Jump to content
The Corroboree
Sign in to follow this  
spiders

Sympathy for the devil?

Recommended Posts

This is a little old:

'Henry Ansgar Kelly has an ambitious project, rehabilitating one of the "most maligned figure in history": the devil.

According to Professor Kelly, the devil - aka Satan, The Accuser, The Prince of this World, the Father of Lies - has endured 17 centuries of unjustified character assassination.

Better the devil you know, the saying goes, but, according to Professor Kelly, who lectured on the subject in Sydney on Monday, we only think we know him. In fact we dont - our imae was shaped from the second century church fathers to the Middle Ages. The biblical picture is quite different.

"For 1700 years, Satan has been the enemy of God, whereas in the Bible he works for God, he's his prime minister or attorney-general, in chage of policing the world. He is one of God's angels and his job is to test people', he says.

Professor Kelly, 71, has been the devil's advocate for more than four decades, publishing books and scholarly articles. The former Jesuit turned University of California professor calls himself a "diabologian".

He says the devil doesnt have a kingdom, doesnt rule over hell, and doesnt try to damn people. These ideas developed only after the second century.

Professor Kelly says it is important to recapture the biblical understanding of Satan to combat Augustine's doctrine of original sin, by which the human race was delivered to Satan.

"That's the most immoral doctrine in Christianity, that the whole of the human race is doomed to hell for something they didnt do.

"Once you get rid of that, Christianity becomes less unreasonable," he believes.

He says Satan's rare appearances in the Old Testament are not one person, but a number of angels doing God's work.

In the account of Adam and Eve's fall, in Genesis 3, the tempter was a created creature - the serpant, the smartest animal. Theologian Justin Martyr identified the serpant with Satan in the second century AD.

Professor Kelly says he would like his theories to attract more hostility so they would become better known.'

The AGE - 12/04/2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Satan has been the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!"

Anton LaVey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn, I was looking forward to going to hell, must be a popular tourist destination since everyone talks about it all the time and so many people keep telling me I should go there, but I can never find it in any travel brochures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The devil is

Prometheus

Shiva

Kokopelli

the rebel

the destroyer

the trickster

I feel only humans can be evil

archetypes cannot

archetypes are there to teach us the true complexity of existence

there is no black and white.

destruction is needed for life to go on

trickery teaches us valuable lessons and makes the inflexible mind breakl

The shaman is the bridge between multiple modes of existence

Mankind has put the blame on 'satan' for far too long. the buck stops with us.

its time we reprimanded the clergy for the lies, and evildoers for their own actions, and celebrated the role of 'the devil' in maintaining cosmic order again

the archetype of "god" and the 'devil' are two complementary opposites. they cant exist indepenently

balance is all

Edited by Rev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung

The collective unconscious

Jung's concept of the collective unconscious has often been misunderstood. In order to understand this concept, it is essential to understand his idea of the archetype, something foreign to the highly rational, scientifically-oriented Western mind; the collective unconscious could be thought of as the DNA of the human psyche. Just as all humans share a common physical heritage and predisposition towards specific physical forms (like having two legs, a heart, etc.) so do all humans have a common psychological predisposition.

"However, unlike the quantifiable information that composes DNA (in the form of coded sequences of nucleotides), the collective unconscious is composed of archetypes. In contrast to the objective material world, the subjective realm of archetypes can not be adequately understood through quantitative modes of research. Instead it can only begin to be revealed through an examination of the symbolic communications of the human psyche—in art, dreams, religion, myth, and the themes of human relational/behavioral patterns. Devoting his life to the task of exploring and understanding the collective unconscious, Jung discovered that certain symbolic themes exist across all cultures, all epochs, and in every individual."

Trash. :ana:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Jung

The collective unconscious

Trash. :ana:

i respect your objection

but to throw the notion of an archetype out because of Jungs excesses is throwing the baby with the bathwater

i see the above archetypes not as truly universal but as fairly universal concepst that correlate within historical context to a specific geographical arena

that being the change from ancient europe to modern europe in the last 4000 years

SO much is conserved intact or by derivation from earlier tikes that the foreign christian cult is merely a superficial overlay on it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find the ideas of Archetypes quite relevant to our current scenario! The idea that that highly significant "templates" that are resonant to collective ideals is very much in line with some sort of evolutionary emergence.

It seems that when these resonant figures appear in a chronological sense, that we have the opportunity to re-evalute their significance on a broad level. I also feel that these come through quite strongly with entheogens and the whole experience unfolds in a more liberating fashion, when these intra/extra personal dynamics are worked with!

On a scientific level in can't see why the ideas of exogenous DNA are so readily dismissed. Certainly coding for computing systems does not solely reside in within a mainframe and exists outside the individual programs awareness of itself.

What I do think is occuring is the strong prejudice to monotheistic deities that are reductive in nature. When viewed as a cultural equation, the sum of religious experience is expansive and not as self limiting as individualistic hierarchial spiritualistic models.

A pantheon of deities in some form of hierarchial fractal arrangement is the far greater fuel for psychedelic analysis that I think Jung was plugging for!

Commonality of collective data, especially visual data, is highly resonant on a cross cultural basis and seems to be a cellular byproduct when viewed across the longer timespans that disciplines such as Anthropology compare cultures and cultural settings.

I would like see however, broader, more all encompassing definitions of academic disciplines . Maybe School of Ethno-cosmic-anthro-morphic studies may be more appropriate to such collective models of consciousness?

Edited by Tripitaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just realised that the ppst i thought i posted was cut off 1/2 way by a technical error this end

it concerened the archetypes of the madonna and child, the paternal god (zeus) and the rebel to his authority - prometheus, and the god who dies and is reborn (Dionysus/Bacchus) and yes like the modern eucharist it is also all about the wine!

it was about how christainity is the wolf in sheeps clothing. The wolf that is Rome being dressed in a judaic theological lambskin

these are the archetypes that dominate europes development in the last 2000 years

Edited by Rev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with archetypes.

Its that as PBS Cambel [jungian]explanation is a historical analysis with only a biased anthropological/historical analysis.

In Australia I don't see much rejoicing on the native populations religous take on realilty because it might threatening to the social order. As mining ore.

Maybe they native peoples don't want their sacred mountains dug up and the native peoples turned into caretakers of ruined polluted land.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

A bland cerebral safe analysis of religeous archtypes is in order.

Really the type of wilted stuff communist do from a purely historical/economic viewpoint.

The point is that maybe the are polarietys and conflicts that exist between nonhuman beings {heaven and hell} that aren't going to be historically analyized into a intellectual oblivion but are going to expressed in the near future.

---------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Id agree with the relevance of archetypes. Certainly seem more rationale than constructing an entity to blame for all our negative actions/feelings/doings/etc. A template or ideal for the vast array of possibilities that are humanity and expression. Rather than a fight between a jealous god and a tempting devil.

A construct that apropriated the morning star, the horned head of cernunnos the Jack-o-the-green or protector of the forest in celtic beliefs, and a whole host of other pre-christian beliefs. Which as Rev has explained is itself a wolf-in-sheep-clothing when it comes to archetypes and pre-christian ones in particular.

I wonder if anyone here has actually had any encounter with some kind of malevolent force? Perhaps I encountered something rather malevolent on a mushroom wandering - but i dont think it directed at me - more just in general.

Edited by bluemeanie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A construct that apropriated the morning star, the horned head of cernunnos the Jack-o-the-green or protector of the forest in celtic beliefs, and a whole host of other pre-christian beliefs. Which as Rev has explained is itself a wolf-in-sheep-clothing when it comes to archetypes and pre-christian ones in particular.

-------------------------------------------

Thankfully thanks the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A construct that apropriated the morning star, the horned head of cernunnos the Jack-o-the-green or protector of the forest in celtic beliefs, and a whole host of other pre-christian beliefs. Which as Rev has explained is itself a wolf-in-sheep-clothing when it comes to archetypes and pre-christian ones in particular.

-------------------------------------------

Thankfully thanks the case.

Devance, I have never seen you make so much sense :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Angels always sing as a unision, always when communicating.

Anything else is different.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did i write that? ???? mmmmm..............

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its interesting to note that the baphomet was a construct of eliphas levi, a catholic priest. It was only later that the number assigned to this archetype was 666.. Prior to this the baphomet was an important part of the gnostic mass..

It seems that in many 'archetypes' their is the exploration of polarities, and in some the two polarities exist as one. I would argue that archetypes exist as part of the framework for the unfolding of consciousness... In my world view we are heading towards a state of unity, whereby we are able to see the world of polarities spiral way out and eventually back into itself.. I.e we have been pushing the unbalanced curve so far out that eventually we will meet back in the middle, the ying/yang will be complete and whole, and jesus and satan will be seen to be one and the same, just two different aspects of a whole.. Both intrinsically important, both with their own 'personality' or 'qualities'... much like the left brain/right brain neurology...

On a side note i always liked how some early religious texts refer not to higher beings as angels and demons, but as Daemon's i.e with the same characterisitcs/abilities of human personality... not purely good or purely evil, but with the ABILITY to do either depending on self rule.

Edited by min(E)rval

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was only later that the number assigned to this archetype was 666..

caught the middle of a show on t.v. that suggested the 666 was a numerology code for the name of one of the roman emperors and was more the writers way of pointing the finger without ending up crucified. :innocent_n:

so basically the line "let him who hath understanding reckon the number of the beast" meant if you've got any brains do the math and you know what prick I'm talking about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did i write that? ???? mmmmm..............

A meanless statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what applys is some anthropolical study in a destroeyed by smallpox society.

A pinhead college outlook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe Ill change my name to Bluemeanless?

Didnt they re-translate the number to actually be 616 rather than 666 ??????????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='bluemeanie' date='May 6 2006, 05:22 PM' post='90614')

Didnt they re-translate the number to actually be 616 rather than 666 ??????????

 

yep thats the way it went but even that number deciphered into an emperors name so it still seems everyone is getting work up over a statement that was probably more of a personal attack on an emperor than some deep revelation :innocent_n: about how to recognise the devil :devil:

at least thats what I thought they were trying to hint at

personally I quite like the fellow(satan) none of my friends/relatives have died cos its was His will. :crux:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

666 could many things but as a numerical signifance the scanner codes in supermarkets begin and end in such.

A philospical question as are we items to be commercialized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes - Im going to patent your DNA profile and you'll have to start paying me royalties to keep living.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Devance

you are quite prevalent with the one liners in this discussion

how about its time you articulate YOUR explanation so we can consider its logic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×