Benjamin John > Recent Status Updates

The fathers can seem at times like angelic beings, full of boundless goodness and compassion. But simultaneously it also seems like the would be a little unbearable to interact with on a human level, constantly “on”, always in their mode of doing things. I guess if you do that you get to the supreme level of one liners.

The brief but impactful sayings are quite startling, really bring up the adjective Christlike in my mind. Short and often mundane in their events, but with such clarity. I can only imagine what it would have been like to receive such a word from a person you immensely respected and put on such a pedestal.

Interesting to see an undercurrent here of commerce and production. I believe that the anchorites did similarly by selling their wares, but i thinks it’s first mentioned here. Making and selling seems antithetical to a life of spiritual enrichment but what is the other way? Begging? That doesn’t seem like a viable or positive alternative. It’s hinted at the kind of degradation this causes.

Peeling back the layers to go further into detail of how exactly a life such as this functions; not just as a biography or a lesson, but a multifaceted teaching about theology.

I have read a bit of the acts, including the apocryphal ones and they do contain miraculous deeds, but I can’t remember if they, as is noted, stress the human flourishing in quite the same way, the physical and spiritual attainment.

A nice dive into the specific literary characteristic and the models which they relate to. The biblical (particularly Christ) as a model occurred to be as the Life of Antony was summarised, but there are a few other similar but distinct ideas around approach to the subject as well as format.

Does well to summarise the very squabbling nature of early Christianity and how many factors influence it: various intellectual disagreements, the ebbing and flowing of political power, factional attacks, key personalities. I partially knew this but it is fascinating how key Egypt was in these disputes and goes to show how different a world it was than we might imagine it, deeply connected to the European continent.

A nice summary of Egypt at the time to make way for the details to come. Frankly his casual and more professional approach is a welcome reprieve from the end of Mephistopheles by Russell. It’s going to be a nice read to approach a topic without all that bitterness, seeking to understand a topic without having to get so personal offended about everything. Personal is good, but not when it feels so venomous.

Unfortunately in this book he seems to indulge his personal grievances, stating that Satre’s politics are indicative of some sort of moral bankruptcy.

It holds a judgemental tone, very freely mixing his opinions with the history, rather than working through critiques in a more seperate manner which he had done previously.

It can seem at times we are reading his letter about why he doesn’t like Vatican II

Russel is a conservative Christian, but he has been pretty fair mostly. But as predicted when we approach the current day he absolutely loses the fucking plot, heavy metal is low level evil propaganda.

The foremost exploration of the devil and he doesn’t engage.

I cannot emphasise enough that when he talks about Satanism (even if you accept his loose definitions) he is talking about approximately 100 people.

The analysis of various different authors is interesting, but I do wonder how, without having always been tied to specific traditions of foreshadowing their influences, how they quite articulate the history of Devil in thought.

A fascinating chapter which really speaks to the beginning of the devil employed how I’m most familiar; as entertainment, stripped of theological meaning. That the Romantics took the devil as a symbol and configured him in a variety of ways, often without traditional meanings.

I commend Russell on being even handed in dealing with these topics, not reaching for terms like Satantic, as much as he disapproves

I enjoy how much it annoys him about dechristianisation. And as expected he entertains a line about moral relativism without God, illustrated by de Sade, of course paying no kind to the fact that religious people can’t agree on their morals and have always been as immoral as atheists. Religious people are still making up rules, at least atheists admits that what we are doing .

I appreciate how Russel emphasises not just the change beliefs, where skepticism begins to again a foothold, but also the increasing emphasis on material production, the desire to extract and throw away that which cannot easily be demonstrated to extract.

It does nicely to setup Milton as an aberration, the last gasp of a full throated devilism in a world which increasingly sidelined that influence.

Does really well to introduce the Protestant reformation, while ultimately seeking to enforce focus on the semi-parallel current of individualism which informed the idea of the devil far more than any theological developments or schisms

Again, it doesn’t quite feel like he does justice to the witch craze.

I think it could have been split into chapters, with the theological taking one half and literary the other.

I totally agree that subtracting the devil from Christianity makes no sense in light of its intellectual history and textual basis.

It is funny to hear him talking about indignantly about moral relativism, since folding evil into a supposedly “good” God is about as relative as you can get. And it is childish to rely on terms like “evil” rather than refer to historical events for something like th third reich

A brief section of nominalists and mystics to fine to summarise their perspectives on the devil, but the paltry section on witchcraft does seem very underdone, especially considering the authors expertise in the topic, having written at least another book on it.

An interesting look at how the Bible and demonology was mild and shaped for a popular audience, but Russel is right to lament the violence he does to the plays by working then into a single narrative. I’m afraid this leaves the read wondering whether this new creation represents anything like the works being referred to, or is simply a novel work by the author.

A cursory glance at art and literature. This chapters really should be a full page book with hundreds of colour pictures but unfortunately that’s the nature of the project. Interested in the hastily mentioned changing nature of the devil, apparently regressing to former trends.

Very struck by the boldness of Anselm. But it also has me wondering by if you can truly have a system where you inscribe free will despite its consequences, but then use all your might to undo decisions which are considered evil? I don’t think this is a question which a great mind can have a solution. It seems like a problem too deeply woven to even be cut like the Gordian knot.

This chapter is a bit of a shame, being about the art and literature regarding the devil, but featuring very little art (I assume this is a publishing thing). I can’t imagine Russell would have imagined it at the time but a curious person can look then up on the internet from his footnotes. Speaking of footnotes, this one has a lot.

Particularly interesting in this chapter is John Scottus Eriugena and Gottschalk you are perhaps a little peripheral, but represent a different ways to skin this cat. Both undermine the significant role the devil has played among the many thinkers we have toured so far, and for their trouble were themselves or had their works condemned. Their try at getting at a deeper level of God and his role is laudable.

Interesting perspective about the less formal approach to the devil. The idea of him as terrible yet able to be tricked makes a lot of sense in inspiring the populace’s confidence in being able to fend him off. This reminds me a lot of what people say about fascism, that it’s enemies are both overwhelming yet misshapen. I’m not suite sure what that similarity means.

What caught my eye was a footnote considering similar developments in Christianity and Islam in vastly different geographical and cultural locations. It is like Sisyphus, where we are constantly tasking ourselves with solving this problem based on a set of theological outlines. It doesn’t appear there is a solution, yet we have tired many different times in many different circumstances.

I had never heard of the Bogomils, the whole of neo-Gnosticism is probably a rich vein for me to explore. I have been thinking that a t a high level there is not much difference from Christianity and Gnosticism, the world is evil but in the latter it is just inherent. But with Bogomilism they take this thought and they take the next step; Satan IS the demiurge.

The familiar treatment of the devil, evil and the history of concepts that introduce each entry in the series. His approach to morality is very conservative. Man puts himself in the place of God where he is believer or not. The atheist must attempt to create a morality from tradition, the believer assumes that he is finding a morality provided for them. Both attempt to assume they knows what a good Lord would do.

The slightly hysterical lamentations of the failure to reform "perversity" is very funny. Little does he know, writing from 1980, crime will drop radically over the next few decades. I imagine that would be no comfort to him, he would be upset by WAP on the internet. I do admire his confrontation of the real problem of evil, attempting, though not thoroughly, to re-examine the fundamental properties ascribed to God.

What is most striking about Augustine is despite his importance and influence, he doesn't appear to have constructed a particularly more coherent diabology or soteriology than any of the previous authors. This sows mistakes into the fabric of Christianity requiring into keep struggling against its own contradictions and fallacies.

Want to learn more about Manicheism, if only to just be able to blurt about specifics about it when someone calls something Manichean when they mean some sort of cosmological dualism. The desert fathers seem crucial to this topic because they provide a more granular and experiential telling about demons, contrasted with philosophical approaches we have been concerned with.

Striking how problematic the adoption or adaption of Greek philosophy has been, giving an intelligent framework but it is somewhat incompatible. If you believe in good creation, it becomes hard to talk about it in terms of unreality. Others made have suited it better. Origin is a indiosyncratic figure who I would like to read more about, he is not merely a small progression like many other figures.

There is a lot of splitting hairs between the power of the Devil over us and a lot of seemingly inconsistent ideas. We cannot be forced, but we can be promoted? And God sends the devil in some sense, or even empowers him, to tempt, it presumably so we can resist because we aren't forced.

And here it seems that the notion of the devil not only corrupting this world, but holding us in opposition to God.