The devil and the deep blue

[Lek]

Although I'm abroad, I have been trying to follow social and political trends, particularly over the past few years. The rise of the "fundamentalist religious right" and its anti-gay stridency, the ex-gay movement, and the mostly successful anti-gay marriage movement ... well, I regarded these trends with incredulous awe. I'm very much outside looking in, so my perspective may be off, but seems to me that the disease of homophobia is still festering.

What has baffled me is the question of how the fundamentalist religious right got so powerful. And what has baffled me even more is why moderate Christians seemed to have tolerated the political and social assaults on gay people. I mean, I do understand the ongoing theological debate about homosexuality is probably healthy and all, but it seems clear to me that preaching that "hate the sin, but love the sinner" is still preaching hatred and that seems to utterly unChristian to me. Pardon my naivety. But it kind of seemed like a war against gay people.

Well, that's not my main point, really. The more I am exposed to this hatred in the guise of religion, the more evil it seems. "Evil" is not a word I use lightly either.

Many Christians believe that the Devil can manifest or possess itself at any time and in anyone. Am I right about that? If so, then could a preacher, a minister, a priest, a monk, or a pope be under the influence of the Devil? Doesn't the Devil have a clever tongue, and couldn't it be using the language of religion to mislead people?

It just seems to me that a person with such power, as does a member of the clergy, would not abuse that power by preaching in a way that results in emotional, psychological and physical violence against another group of people. And if he did, that his or her followers would rise up against such a voice.

I'd appreciate anyone's opinions and guidance on this.

[sailaway58]

I don't believe its all that sinister.
Gay issues are not pleasant to the average person then throw in religion that has largely accepted or believed that homosexuality is a sin for years and BAM!
You have conflict.
I just wish more heterosexuals would read materials written from or by people that have lived the life. There should be a couple of ya out there that know what you are talking about!
A song written by the great philosopher Cat Stevens says,
I'm like him and just like you, I can't tell you what to do
Like everybody else I'm searching through, what I've heard.

Orientation may not be a choice but what we believe about it is.
I can't be offended when told I am deceived by Satan and then agree that those that don't agree with me are possessed by him.

Does it hurt? Yes. Should we stand up against it? Yes. Should we demean those that oppose our view? You tell me.

[Pablo Rafael]

And what has baffled me even more is why moderate Christians seemed to have tolerated the political and social assaults on gay people. I mean, I do understand the ongoing theological debate about homosexuality is probably healthy and all, but it seems clear to me that preaching that "hate the sin, but love the sinner" is still preaching hatred and that seems to utterly Christian to me. Pardon my naivety. But it kind of seemed like a war against gay people.

Lek, let me just take the opportunity to say hello and welcome. I think that Christianity has taken a basically homophobic stance just because that is the way it has always been. The force of inertia is great in the church. I think that most Christians really do mean well when they use the "hate the sin; love the sinner" phrase. They don't see it as hateful because they have been conditioned to see things only one way. It is really hard to change one's long-held viewpoint on an issue. The fact that the debate is ongoing shows me that there are cracks forming in that homophobic attitude. As those of us who are gay become more visible, and people realize that we are just normal people, the hatred in the church will diminish.

Many Christians believe that the Devil can manifest or possess itself at any time and in anyone. Am I right about that? If so, then could a preacher, a minister, a priest, a monk, or a pope be under the influence of the Devil? Doesn't the Devil have a clever tongue, and couldn't it be using the language of religion to mislead people?

I think some groups of Christians do believe this. However, I think that most Christians would distance themselves from such a belief. I come from a Catholic/Lutheran background and my beliefs flow from those roots. I don't think the devil has all that much power. In fact I think that the devil is less an entity that it is a description of sin in general. I think that people make choices to use their influence for good or evil. I don't believe that the devil can posess someone and use them as a tool. Looking though history I see people in the church using their power and influence for personal gain. The devil (or sin) can only manifest itself in a person when a person chooses that path.

Still I believe that all of us must constantly seek to rid ourselves of the sin in our lives. It is an ongoing process that I struggle with every day. It is only by the power of God's grace brought to me by the Holy Spirit that I try to seek out a path of love instead of hate.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[u-dog]

Moderate to Liberal Christian congregations tend to be much more diverse theologically than conservative churches. Consequently, such churches tend to steer clear of controversial topics for the sake of peace. As a result they are less suitable places for organizing around an issue than conservative churches.

[Lek]

Lek, let me just take the opportunity to say hello and welcome.

Thanks, Pablo.

I think that Christianity has taken a basically homophobic stance just because that is the way it has always been. The force of inertia is great in the church. I think that most Christians really do mean well when they use the "hate the sin; love the sinner" phrase. They don't see it as hateful because they have been conditioned to see things only one way.

Yes, I agree. Inertia is great everywhere. I also agree that the interpretation of homosexual behavior as sinful is just one of those things that people have taken for granted--"Yeah, well, it says so in the Bible somewhere." My father was a very non-religious person UNTIL I came out. The first words out of his mouth was, "But it is a sin."

I think what I was driving at in my post was the stridency and viciousness of the anti-gay Christian right over the past decade or so. I mean, if I were Christian, it would have struck me as very un-Christian just as passing laws banning gay marriage struck me as very un-American. I know that both of those statements sound so naive, but all of this is difficult to articulate because I'm out of the loop. There's no one here to discuss these things with.

I was really shocked when you wrote that "they don't see it as hateful." I cannot imagine this when the word "hate" is part of the slogan. Do you mean that hating a sin is part of some Christian's belief system?

I appreciate your comments about the Devil. I didn't know it was a limited idea.

Looking though history I see people in the church using their power and influence for personal gain. The devil (or sin) can only manifest itself in a person when a person chooses that path.

Very interesting way to look at this. Here, corrupt Buddhist monks haven't been challenged until recently--it was actually thought to be a sin to criticize a monk's behavior--but some monk's outrageous behavior has been seen by laypeople, and more and more even newspaper report these transgressions. Unfortunately, this has damaged their faith. There is a crises of Buddhism here, but I'm confident that it will survive it. Of course, those who follow the precepts remain quiet about those who damage the institution, and I think that this has contributed to the problems. Inertia. This concerns me a great deal.

I try to seek out a path of love instead of hate.
This is my challenge too. For me, hurt and fear are the undercurrents of hate. All I need to do is to acknowledge that I've been hurt or I'm afraid to undercut hate.

Anyway, I really appreciate your comments. They were very helpful to me.

[paul]

Many Christians believe that the Devil can manifest or possess itself at any time and in anyone. Am I right about that? If so, then could a preacher, a minister, a priest, a monk, or a pope be under the influence of the Devil? Doesn't the Devil have a clever tongue, and couldn't it be using the language of religion to mislead people?

It just seems to me that a person with such power, as does a member of the clergy, would not abuse that power by preaching in a way that results in emotional, psychological and physical violence against another group of people. And if he did, that his or her followers would rise up against such a voice.

I'd appreciate anyone's opinions and guidance on this.


Interesting question, Lek. Christianity has a vast variety of beliefs...it's hard to imagine sometimes that they can all use the same label. So, there are many answers to this question, depending on who you ask. But we can try. Just understand that this is in broad terms and that there are exceptions to everything.

I think the people you identify in your thread would come most easily under the label of "fundamentalist." I think you could safely break that group down, broadly, into pentacostal types and non (I was both, so I speak from some experience). In my experience, non pentacostals don't talk about the devil to much. Pentacostals, on the other hand, are into all things spiritual, so to speak, and they give the devil lots of air time. There's no standard belief about the devil even in Pentacostal circles, that I have ever discovered.

If you want to observe the different camps who weild a lot of influence, try these. Pat Robertson would be a good example of a 'moderate' pentacostal type of fundamentalist (700 club). Paul Crouch (PTL) would be a pretty good example of a more (gee,how do I put this...I don't know, you watch him and fill in the blank yourself)______ pentacostal . People like Jerry Falwell and James Dobson are good examples of the non pentacostal type of fundamentalist.

You'll note differences in the way these two groups pray, as regards the devil. You'll probably never hear a non pentacostal going after the devil in prayers, but pentacostals will address him directly. They "bind" him and "cast" him, they do "spiritual warfare."

None of these groups that I have listed would even consider that they could just be possessed by the devil or a demon against their volition. You have to have some sort of sin that would open you to such (if at all). Most nonies will say it's impossible since the Holy Spirit occupies that space. On the other hand, my wife (a "pentacostal" of sorts), believes I have demons. That's how she partly explains my gay orientation to herself. There was a time when I believed the same thing. I did all the requisite stuff to rid myself of those pesky things. Imagine my chagrin when I remained gay after the exorcism. :rolleyes:

Lek, for those who believe in demons/devil...it is we who have them, not they. We're the enemy, or at least we are the enemies captives. "God" has "delievered us over to our perverse desires." This might explain some of the vitriol.

[Lek]

Very informative, Paul. Thank you very much.

Collins Cobuild :reading: says: "Pentecostal churches are Christian churches that emphasize the work of the Holy Spirit and the exact truth of the Bible."

I've only heard of Falwell and Robertson (I think). Aren't these people rich, and therefore, powerful. If so, then perhaps I better understand the rise of the "fundamentalist Christian right" as a political force.


Lek, for those who believe in demons/devil...it is we who have them, not they. We're the enemy, or at least we are the enemies captives. "God" has "delivered us over to our perverse desires." This might explain some of the vitriol.

Oh my. That discussion would go nowhere:

Them: "You have the demons/devils."
Gays: "Nuh-uh. You have the demons/devils."
Them: "Nuh-uh. You do."
Gays: "Nuh-uh. You do."

"God" has "delivered us over to our perverse desires."

:eek:

Thanks, again, Paul.

[BrentRichards]

Them: "You have the demons/devils."
Gays: "Nuh-uh. You have the demons/devils."
Them: "Nuh-uh. You do."
Gays: "Nuh-uh. You do."


This is pretty much how the debate goes most of the time as it is!:(

[u-dog]

This is pretty much how the debate goes most of the time as it is!:(


Thats why bringing the devil into an argument is both stupid and manipulative since it can go no other way once you do.

[Pablo Rafael]

I was really shocked when you wrote that "they don't see it as hateful." I cannot imagine this when the word "hate" is part of the slogan. Do you mean that hating a sin is part of some Christian's belief system?


Lek,

Maybe I am so used to hearing this saying that is doesn't seem offensive to me. Actually I do think that hating sin (in general) is part of the Christian belief system. My own personal opinion of sin is that it is that which separates us from the love of God and prevents us from showing love to God and others.

As a Christian I believe that God loves me despite my errors and failings. Though he loves me, he hates the sin in my life. I feel God constantly has to keep working in my life to bring me closer to him. God is love, and to be more like God we must become more loving.

I believe that the accumulation of wealth by a few at the expense of others is a sin. I believe that child abuse is a sin. I believe that drinking and driving is a sin. I believe that discrimination against LGBT people is a sin. These things are all sins because instead of showing love, they are the result of selfishness. My opinion is that we should hate such things; I think we should and do our best to rid the world of those things which oppress others.

I do not believe that sin is conquered by hatred but is overcome by love. We can hold people accountable for the harm they do to others without hating them. So I do think it is possible to "hate the sin and love the sinner". The reason I am against the death penalty is because I believe that everyone has value even those who have done terrible things. I don't have to like what a criminal might have done, but I can still have compassion for the criminal.

The problem I see with the "hate the sin" saying is not that we shouldn't hate sin, but that people often use it to uphold their own prejudices by classifying anything they don't agree with as "sin". I think we need to challenge people when they are comfortable in their prejudices, but our challenge should be motivated by love.

That's how I see it. I often feel as if I contradict myself. Little in life seems to be black and white to me - lots of shades of grey.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[BrentRichards]

I'm thinking that maybe part of the problem here is linguistic, again (Dave, Andy ... jump right in and tell me if I'm looney ... well, strike that, tell me if I'm wrong about this particular idea) ... when we read "hate" we read it (like any word) with all our 20th/21st century English language baggage. But the nature of God (inconveniently enough) does not revolve around modern English linguistic conventions.

Hate, to us, is revulsion. It involves rage, tons of emotion, and its usual result is action ... some form of attack (be it verbal or physical), violence (again, of many types), and an attempt to DESTROY what we hate. I'm not at all sure that's a good match to the Biblical concept ... particularly OT. It seems to me that the Biblical "hate" has more to do with shunning, avoiding, putting aside ... for example, the famous Phred Phelps (I've decided to start spelling it that way, it's very Haters-backwards-R-Us) quote that God loved Jacob and hated Esau is in fact Biblical ... but does it mean God flew into a flaming rage over Esau and organized protests against him? No, it means that, as Esau abandoned and shunned God, God ultimately said to him (as He ultimately says to all who refuse Him) "Thy will be done!" When we hate sin, it doesn't mean we are to fly into a rage, and "attack" sin ... best way to keep a bad habit is to declare war on it, sometimes! Rather, we are to shun sin, have nothing to do with it, leave it out of our lives entirely. Phrankly, if Phred and Phriends (that's good too, huh?) would "hate" us in that sense, and just phorget we exist, we'd all be better off. Problem is, when most Christians talk of "love the sinner, hate the sin" they are confusing this hate concept with our modern one ... fact is, you can't hate sin in someone else's life in this other sense ... you can only hate (shun) your own sin ... somebody else's (as you perceive it) is outside your ability and responsibility to "hate" in this more meaningful sense.

Andy/Dave ... am I anywhere close to the truth here? Linguistically speaking?

[RedneckDyke]

Do I believe in a Devil or an evil force? Yes
Do I think it possesses fundies? No

At least not most of them. I do believe in Evil. But I don't think the Devil goes around snatching people and possessing them all the time. I don't think people need any help from the a devil to do evil or hurtful things. I think "They were possessed" is a cop-out. People have free-will and they don't need to be posessed a-la The Exorcist to hurt each other.
Why do I think fundies hate us?
I think it is a combo of shallow biblical knowledge and self-righteousness. I think it is also, at least on the part of leaders, a way to gain power in the structure of the church. How else to stir people up to follow you than to create an enemy? Hitler did it with Jews. Fundies do it with gays.

[andrewlittle]

I'm thinking that maybe part of the problem here is linguistic, again (Dave, Andy ... jump right in and tell me if I'm looney ... well, strike that, tell me if I'm wrong about this particular idea) ... when we read "hate" we read it (like any word) with all our 20th/21st century English language baggage. But the nature of God (inconveniently enough) does not revolve around modern English linguistic conventions.

Hate, to us, is revulsion. It involves rage, tons of emotion, and its usual result is action ... some form of attack (be it verbal or physical), violence (again, of many types), and an attempt to DESTROY what we hate. I'm not at all sure that's a good match to the Biblical concept ... particularly OT. It seems to me that the Biblical "hate" has more to do with shunning, avoiding, putting aside ... for example, the famous Phred Phelps (I've decided to start spelling it that way, it's very Haters-backwards-R-Us) quote that God loved Jacob and hated Esau is in fact Biblical ... but does it mean God flew into a flaming rage over Esau and organized protests against him? No, it means that, as Esau abandoned and shunned God, God ultimately said to him (as He ultimately says to all who refuse Him) "Thy will be done!" When we hate sin, it doesn't mean we are to fly into a rage, and "attack" sin ... best way to keep a bad habit is to declare war on it, sometimes! Rather, we are to shun sin, have nothing to do with it, leave it out of our lives entirely. Phrankly, if Phred and Phriends (that's good too, huh?) would "hate" us in that sense, and just phorget we exist, we'd all be better off. Problem is, when most Christians talk of "love the sinner, hate the sin" they are confusing this hate concept with our modern one ... fact is, you can't hate sin in someone else's life in this other sense ... you can only hate (shun) your own sin ... somebody else's (as you perceive it) is outside your ability and responsibility to "hate" in this more meaningful sense.

Andy/Dave ... am I anywhere close to the truth here? Linguistically speaking?

Yes and no - I guess.

The word "hate", and the concept it conveys, came into Old English (some time around 900) from Scandinavian and Germanic languages - the modern equivalent in Norwegian is hate, Swedish and Icelandic is hata, German is hassen. The concept came from the notion that forces of chaos (demons, if you will) were capable of taking or entering a human form. Upon meeting a stranger, a rational person would then "hate" them, which really meant doubt their humanity. If they could be killed, they were human - if not, they were demons. The response to "hate", then, was to kill the stranger to test their humanity. That is why an "introduction" or sponsor was important for entering into Scandinavian culture - someone to attest to your humanity.

The Hebrew word sane has been translated into hate in the English, but we cannot be sure of the original meaning because that translation has taken on the power of tradition.

The Greek word miseo is interpreted commonly as hate, but also clearly has the meanings of "disregard" and "be indifferent to". It then leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Context, however, many times leads to the better understanding being the less emotional responses.

This may well be a case where Old and Middle English meanings were "read back" onto scripture.

[tpdncr4christ]

Them: "You have the demons/devils."
Gays: "Nuh-uh. You have the demons/devils."
Them: "Nuh-uh. You do."
Gays: "Nuh-uh. You do."

Haha... And God in Heaven is up there laughing shaking His head saying: "Nuh-uh. Nuh-uh..."

[pnggrad79]

Although I'm abroad, I have been trying to follow social and political trends, particularly over the past few years. The rise of the "fundamentalist religious right" and its anti-gay stridency, the ex-gay movement, and the mostly successful anti-gay marriage movement ... well, I regarded these trends with incredulous awe. I'm very much outside looking in, so my perspective may be off, but seems to me that the disease of homophobia is still festering.

What has baffled me is the question of how the fundamentalist religious right got so powerful. And what has baffled me even more is why moderate Christians seemed to have tolerated the political and social assaults on gay people. I mean, I do understand the ongoing theological debate about homosexuality is probably healthy and all, but it seems clear to me that preaching that "hate the sin, but love the sinner" is still preaching hatred and that seems to utterly unChristian to me. Pardon my naivety. But it kind of seemed like a war against gay people.

Well, that's not my main point, really. The more I am exposed to this hatred in the guise of religion, the more evil it seems. "Evil" is not a word I use lightly either.

Many Christians believe that the Devil can manifest or possess itself at any time and in anyone. Am I right about that? If so, then could a preacher, a minister, a priest, a monk, or a pope be under the influence of the Devil? Doesn't the Devil have a clever tongue, and couldn't it be using the language of religion to mislead people?

It just seems to me that a person with such power, as does a member of the clergy, would not abuse that power by preaching in a way that results in emotional, psychological and physical violence against another group of people. And if he did, that his or her followers would rise up against such a voice.

I'd appreciate anyone's opinions and guidance on this.

Lek,

Growing up in a very conservative Southern Baptist family, everything that wasn't "church" was the devil. My father used to take the TV guide and with a red marker mark through everything that was questionable in values, quality and morals, which even back then was almost everything. We couldn't watch any shows with African Americans, MASH, Soap (the first show ever to introduce a gay character, Jody, played by Billy Crystal) any soap opera, most game shows, and a host of other shows. We were at church every time the doors opened. We were told every morning that the influences at public school were evil and that we had to "be in the world but not of it". Our music was censored. Books we read were censored. I was not allowed to wear shorts past the age of 13. I either had to wear a dress or jeans (and in Texas in the summer, that was pure torture). I was drilled in Bible verses every day and expected to memorize them to guard against these evil influences. Given all that, it was hard for me to face the fact that I was a lesbian.

I don't know if everything is "the devil". I think the Bible speaks to that concept in John 10:10 and Ephesians 6:12-13. I am not sure if it is metaphorical or literal, however the theme exists in Scripture.

I also believe that typically throughout history, fear has driven those in power. During the Inquisition, fear drove the Christians to mercilessly slaughter thousands of Jews and Muslims or force them to convert. Centuries later, Hitler used basic fear and prejudice to slaughter over 6 million Jews. After the Civil War, when African Americans were no longer enslaved, fear kept them second class citizens (if that) for 100 or more years, until MLK, Jr. And even now, they still struggle. Today, fear drives the prejudice against homosexuals. The church has historically been afraid of these "evil" influences and shuns them. And I maintain that the church has also NEVER been about the gospel of Jesus Christ. It has been about its own agenda and doesn't stand on the principles of love, forgiveness, acceptance and tolerance. It never has. It senses that it will lose its followers if they aren't continually bombarded with a new evil influence to unite them against it.

Good question, one I am not sure I know the answer to....:confused:

[BruceChris]

But it is ultimately not very Christian. God has unconditional love for each and every one of us, Even Fred Phelps.

P&L, Bruce Chris

[BruceChris]

I am going to start out by offering you the proposition that we project most of our needs, and some of our fears onto God, and that we project most of our fears, and even some of our needs onto the devil. And that these defense behaviors are to a large extent responsible for how we see these entities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It senses that it will lose its followers if they aren't continually bombarded with a new evil influence to unite them against it.

This is how the Republican Party seems to use the devils they project our fears onto, I mean, first the Communists, and now the terrorists.

P&L, BC

[pnggrad79]

I am going to start out by offering you the proposition that we project most of our needs, and some of our fears onto God, and that we project most of our fears, and even some of our needs onto the devil. And that these defense behaviors are to a large extent responsible for how we see these entities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is how the Republican Party seems to use the devils they project our fears onto, I mean, first the Communists, and now the terrorists.

P&L, BC

BC,
I would go even further than that and say the church as a whole seems to do a whole helluva lot of projecting onto God its fears and prejudices. The church seems to do a whole lot of shoving God into its tiny little boxes and tries to control him as best they can.:rolleyes: