Communism
A bad case of Racism
05 01 2008

Debunking Christianity 2.5 - The Ignorance of Evil

Posted by: Anath in Philosophy, Religion, tags: , , ,

Welcome! If you're new here, before you open your mail program to fire up a nasty email, you may want to first read our FAQ to avoid being ignored. If you like the content, we hope you will to subscribe to our RSS feed. Stay open minded!
If you don't like the content of this website on the other hand, kindly fuck off.

Hello all loyal readers! Its been quite some time since we’ve posted here, me especially. I have been quite busy for a long time, but fortunately, I’ve got something to post tonight that I’m quite proud of; the Philosophy paper I took the polls in the last.fm forum to write.

Since I already wrote an article on the topic of “Satan” and “Evil”, this Debunking Christianity serves more as an extension of that article than a new topic. Sadly, I did not get a chance to address Satanism due to time constraints and a stolen laptop.

For those who didn’t see the last.fm poll the assignment was this:
The class split into “forum” groups, which each chose a topic and took a pro or con side. Then, using a philosopher we studied in class (Oops, it appears I didn’t; Nietzsche was surprisingly not discussed. Didn’t effect my grade though), support your side of the debate. Then present it orally and open discussion to the whole class. Unfortunately due to time constraints, my forum got no discussion. I didn’t even get to finish my talk… But oh well; here’s the paper, in MLA format with sources cited and referenced for your researching pleasure. Perhaps there will be more opinion and discussion here or on the last.fm boards.

Enjoy!
–Anath

The Ignorance of “Evil”
Some Misconceptions of Western Thought

“There is some soul of goodness in things evil,
would men observingly distill it out.”
–William Shakespeare, Henry V, Act IV, Scene 1

The concept of “Evil” shall be presented throughout this paper as a culmination of several common and popular definitions in Western Society today, fusing several together to create a definition broad enough to cover a “standard” view and transcend small exceptions, but focused enough to be comprehensive. In the week preceding the first keystroke, the author posted a notice on two Internet sites fellow members to post what they felt modern Western Society valued as “Good” and “Evil” (”Anath”). The responses were varied but followed a few common themes. “Good” was most commonly defined as “Christianity/Monotheism,” “virtuousness,” “selflessness,” “obedience,” “martyrdom,” and “respect,” while “evil” was most commonly defined as “Paganism/Satanism/Atheism/Anything Non-Christian,” “war/violence,” “sexual deviance,” “Pro-Choice,” “nonconformists,” “oppression/dictatorship”, “ritualistic human sacrifice,” and “People Like Hitler”. The “Evil” side of the spectrum received more responses than the “Good” side, and less common responses included many things such as “feminism”, “pollution”, “fascism”, “artists”, and “non-popular culture.” Interestingly, Capitalism and Communism appeared as both “Good” and “Evil”. However, for the purposes of this work, we shall not be labeling or addressing systems of government.

A large portion of the survey results seem to follow suit with Nietzsche’s definition of “evil” in Beyond Good and Evil: “… fear is again the mother of morals. The highest and strongest drives, when they break out passionately and drive the individual far above the average and the flats of the herd conscience, wreck the self-confidence of the community, its faith in itself, and it is as if its spine snapped. Hence just these drives are branded and slandered most. High and independent spirituality, the will to stand alone, even a powerful reason are experienced as dangers; everything that elevates an individual above the herd and intimidates the neighbor is henceforth called evil: and the fair, modest, submissive, conforming mentality, the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors.” (Nietzsche 113-114) This is exemplified where “obedience”, “selflessness”, and “respect” are labeled as “good” while “violence,” “Anything Non-Christian,” and “nonconformists” are labeled “evil”.

Plato also argued that evil was ignorance and good is that which everyone desires (Wikipedia). Where the common religion was defined as “Good”, and other religions or belief systems as “Evil”, this definition holds true. An opposing belief system would be defined as “ignorance of the truth”, and generally displease those who deem it “Evil”. This definitions also agrees with the examples from the previous paragraph, since “everyone” would generally “want” respect and selflessness from their fellow man, and determine violence and true nonconformity to be ignorant and be displeased by the expression of either from their fellow man.

Thereby, the working definition of “evil” shall be an amalgamation of both definitions. The drives and values Nietzsche singled out are labeled as “Evil” by society for the reasons of Plato. It is the generalizations and misconceptions held by society as a whole that will be analyzed here; that ignorance creates its own “Evil” where there was none before, propagating misconceptions that taint even that considered “Good”. Of all examples, none is more striking than that of religion and mythology.

In a primarily Judeo-Christian, monotheistic society, the largest “evil” is allotted to legends, beings, and humans who do not follow the widely accepted doctrine of the single deity. A certain amount of variations on a theme is accepted, but definitive lines are drawn when it comes to Atheism, Agnosticism, Satanism, or Polytheism, most specifically the deities perceived as “evil” within polytheistic pantheons and the “Satan” of Christianity. Lines are also drawn around actions that do not adhere to the Judeo-Christian codes of ethics, including but not limited to ritual human sacrifice, strong individualistic mentalities, ambition for personal gain, violence, and sexual deviance; including premarital sex, porn, homosexuality, S+M (Sadism and Masochism), and more. Most of these examples fall into Nietzsche’s definition.

Surprisingly, development of the commonly accepted concept of “true Evil” evolved only with the rise of monotheism. Ancient polytheistic religions had deities of chaos, war, death, and the underworld, but these deities were not “Evil”. Instead, “Order” (Law) and “Chaos” are prevalent in their pantheons. However, “Law” and “Chaos” are not equivalent to “Good” and “Evil”. (Wikipedia) Instead, the domains of “Law” and “Chaos” operate within their own spectrum, more closely resembling Rousseau’s “Social Contract” and “State of Nature”. This fact became largely distorted over the time during monotheism’s rise, when the conquering belief system attempted to juxtapose its new dogma over the existing belief systems’, regardless of compatibility.

Many of the figures and stories that are perceived to be “Evil” represented nature, particularly dangerous and chaotic natural phenomena, or describe natural cycles. As a prime example, the Egyptian deity Seth, or Set, was the lord of storms and chaos. He was portrayed as a wild and powerful figure; the very embodiment of his domain. Unlike the flawless god of monotheism, deities in polytheism behaved in a very human fashion, and possessed strengths and weaknesses. In the case of Set, he was jealous of his brother Osiris, the a deity of vegetation and agriculture, who was his mother’s favorite. Set murdered Osiris, who became the first mummy at the hands of the “Lord of the Mummy Wrappings”—Anubis—and was afterward resurrected by his mother with embalming fluid. (Cotterell and Storm 307) To the Egyptians, the Set-Osiris resurrection story was symbolic of the agricultural cycle, not the “struggle between good and evil”. Despite modern opinion, Set did not “embody evil”, and, though Osiris was generally looked upon as a virtuous god, he did not “embody good”.

The resurrection of the Phoenician deity of rain and fertility, Ba’al, after being slain by Mot, the deity of death, drought, and infertility is another representation of the agricultural cycle. Despite the dark depiction of most death gods today, Mot was not “evil”. Neither are Hades from Greek mythology, Anubis of the Egyptians, Ereshkigal and Nergal of the Akkadians and Babylonians, Hel of the Norse, or Balor of the Celts. With the prevalence of Christianity, underworld and death took on negative connotations and the celebration of either was neglected. “Between us and the underworld stands the figure of Christ as he was presented by the early church fathers. ‘But it was for this purpose, say they, that Christ descended into hell, that we ourselves might not have to descend thither’… Christ’s mission to the underworld was to annul it through his resurrected victory over death.” (Hillman 85) As a result, “our culture is singular for its ignorance of death. The great art and celebrations of many other cultures—ancient Egyptians and Etruscan, the Greek of Eleusis, Tibetian—honor the underworld.” (Hillman 64) Instead of their proper place in the halls of mythology, death and underworld gods often find themselves cast in the role of shady, crooked villain. For example, in the Disney portrayal of Hercules, Hades appears as the Greek equivalent of Satan—an evil, conniving, greedy, smooth-talking, ambitious character whose ultimate goal is foiling the hero or “good” deities. Even his appearance reflected preconceptions about what “Evil” should look like visually, and his henchmen appeared as cartoon versions of demons from Christian myths. While artistic license and freedom of interpretation should be acknowledged, it should also be equally acknowledged that in modern society pop culture shapes the opinion of the herd, and Disney is undeniably an icon of pop culture. Pop culture has become another vessel of Nietzsche’s definition, as well as the pinnacle of ignorance for anything-not-pop-culture; such as ancient cultures and history.

In Greek mythology, Hades was not greedy or ambitious, or interested in “opposing the forces of good”. He actually aided Hercules in his labor to capture Cerberus, the three headed guard dog of the underworld. Hades “was referred to as ‘the unseen one’, more often as Pluto (‘Wealthy’, ‘Riches’) or as Trophonios (‘Nourishing’). These disguises of Hades have been taken to be covering euphemisms for the fear of death, but… perhaps Pluto is a description of Hades…refer(ring) to the hidden wealth or riches of the invisible. Hence we can understand why there was no cult and no sacrifice to him—Hades was the wealthy one, the giver of nourishment to the soul.” (Hillman 28) If Hades was in truth really the ‘wealthy one’, or one who ‘nourishes’, despite the human downfalls all polytheistic deities possess, how could he logically be inserted into the role of the Christian Satan but through a history of damning the underworld, perverting the ancient connotations of death and death gods, and equating ancient underworlds with the concept of “hell”. Children growing up in society today generally do not remember Hades the god as he was in classic mythology, but rather as the Greek equivalent of the Christian Satan, the evil one, the foil of Zeus and heroes, and Hades the underworld as the Greek equivalent of the Christian Hell; neither of which is accurate. On this point, it is ignorance that creates its own evil where there was none before, and the other death gods suffer a similar fate.

The realm of the underworld itself has also been tainted. Classically, “the underworld” was simply the place a soul would go upon death. The Hebrew Sheol, the Mayan Xibalba, the Greek Hades, the Egyptian underworld, or the Mesopotamian underworld beneath the waters of Apsu contained no 9-layered pits of increasing torment or tortured souls of the damned, and were not “evil”, or “for evil souls”. In some cultures, it was actually an aspiration to reach the underworld. In Egypt, there was a fear that the earth god Geb might accidentally trap the soul and prevent them from entering the underworld, which for them was directly beneath the ground. The Hebrew Sheol was simply the common grave of all who died, whether great king or heinous sinner, similar to the Greek Hades. While the Hebrews also had Gehenna, a fiery purgatory for the purification of sinners, Gehenna was not equivalent to Christian Hell and separate from Sheol. When the Bible was translated through Greek, Latin, and finally to English, Sheol, Gehenna, and Hades slowly became synonyms of “Hell”. Since Hell was generally portrayed beneath the earth, underworlds physically beneath the earth became bastardized and assimilated into the increasingly Christian worldview. For example, the Norse Nifelheim, also known as Nifelhel or Hel—from which the Christian Hell derives its name—was initially an underworld for inglorious dead; those who had died through sickness, old age, or those whose death’s were generally not heroic. Though similar to the Christian Hell in that its inhabitants were rather discomforted, inhabitants of Nifelheim were not being actively tormented and were not there because of any “evil” during life. The requirements to get into Valhalla, Odin’s eternal mead hall and the realm of the glorious dead, or Nifelheim were based on the situation of one’s death, glorious or inglorious, not the way the dead soul lived his or her life. (Cotterell and Storm 200) Therefore, a scandalous sinner who died with shield in hand and the blood of enemies upon his sword would be escorted by Valkyries to the eternal feast, while the virtuous saint who breathed his last on a comfortable bed, old and sickly would descend to Nifelheim, never tasting Odin’s sweet mead. Yet again, ignorance creates “evil”.

Following with the death theme, another item labeled as “evil” was that of ritual human sacrifice. Though shunned as an abomination in today’s society, in past cultures it was seen quite differently, crossing into martyrdom, which is perceived today as “good”. The lone man sacrificing himself for the greater good of his nation, the epic champion of legend who takes on great burdens for those he cares about, the quiet monk who gives up a worldly life to study, teach about, and contemplate his deity; all popular, romanticized views of heroes, yet all could be equated to the original goal of ritual human sacrifice. The most widely known culture who practiced ritual human sacrifice was the Mayans of Mesoamerica. “The whole of Mayan civilization was geared to maintaining moderation and balance, even to balancing the gift of life itself. All life was seen to be the gift and granting of the gods, therefore it was necessary to give them life in return to balance the equation. Blood was believed to be the embodiment of life itself and thus an appropriate gift… an individual balanced his own life through bloodletting and the community balanced its life through ritual human sacrifice. Something small could represent something large in the great scheme of things… the release of an individual’s blood through sacrifice could represent the blood of the whole community. …The Maya sacrifices were not always unwilling by any means. The Mayans called them a sacrifice; we call them heroes.” (Bonewitz 104) Many of the saints and other virtuous figures gave their lives figuratively for the good of others. The perceived effects of both sacrifices are the same, it is only the method that differs, and one is determined “Evil” because it is misunderstood and ruled against in monotheistic doctrine. The Israelites practiced ritual human sacrifice in ancient times. Infants were consecrated to the Mesopotamian deity Moloch by being cast into flames. The practice was eventually outlawed by King Josiah (Tanakh, 2 Kings 23:10) and as seen in Leviticus (Tanakh, Leviticus 18:21). Though the purposes of Mayan sacrifices and sacrifices to Moloch were different, it is not the purpose of the sacrifice that is seen, but rather the simple fact that a human is being sacrificed, and this is deemed inherently “Evil.”

However, the most important concept perverted into a common misconception of “Evil” is that of the being known as “Satan” and the belief system that derives from the name; Satanism. Popular forms of the being “Satan” are either several pagan deities cut-and-pasted together, manifestations of sacred creatures from other religions, horrific descriptions to immediately depict “the evil inside”, or that of a formerly beautiful fallen angel. (Morgan 46-53) Most of the old descriptions were conceived for conversion purposes and to discredit Paganism. The most prevalent description of the creature is that of the fallen angel, sometimes called “Lucifer.”

First of all, the name “Lucifer” itself is glaringly inaccurate for a number of reasons. If one is to presume the “fallen angel Lucifer” story is the true story of the Judeo-Christian “Satan”, the angel would have been named “Lucifer” in the Bible, most specifically in the Old Testament, or Tanakh, when the story allegedly took place. However, Lucifer is a Latin word, and the Bible was originally written in Hebrew. It is impossible for “Lucifer” to be the real name of “Satan” for this fact alone, however some supporters of the story cite a Bible verse to support their story. This verse is Isaiah 14:12, which reads:

“How are you fallen from heaven,

O Shining One, Son of Dawn!

How you are felled to earth,

O vanquisher of nations!” (Tanakh, Isaiah 14:12)
In some English translations, the verse does read “Lucifer” in place of “O Shining One”. In Hebrew, this phrase is “Halel ben Shachar” and “Halel” specifically designates “morning star”. (New Advent) When the Bible was translated into Latin during the 4th century, the literal “morning star”, which we know as the planet Venus, was commonly known as “Lucifer”; Light-Bringer. The translator was literally correct in his translation, and the intention was not to create or propagate a myth or story. Despite this, when used as evidence for the fallen angel Lucifer, the verse Isaiah 14:12 is grossly taken out of context. Isaiah 14 as a whole describes the fall of the King of Babylon, and the “Shining One” in 14:12 is the king himself—Nebuchadnezzar II. Also, Isaiah is a book of prophecy, not of myths and legends. Soon after the printing of the King James Version of the bible, which carried the translation of Isaiah 14:12 into English, Milton’s poem Paradise Lost hit the press, immortalizing the fallen angel “Lucifer” in the public eye. One must remember Nietzsche here; it is the herd, the public eye, that drives morality and the definition of “Evil”.

It is also questionable whether or not the traditional biblical “satan” is even the popular “Satan” at all. The word “satan” appears just once in the Tanakh, in the Book of Job. Here, it refers to an angel on good terms with God, wandering the earth, minding his own business, and combines his efforts with God to test Job. The word “satan” means “adversary, one who obstructs”, and this term in traditional Hebrew described an adversarial role, more specifically in a court of law, rather than a specific character. When Hebrew storytellers introduced a character called “satan”, they simply meant one of God’s angels intended specifically to obstruct human activity. (Online Etymology Dictionary) So, in its traditional sense, “satan” isn’t “Evil” at all, and certainly isn’t a fallen angel. Also, the presence of “Satan” as an angel on good terms with God in Job presents another glaring contradiction with the fallen angel story. According to Christian mythos, “Satan” fell in or around Genesis, either after he tempted Adam and Eve with the apple or before the creation of man. If “Satan” was burning in hell and with legions of demons opposing God around Genesis, why would he approach God on good terms several hundred years later, then go right back to tormenting sinners and hating God? This assumes, of course, “Satan” was actually the snake in the garden, and that he is a contradicting force to God and “Evil” by nature.

The first five books of Moses are commonly known as the Pentateuch. Current editions of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs feature rabbinical commentary clarifying and explaining the meaning of the text. According to the notes in the Pentateuch, “the serpent in its original state had the power of speech, and its intellectual powers exceeded those of all other animals, and it was the envy of man that made its plot his downfall.” (emphasis added) (Pentateuch and Haftorahs 10) So, according to the tradition of the very people who penned the story, the serpent was merely an animal. Rabbinical commentary isn’t the only source that allots provides an alternative myth of the serpent. There is also a tradition where the true first woman, Lilith, appears to Adam’s second wife, Eve, disguised as a wily serpent. Legend goes that Lilith was created alongside Adam as his equal, and left him when she was expected to submit herself to him. She wandered the desert, consorted with demons, plotted against Adam and Eve, and later began to kill babies when God rendered her infertile. (Cotterell and Storm 296) In the Islamic tale of paradise, Iblis (Satan) has already left the scene by the time man fell from grace. So who or what actually was the serpent? The common misconception of “Satan” has less than a one-in-four chance. Also, the fall of Iblis in the Holy Qur’an does not involve tempting mortals at all, but rather, refusing to submit to them. Seven accounts of the story within the book agree that Allah demanded his angels to “’Bow down to Adam.’ And they bowed down: Not so Iblis: He refused and was haughty: He was one of those to reject the faith.” (Qur’an) In effect, the popular conception of the very embodiment of “evil” is a self-contradicting conglomerate of folk stories and subjective interpretation. If the very figurehead of “Evil” can’t agree on itself, and other previously neutral or positive deities and traditions are perverted and forced into a mold of “Good versus Evil”, how can “Evil” be anything but the deformed spawn of an ignorant herd?
Bibliography

    “Evil.” Wikipedia. 1 Dec. 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil>.“Hel.” Wikipedia. 1 Dec. 2007 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hel_%28realm%29>.

    Hillman, James. The Dream and the Underworld. New York: Harper & Row, 1979.

    The Holy Qur-An. Al-Madinah Al Munawarah: The Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur-An, 1936.

    “Lucifer.” New Advent. 1 Dec. 2007 <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09410a.htm>.

    Morgan, Genevieve, and Tom Morgan. The Devil. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1996. 46-53.

    Pentateuch and Haftorahs. 2nd ed. Brooklyn, NY: The Soncino P, 1960.

Tanakh - the Holy Scriptures. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1985.

This entry was posted on Saturday, January 5th, 2008 at 5:05 am and is filed under Philosophy, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.