a little more: I can see how his life and death communicate God's love for us, but what exactly does the resurrection have to do with this? Doesn't the resurrection actually say how far God was NOT willing to go? He was not willing to truly, permanently lose his son. Exactly what point was the resurrection making?

Iconoclast

I think one of God’s main points is that we must die to live. The resurrection shows that. If Jesus just died and did not come back then that point would not be valid and there would be no hope – there would be no point to laying down one’s life. There would be no point to all this suffering and pain we go through. If Jesus was not resurrected then we also have no hope of resurrection.

I think that to be able to become God-like beings – beings that can choose to love and thus experience the ultimate gift of a loving creator – serious pain and suffering are required. We simply must experience the pain of actually choosing to love – there is no short cut. Now, to us, this is very confusing. God calls us into being – we did not ask for it – and here we are confused and suffering and alone and God cannot simply bathe us in His love and make all our hurts go away else we lose the ability to become God-like and experience His ultimate gift. We end up blaming God for our predicament and there is some truth to that. He is causing us to suffer when we did not ask for it. Now, there is a very good reason for this and we do this ourselves as well when we have children, but nevertheless it is true.

So, God Himself comes to earth and suffers right along with us. He dies on the cross in a horribly painful way. And then He comes back to life – full life – not this half-life we have now.

I think the message God is communicating is two fold

1. God is saying: “Yes, I cause you to suffer and you did not ask for it. But look, the gift I seek to give is so great I also am willing to suffer right alongside you. The pain and suffering are temporal. The gift is eternal life – it is forever. It is worth it.”

2. God is saying: “Yes, I know that because I am distant from you that you feel alone and unloved and thus judge yourself as not being worthy. This could not be farther from the truth and I know of no greater way to tell you this than to come to earth myself and die in the most agonizing excruciating way for you. You are totally and unconditionally loved. You are worth dying for. You are worthy to me.”

The resurrection shows that all of this pain and suffering is all about God seeking to give us the greatest gift that He possibly can – Eternal Life.

thanks,

Iconoclast

Post Edited (Corey) : 8/12/2007 9:26:13 AM (GMT-5)