The Satan paradox

What if there was a group of people within a community, who one day, openly professed their adoration of the prince of darkness and all his works. Then they set forth their agenda to disseminate the their faith, paying special attention to the young and impressionable. These people wouldn’t be new age equivocators, professing how misunderstood the devil is, but perfectly open about the tenets of their faith: the human sacrifice, baby eating and other practices too awkward to mention in this context. How do you think the community that hosted these people would react?

I think the reaction would be quite spectacular, so spectacular that these people would find themselves committed to some kind of institution in short order. So generally, unless they’re a complete gibbon, people don’t do that kind of thing do they? This is where we get the notion of the devil being the master of deception and lies. He’s a force hidden from view, lurking just out of sight, practising his guile and seducing the innocent. And you know what, I think that’s a well founded notion, well founded, except for one teensy detail. What if the devil didn’t tell you to eat babies and kill your fellows but he said: be good, set aside your own well being for the common good? Which makes sense when you think about it, people generally display a certain reluctance, when you tell them directly to eat babies and do you remember that stuff about lies and deception?

So do we know any people who do that, you know, encourage you to think one way, while facilitating the circumstance where you behave in the completely opposite manner?

Read the papers lately?

Advertisements

~ by deadspidereye on March 2, 2016.

5 Responses to “The Satan paradox”

  1. I think that my interpretation of this piece may be different than yours though you undoubtedly know that you have created a multifaceted story to which I would be surprised many would venture an opinion. When the weapon one wields has the tendency to point back to the wielder one tends to pretend that it could not. don’t you think ? ; )

    • That’s an interesting question, yes there is a certain naivety that comes from simple possession. Once that circumstance has transformed into active use though, which is what I infer from -wield-, that naivety is rudely dissipated, unless the individual is particularly insensitive or insulated from the consequences of their volition. So I suppose, your observation rests on that question, is this naivety a pretence though, hubris, when unfounded self assurance and arrogance seem so ascendant?

  2. Actually I think that deception is such a common practice of the world theses days [and perhaps always] that backfires are to be expected as even an honestly prepared plan is susceptible to failure. ie deception seems to me to be inherently more complicated and therefore more apt to fail due to the necessity of more variables. The mess that ensues is never the less , a mess, and the aftermath will always require cleanup. Right is never good for everybody because the perception of right is the sum of variables though truly wrong is always evil. Just my thoughts, I could be wrong !

    • I see your point, yes a lie can be hijacked and turned against the perpetrator. I don’t think -conflict with reality- is a universal constant though, it’s specific to cultural contexts. I call it conflict with reality, because there are certain lies we accept because we’re deceived, other lies we accept because it’s what we’d like to believe. The most powerful untruths though and the most destructive ones, are lies that are not the least bit convincing. These are the lies we have to accept because of the coercion behind them, i.e. the lies we’re forced to accept. That ties into your observation about the consequences of a lie becoming untenable, so that the fall out from it, destroys the fabric that supports it. That’s inevitable because reality eventually asserts itself. Where the variation lies, is within the context a lie has currency, the culture that supports it.

      • My dear departed Mother, who was an intelligent, and fairly well educated person hated marijuana use with a passion. Apparently she learned all there was to know about pot usage via the government training film,”Reefer Madness”. Her high school mandated all students view this work-of-art in an assembly held on campus. I do understand that we all are indoctrinated to some extent depending on the society in which we live. Therefore we all live with certain lies even though some of us attempt to discover and rid ourselves of these pests. That being said, I have rather enjoyed our little debate and look forward to another sometime. ; )
        BTW , you really should Google the aforementioned video. It is quite entertaining !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: