Like Huxley after him, Dante made the first circle sound somewhat appealing. No doubt the food there could be much better, but the attraction would be the company, not the cuisine. (somewhat like Peter Wimsey visiting the Soviet Club, where his host tells him "...the cooking isn’t very good here, but the subscription’s so small, you see"?)
I've been reading Paradise Lost and Satan gives off major "sexy villain" vibes. The hosts of hell remain strong and defiant even while in their realm of eternal torment - "Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven" and all that. Meanwhile heaven is pretty bland and the angels come of as a bunch of milquetoasts.
I don't know enough about Milton to know if he intended to write a cautionary tale vs. an interesting tail, but I can imagine readers thinking "f** it, I'd rather hang out with the cool kids"
Just to stir the pot and throw C.S. Lewis into the mix [0]:
> To admire Satan, then, is to give one's vote not only for a world of misery, but also for a world of lies and propaganda, of wishful thinking, of incessant autobiography. Yet the choice is possible. Hardly a day passes without some slight movement towards it in each one of us. That is what makes Paradise Lost so serious a poem. The thing is possible, and the exposure of it is resented. Where Paradise Lost is not loved, it is deeply hated. As Keats said more rightly than he knew, 'there is death' in
Milton.
> We have all skirted the Satanic island closely enough
to have motives for wishing to evade the full impact of the
poem. For, I repeat, the thing is possible ; and after a certain point it is prized. Sir Willoughby may be unhappy, but he wants to go on being Sir Willoughby. Satan wants to go on being Satan. That is the real meaning of his choice 'Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.' Some, to the very end, will think this a fine thing to say ; others will think that it fails to be roaring farce only because it spells agony. On the level of literary criticism the matter cannot be argued further. Each to his taste.
That part has always bugged me. The Lucifer is always depicted from the Bible's point of view. There are no Gospels Of Hell that give Satan's viewpoint.
And the Bible insists that only its words are true. You must not trust anything else (sorry, too lazy to find the verses right now).
For me, this sounds exactly like every propaganda outlet (and I read a lot of "Pravda" for historical research).
I had a former coworker (who sometimes is on this site, maybe he'll even see this comment and know I'm talking about him) who argued that Lucifer was essentially the same character as Prometheus in Greek mythology, which gives a bit of an alternative perspective to him. The idea was that both figures brought knowledge to humans against the wishes of the higher power(s) and were punished for it. If you view it through that lens, he's more of a tragic hero for humanity against an authority that presumed to know better than we did, which would explain why the narrative from the other perspective portrays him as reckless and full of hubris.
I don't particularly believe that either Satan or Prometheus existed as literal beings at any point, but I do find the idea of their stories being different perspectives of the same tale fascinating.
The difference being, that Prometheus' actions brought humanity fire and with it the power to both cook and fight against the darkness of night, while Lucifer brought knowledge of pain, lust, pride, and gluttony (among others). Only by leaving out what Lucifer actually brought to Adam and Eve can the comparison really work.
> while Lucifer brought knowledge of pain, lust, pride, and gluttony (among others)
Contrast these concepts with that of the prodigal son—an adherent who strays and then returns to the flock is more valued than one that never left. Why? Is it possible that in revealing these other aspects of humanity our "connection to god" could be made stronger?
Another thought that occurred to me is that life in the garden would have been painfully dull. If there is no pain, no striving, what does it mean to find pleasure in something? Similar to playing a video game with god-mode cheats enabled, it quickly becomes boring after the power fantasies are played out.
I always thought this.
Same for the fall, which was the consuming of the Forbidden Fruit. For some reason, God(s) did not want us thinking that hard.
When I see the world, sometimes, I tend to agree…
> “The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black,
While the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.
Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw,
And could sculpt like men, then the horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle... ―ΞὁΚ
>That part has always bugged me. The Lucifer is always depicted from the Bible's point of view. There are no Gospels Of Hell that give Satan's viewpoint.
Satan, as a figure was created (and described) by Christians. So it can't be anything but what it says on the tin.
It's not a real person whose biography they could have lied about - it's a creation they made of words, and those particular words define him.
You could reject their whole teachings and universe, but you can't really say "but what if Satan is actually good?", while accepting he exists. If he was good he just wouldn't be Satan. So it makes as little sense as asking "what if Moby Dick was really a rabbit?" - when Moby Dick only existed as a literary whale Melville conjured.
Similarly, as much as Satan is anything, and is useful for anything, it's for embodying the specific character he was described to be with the specific backstory.
You could write an alternate Satan (like the gnostic gospels do or Milton does), but that's fan-fiction then. The rabbit version of Moby Dick, not the "true" Moby Dick.
> That's why it's important to highlight the inconsistencies in the very logic of the religion.
I strongly disagree. Important towards what end? And if that end is getting people to be less religious, I think this is one of the least effective ways to make that point. Trying to dissuade a religious person in the basis of the logical inconsistencies in their religion is the le atheist approach, and seems to be most compelling to the agnostic and atheist crowds.
It is said: According to [Jubilees], Hebrew is the language of Heaven, and was originally spoken by all creatures in the Garden, animals and man; however, the animals lost their power of speech when Adam and Eve were expelled.
To which I respond: "Silflay hraka, u embleer rah!"
When I hear "chuffed" I think of how cockatoos put their feathers up over their lower beak when they're pleased with themselves (or sleepy); you can see Ngarritj and the others do this several times in that clip.
Well done .. although Yolngu has to be the easiest (and not that easy at all) to pick up rough translations on the web - there are many* that don't feature at all given they're oral with no alphabet, phonetics came late with the missionairies and linguists.
As the spelling "Yolŋu" attests, I guess IPA goes a long way towards allowing dictionaries for non-alphabetic languages. (It's well known that the polynesians lost the t/k distinction moving eastward, in between settling Tahiti and Hawai'i, but at one point it occurred to me that missionaries moving westward might also have gotten better at transcription?)
When I was into The Expanse's Lang Belta (a creole), I was following BBC Pidgin: https://www.bbc.com/pidgin to get some feel for the possible antecedents. (UK:"Most read" = Pidgin:"De one we dem de read well well") Just to complicate things, what gets called "Hawai'ian Pidgin" is actually a creole as well, eg: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R15IQAVT7Rg (Is the use of "Aunty" parallel between this and Oz cultures?)
I'm just a fan. Thanks very much for the pointers into a new set of cultures* for me; up until now I've been enjoying cultural appropriations (consider the platypus!) in the other direction, eg polka acca dacca: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_gtGfAail4 (and songlines I only discovered today while trying to figure out what the Oz equivalent of the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuksuk might be)
* so far these mobs have been using a basketball court as an impromptu community centre/dance floor, which I guess they share even with very highly produced numbers, like "Baby One More Time"? As basketball had yet to be invented, earlier germans contented themselves with dancing around lime trees: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanzlinde
"Satan, as a figure was created (and described) by Christians."
Satan is initially described with his methods in Genesis, a Jewish work. Evil people often use the same ones today, esp in advertising and politics. Analysis of his methods below:
Later, Satan is in Job and Zechariah 3. He's accusing people hoping that they get taken down. By Genesis, we don't need to know anything more about Satan other than to avoid or resist him. By Job and Zechariah, we know he's a consistent, mortal enemy of humanity across many generations. God's Word reveals more later but not much. Why not?
God's Word is about His relationship with and redemption of man through Jesus Christ. The books all combine into one story about how God saves us from ourselves for Himself by His grace and Christ's death. With that writing focus, he barely mentions most things in nature (eg angels). Same for most of the sciences. Why would God dig deep into a subordinate enemy in a book meant to glorify God?
The other angle is, once forgiven by Christ, God's Word is training for righteousness. We're to focus on loving and imitating Christ, and loving and serving each other. Much of what's in the Word supports those goals in different ways. Reading about lying angels that hate us wouldn't help at all. If we bump into them, invoking Jesus' name is all it takes to deal with them. He'll finish them off later.
I interpreted Lewis' statement as claiming Milton's Lucifer, within the story exists in a cloud of his own lies and propaganda. (As opposed to labeling Milton's work as lies and propaganda in the real world.)
Just for contrast, imagine a Lucifer-character that said: "Yeah, we didn't part on good terms, and I dispute a lot of what's said about me... But I've learned to accept things I can't change and I invite you to watch and judge me by my works."
There were plenty of Gnostic works during the early church. There were certainly some sub-sect or heresy that gave a positive depiction of the other side.
> The Lucifer is always depicted from the Bible's point of view.
To the best of my limited understanding, very little is said of Satan, at all, in either the OT or the NT. What little is said, doesn't actually plainly state that the Serpent from the Garden of Eden is Satan, or that this is the same entity as Lucifer (or any other angel, fallen or otherwise).
Satan, as in the Christian Devil, is very much a thing of the Judeo-Christian mythology, the stuff that didn't make it into any of the books. Not much written down about it (think of what it might mean to be caught with such books?), just stories passed down orally, maybe in whispers.
> And the Bible insists that only its words are true. You must not trust anything else
I'm an atheist myself, but this seems like a particularly asinine interpretation of anything you might find in the Christian Bible.
I think you're all missing a conundrum that has some similarities to those we find in computer science. If you have two or more invisible, incorporeal entities, one or more of which may lie and be the impostor of the other, how can you determine who is who? What if some or all have multiple names? Can you even determine if there are multiple entities, perhaps you are mistaken and there's only one? For instance, when Mormons or Muslims say they worship the same deity as Christians, why should their opinion be taken at face value (regardless of whether you are a believer or atheist)?
If you have invisible, incorporeal entity G, and invisible, incorporeal entity H, both of which are infinitely perfect and not inferior in dignity to anything else, then by the rule of indirect equality:
x=y ≡ (∀z. z≤x ≡ z≤y)
G is H.
(or at least isomorphic to H, if one allows one's deities to merely be preordered instead of partially ordered. However, in this setting one would be unable to distinguish even a single religion's deity from Her identical twin Latonya, which probably leads to greater theological problems than it solves...)
Per the chain above, if you also exist in some state where you are effectively, permanently downhill in computation, then entities which exist at some state upward are "effectively" indistinguishable, no matter their relative "up".
In Greek theology, all "deities" are effectively "up" and normal humans have very little way of telling which entity is "really" in charge. To much information disparity. Zeus, Hera? Hephaestus? Has it already done the entire Titans storyline again with Zeus, and humans don't even know?
Below some resolution, the lines on the chip are indistinguishable from a pixel. [1] Most creatures need significant advancement to comprehend anything other than "glowing texture."
> ...done the entire Titans storyline again with Zeus, and humans don't even know?
Ancient Mythology theorists suggest it has been done, with the advent of the "Age of Pisces", and humans have bumper stickers to attest to it. Could it be true?
> normal humans have very little way of telling which entity is "really" in charge
The rivalries (enacted with human and demigod pawns) in the Iliad suggest that even the Olympians didn't know they had a King and instead acted as an (infighting and infidelitous?) autonomous collective.
"You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just 'cause you got your dad to chunder all your siblings!"
(note that a tradition of apothanatophagy has been carried over from the Olympian age into the Galilean)
It is not even necessary to think of it like that. Judeo-Christians (including Mormons) and Muslims claim to worship the god of the same figure called Abraham/Ibrahim of Canaan, who had sons named Isaac and Ishmael/Ismail. According to the Judeo-Christians, Isaac had a son named Jacob whose sons formed the twelve tribes of Israel, while according to Islam, Ishmael/Ismail was the ancestor of Muhammad.
It's interesting to me that Lewis is so engaged with it. I read Paradise Lost as a sort of fanfic. Milton does not claim to be a prophet or that it is some literal representation of heaven and hell. Within the book Satan is a fictional character with the same sort of appeal as Walter White or the Joker or Severus Snape. They seem cool as long as you don't think about it too deeply.
But I don't mean this as a criticism of Lewis who I adore. I'll have to read his Preface, since I'm sure they'll deepen my understanding.
Circling back to partially-relatable depictions of devilry, Lewis' The Screwtape Letters has it's own mix in the eponymous author Screwtape.
I recommend it even to the non-religious since many of the human errors/temptations it discusses can still be understood through an agnostic lens. For example, one doesn't have to believe whispering devils are involved in order to believe in in/out-group thinking, inferiority complexes, procrastination, etc.
> Circling back to partially-relatable depictions of devilry, Lewis' The Screwtape Letters has it's own mix in the eponymous author Screwtape.
But it's not quite the same with Screwtape, he represents a demon (fallen angel), who is sort of tip-toeing around ideas that, if he were to stumble even an inch closer, he might decide that he is actually among the "bad guys", and reform. He belongs to a tyrannical and diabolical organization that recognizes the dangers of such tip-toeing. It's been many years since I read it, but doesn't his protege end up turning him in to their secret police?
This is a counter-reversal of what he suggests Milton does with his poem.
> tip-toeing around ideas that, if he were to stumble even an inch closer, he might decide that he is actually among the "bad guys", and reform
I know Screwtape is concerned with not spooking the mortal target with unnecessary moral quandaries:
> You will say that these are very small sins; and doubtless, like all young tempters, you are anxious to be able to report spectacular wickedness. But do remember, the only thing that matters is the extent to which you separate the man from the Enemy. It does not matter how small the sins are provided that their cumulative effect is to edge the man away from the Light and out into the Nothing. Murder is no better than cards if cards can do the trick. Indeed the safest road to Hell is the gradual one-the gentle slope, soft underfoot, without sudden turnings, without milestones, without signposts.
However I never got the impression Screwtape was afraid of some kind of... moral whiplash on his own account. Rather, I think he was more concerned with accidentally running afoul of the Lowerarchy's official dogma. I infer that it--like The Party in 1984--is a self-perpetuating system where no participant can do anything except oppress and predate on one another. (Hellish, indeed.)
> I hope, my dear boy, you have not shown my letters to anyone. Not that it matters of course. Anyone would see that the appearance of heresy into which I have fallen is purely accidental. By the way, I hope you understood, too, that some apparently uncomplimentary references to Slubgob were purely jocular. I really have the highest respect for him. And, of course, some things I said about not shielding you from the authorities were not seriously meant. You can trust me to look after your interests. But do keep everything under lock and key.
> a world of lies and propaganda, of wishful thinking
“The mind is its own place and, in itself can make a heaven of hell or a hell of heaven.” That satanic line alone should be cause for reflection. How often human beings shack themselves up in their delusions where they feel they can reign, because pride looks upon service with disgust, screaming "Non serviam!"
Of course, cut off from the truth, we are cut off from being, and thus condemn ourselves to insanity, to rot in the noxious vapors and mirages of our decaying souls. And it is here, through this void, that we embrace the demonic and prepare ourselves for enslavement to the demonic.
I guess almost all (including Hindus, Buddhists, etc.; what about Taoists or Confucians?) would agree, with the exception of christian and muslim believers in predestination?
Confucians are far more concerned with behaving properly in this life than in wondering what may happen after; Taoists nominally believe in the possibility of immortality, but again brought about by human agency.
So ~1/5 of the world believes "you don't make your own heaven and hell", and the remaining ~4/5 believes in agency, whether connected to an afterlife or not.
(as far as the conflict between omniscience and free will goes, that page says that the prophet [pbuh] counselled: don't delve too greedily and too deep)
There's a quote from Zach Weinersmith (author, cartoonist) during a podcast a while back that stuck with me about Milton's depiction of Satan:
"I will say Milton is great and readable as long as Satan is talking. [...] the joke on Milton is that he was the greatest gift to Satan in history. He did everything short of giving him a two-headed guitar. It is just like, Satan is so cool." [0]
I highly recommend giving it a listen (and Econtalk more generally!) if this is something that interests you.
It's his married name, and would conventionally be hyphenated, but he decided not to (I think because he thought it would be funnier without the hyphen).
> The hosts of hell remain strong and defiant even while in their realm of eternal torment ... Meanwhile heaven is pretty bland and the angels come of as a bunch of milquetoasts.
That reminds me of the observation that happy lives make boring stories, so fiction tends towards showing dysfunctional characters, awful environments, or both.
I believe it was Tolstoy who said something to the effect of "Happy families are boring, because they're all the same. Unhappy families are interesting because they're all different."
“Now it is a strange thing, but things that are good to have and days that are good to spend are soon told about, and not much to listen to; while things that are uncomfortable, palpitating, and even gruesome, may make a good tale, and take a deal of telling anyway.”
And we see it on HN itself, there are many "very good" stories that get posted that get a lot of upvotes but few comments because really all there is to say is 'very good'.
But stories about bad things happening get thousands of comments.
Also what we perceive as "heroic" especially in a fantasy/super-hero context, tends to ultimately be status quo preserving, which frequently means the villains tends to be the "cool" "disruptive" characters, and if the world isn't sufficiently perfect then it's easy for some people to start believing that any disruption is justified.
Could you expand on why you think living healthily doesn't increase your lifespan?
Untreated STDs can cause infertility, sexual dysfunction, cancer, brain damage, and death. No method of preventing them is 100% effective besides abstinence or having sex with a small amount of partners that you trust not to lie about being clean.
Drugs carry the risk of overdosing, and for those that even just use semi regularly they still reduce lifespan.
Eating excess calories makes you fat which hugely increases your risk of having a heart attack among other health issues. Even if you control your calories, eating processed food makes you more likely to die early or develop a debilitating disease.
This is all very common sense about how to live longer, if you think you've cracked the code and any of the above is wrong please explain.
I highly recommend you read some William Blake. He was Milton's greatest critic (but a great admirer too):
"The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels & God, and at liberty when of Devils & Hell, is because he was a true Poet and of the Devils party without knowing it."
--The Marriage of Heaven and Hell
“You see, the thing about heaven is that heaven is for people who like the sort of things that go on in heaven. Like, well, singing, talking to God, watering pot plants.” — The Black Adder.
In Samuel Clemens' posthumously published work there's a story in which heaven has wings and harps, because all the newbies expect them, but after you get bored with that it's perfectly ok to return them and go do something more fun.
There must be some psychic link, I was tempted to quote Biggie in my post. I kept waiting for Satan stand up in front of his crew and say "Raise your hands in the air if youse a true player"
I recently picked up Dante and enrolled in an online course. Inferno and Purgatorio: no problem. I wouldn't say "couldn't put it down" but it was no problem to read. I also watched the Ken Burns special.
I have heard Milton's work described as an expression of a spirit of Protestant satanism. That is, Milton, by virtue of the rebelliousness of Protestantism, to which he subscribed, is accused of being satanic.
God's Word says Satan is permitted to run this world, encouraging us to think his way, until judgement comes later. He does it by appealing to their sinful desires. Our own selfishness does the rest.
"in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the Good News of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn on them" (2 Cor. 4:4)
So, let's contrast the truth. In my other comment, I mentioned what the sinful kids and Satan are destined for. It's not pretty.
What about heaven? In Genesis 2, before the Fall, man had fellowship with God, hung out with each other, did work, and rested. God said all good things are a gift from Him. If it's not sinful, it might exist in heaven. For its nature, fruit of the Spirit is "love, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self control." So, imagine all human activities that are fun and embodied with those virtues. That's Heaven.
We have a taste of it here on Earth in the Church. We mostly go about our day, do our jobs, spend time with our families, and enjoy our hobbies. In church service, we worship God together and serve others in love. In spare time, we hang out, enjoy good food, go on vacation together, play games, share stories, etc. The problems in churches come from our sinful natures which God will eliminate (called glorification) once our time here is up.
So, one place has us separated from everyone, in a lake of fire, and burning non-stop. Satan will be there, too. The other is every good thing you can imagine on Earth done in a better way, other things you can't imagine, your friends there, and the very presence of God giving you fullness of joy. Christ and His Heaven are the obvious choice. Anyone suffering here on Earth are also told to keep their eye on the prize which is our future inheritance.
While I will Vouch for your right to say that, and I find the professional atheists like Dawkins to be a bunch of a-holes:
Personally, I think that when you're dead, you're just dead. Like sleep, except you don't wake up or dream. When your neurons are shutting off, they probably put on one hell of a show for you. Just like the show they put on that convinces you that "consciousness" is a real thing, and you have a "soul." It's not and you don't.
But like I said, I think what you believe is probably good for humans, on the whole, and I don't condemn it at all.
I appreciate your kindness. The brain dying might indeed put on some kind of show. Having had an out of body experience (i.e. electrocution), I'll confirm it does make people open to an afterlife. Then, I was quite opposed to religion later. Then, God's Word proved true, it claims these other things, and so I have to believe it over my personal opinion. Our faith is about objective truth after all.
Getting to the root, the Word can be confirmed by internal knowledge or outside evidence. Most come to faith by God drawing us in as we hear or read His Word with a humble, seeking attitude. His sheep hear His voice. I recommend starting in John for that while asking who Jesus is and what we must do.
For external evidence, the Word was confirmed in more ways than most things people believe. It's more rational than many beliefs. I summarized that here:
I've prayed that you find Him through any of these methods. That He also helps you better face anything in your life, too. I'm glad God has already shown you the goodness in what He does.
I have no interest in debating this with you. However, I do have a suggestion, which Gary Luckenbaugh (not an HN'er, I don't think) took from me, and is delighted he did:
Start a Substack channel. It can be free (like mine). Gary has one on the BASIC language, and he's thrilled when hundreds of people all over the world read his posts. On HN you don't know how many even saw your post, but on Substack you will.
You'll probably find that there are already a lot of religious channels, but who knows -- maybe yours will stand out!
I appreciate the tip. I might do that sometime as a YouTube alternative. I don’t really try to promote myself or anything, though.
In the Great Commission, Jesus commanded believers to take His message to the world so they won’t perish. He and the Apostles always went wherever people were already gathering or to those unreached. Likewise, I go to places with people from many walks of life to meet them, learn from them, bless them, and share Christ, too.
HN is quite a blessing because I get to see most of that happen here. Except for Christ and His Word which I talk about when the occasion arises. I really do enjoy meeting all of you. :)
AlbertCory, I appreciate your frankness. I also doubt that any sensory or neural show could prove the existence of the supernatural; but I still believe in the supernatural, merely on the grounds that the natural exists, and I want to tell you why.
You know how the very consistency of the rules of the material world seem to outlive the world itself? The fact that 1 and 1 are 2 outlives the fact that a certain bottle of beer and another bottle of beer are two bottles of beer. Even if I found a single receptacle that could hold all the beer (mmm), 1 and 1 would remain 2, the fact altogether out of my reach to alter.
Similarly the pecking order in a chicken coop won't last longer than the chickens and the coop, and it can change besides—but 1 always comes before 2, and 2 before 3, and no other numbers will displace that order even if you shoved another chicken between two others near the front of the line every other second. You may destroy the line of chickens, but you'll never shake 6 off 5's tail.
The faculty by which you and I recognize these obvious truths—well, what kind of stuff is it? Do we "sense" the very number 1 in all its splendor with our mere ears or somehow conjure it up from a multiplicity of neurons? or do we merely suppose or opine, rather than know, that the numbers take a particular order? Of course not! Rather, we find out. We label the numbers arbitrarily to keep easy track of them, and then we count them: we see where they'll take us. We're along for the ride, passengers on someone else's train, one that can take you right outside the universe to the mysterious land of D'oh—a land, you might say, more real than our native one.
Now, the faculty by which we recognize that numbers are always prior to material nature—since nature plays by number's rules but never the other way round—what will we call it? I call it reason, anyway. It's notable among our faculties for comprehending eternal things like number, as naturally as anything else.
So commonly a human being will prefer pure numbers to any sloppy instantiation of them. Bees make hexagonal honeycombs out of natural habit because the shape of a hexagon works well; a human, however, contemplates the pure hexagon and tells its ratios and properties to other humans on HN because the numbers are just that cool, hang usefulness. This is one thing that divides humans from the mere animals.
From all this it seems to me more plain that the spiritual human soul (the part of the human that touches or is itself in eternity) exists than that Mumbai is a real city, or even that the earth is a geoid and not a perfect sphere (though I believe these things also). And anyway, I use mine every day. I should know.
Hey, I think I read that back in high school! Guess I'm a plagiarist.
More recently I've been reading some pre-Socratic excerpts with friends, and some Augustine—On Free Choice of the Will and De Musica—on my own. De Musica I'm working through a second time, this time in the original language. I've never been more motivated to become fluent in Latin in my life.
> So, one place has us separated from everyone, in a lake of fire, and burning non-stop. Satan will be there, too.
This is a curious statement, as the subject is Dante, and the "Inferno" shows us not a huge lake of fire with all the damned burning within it, but rather a diverse Hell in which one's torment reflects one's vices. This has a theological resonance, as the very nature of Hell is first and foremost the fulfillment of one's corrupt and sinful desires, it is God letting you have exactly what you want, your dark little heart's desire (the logical outcome of having been created a free being; Matthew 6:21[0] captures this quite nicely). When you die, your orientation becomes fixed forever, and if it isn't on the Summum Bonum, the Highest Good, the only thing capable of satisfying Man's heart, then it will be some lesser real or apparent good. This is the consummation of utter hopelessness and despair.
And what is at the very center of Hell in the "Inferno" if not a lake of fire? An absolutely frigid place, a frozen lake, with Satan lodged permanently in the ice up to his waist, with every flap of his wings making the place even colder. Fire is actually a better metaphor for God (even when we speak of the fire of God's just wrath, a kind of friction resulting from our evil will colliding with the Will of God). If God is the Logos, and Logos is like fire, and God so often is represented by fire, by its dynamism, then the opposite is the lifelessness of sin, a world of ice and death, a cold void.
There is of course the old rec.humour.funny posting, that was far earlier a humorous journal article from the 1970s, that demonstrates with Biblical references and basic chemistry and physics that Heaven is a lot hotter than Hell.
Re the subject. On HN, we often discuss the article, other content related to the article, and peripheral points. Many often prefer the original source over adaptations, too. In this case, I referenced “God’s Word” to make peripheral points about the original source material instead of Dante’s own work.
So, you’re certainly right. I went to a factual source with evidence I linked elsewhere instead of the fictional work. That source said you and I would be in Hell if we didn’t take steps to avoid it. A critical topic that gets no attention here. So, I’m covering it.
We can know it will be fire, not ice, since the God who created Hell talked about it so much during His time here:
It’s not some consequence of our thoughts or feelings or symbolism. It’s an actual place… an objective punishment…. justice and wrath… our sovereign ruler pours out on His enemies. It has a number of descriptions that make us wonder how literal or symbolic they are. While none are ice, many talk about flame, lake of fire, and smoke in quite a literal way.
Far as Satan, God’s Word says he goes into the lake of fire at the appointed time for his defeat. Revelation 20 captures much of the judgement of Satan and people without Christ’s forgiveness:
One other thing. God’s wrath is described as a consuming fire. The book of Nahum is all about how horrifying it is. Ice, or deadly cold, makes your body slow down until you nod off dead. Fire wakes you up to fully alert as you scream running away from it. If your nerves and organs were indestructible, then you’d be stuck with that maximum moment of pain every second of your life. Hell might be eternal fire because it’s more horrifying that way.
I'd like to try and read a modern English & prose (i.e. highly non-poetic, non stilted, if necessary non-direct) translation of Dante's Inferno sometime. (Poetry is incompatible with my brain, unless it's funny. I can't be the only one? Yes, school was hell sometimes. (No pun intended.)) Does anyone have any recommendations?
I think it’s fine to not be into poetry, but at its core the Divine Comedy is a long poem, and I’m not sure what’s left after you remove any and all “poetic” elements. The Wikipedia page I’m sure could give you the basic characteristics of the circles of hell, if that’s all you really want to know.
By the way, the book is a chore in many ways, despite the many nuggets of gold you’ll find within it. It’s long, and the number of references is overwhelming. Basically, what I’m trying to say is that it will never be light reading, no matter how you cut it. Why not look at it as more of a personal project or challenge (poetry and all)?
"As it nears / Its goal of longing in the realms above / The pilgrim spirit sees a vision"
Dante 'borrowed' heavily from mystic traditions, sometimes without fully understanding the material. This much is clear given his sectarian tendencies in the choices of his assignments in his work, that his vision, in fact, was incomplete and partly in error. Regrettably his occluded vision deeply impressed itself upon the Western soul with the consequences that we see today: a rather 'mixed' record ..
It's not like NATO did any major nation building in Afghanistan or Iraq, at least nowhere near close to post-WW2 Germany... so in that point he did keep his promise. The entire world lost out as a result of that - there is a direct link from the failures in Afghanistan and Iraq to the Russian invasion into Ukraine.
There's a whole lot more direct link between the appeasement of Russia at the 2008 NATO summit to the invasions of Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014), but I suppose Iraq and Afghanistan are distantly relevant.
I'd argue for the following chain: the failure of NATO in Afghanistan and US+allies in Iraq to (re)build a democratic nation led to a rise of radical Islamism. That in turn led to the Arab Spring and the Syrian civil war, causing not just a truckload of effort for Europe to deal with the refugees on top of those we already had from Afghanistan, but especially Assad was left free to ignore any and all "red lines", especially the 2012 warning of Obama against chemical weapons usage [1], and Russia itself was allowed to act with impunity as well.
Then came the 2014 invasion of Russia in Crimea - IMHO a direct "test bed" to see if the Western nations were willing to step up this time, and they didn't despite Russia literally shooting a passenger plane out of the sky. Syria completely exploded, and Russia slowly kept increasing the pressure on Ukraine. Had covid not happened, Russia would have invaded some time in 2020 to take over Ukraine, but the pandemic derailed their plans.
Russia, sometime in or before 2008: “by infiltration or by force, we are going to force Georgia and then Ukraine to submit. But there is talk of NATO admitting them, starting with MAPs potentially as early as the 2008 summit, so step one is get NATO not do that.”
Russia (to NATO, in advance of 2008 summit): “Don't offer Georgia and Ukraine MAPs, it would, um, destabilize the region and, uh, make it more likely that we'd feel it necessary to invade.”
NATO: “Seems a little paranoid, but, sure, we like stability. Georgia and Ukraine, we really like the idea of you guys joining some day, but no membership action plan or security commitments for now.”
Russia: (invades Georgia almost immediately).
Russia: (Gets friendly leadership in Ukraine in 2010)
Russia: (loses friendly leadership in Ukraine 2014)
Russia: (invades Ukraine immediately)
> Then came the 2014 invasion of Russia in Crimea - IMHO a direct "test bed" to see if the Western nations were willing to step up this time, and they didn't despite Russia literally shooting a passenger plane out of the sky.
I mean, they actually did, which is a big reasons why Ukrainr's forces were in a better condition when Russia launched the wider invasion in 2022 than they had been in 2014 (Ukraine made a lot of its own investment, but they also got a lot of Western aid, both material and training, throughout the war starting not long after the 2014 invasion, though not much lethal aid was sent before 2021.)
I agree my explanation is more expansive and complex than yours - but that doesn't make either of our theories less valid IMHO. You're focused on the direct links with Russia, while I focus more on the interconnectedness of geopolitics - there would have been ample cheap opportunities in the past to prevent expensive and deadly disasters in the future.
> NATO: “Seems a little paranoid, but, sure, we like stability. Georgia and Ukraine, we really like the idea of you guys joining some day, but no membership action plan or security commitments for now.”
I think you missed in your summary that NATO promised to review their decision in December 2008 [1]. Summit was in April 2008, Russia invaded in August 2008.
The "appeasement" of Russia is just following international norms, set in the 2000s when the world adopted a policy of acceptance towards the US's rampages through the middle east. The US is hip deep in a swamp of hypocrisy on this topic.
It'd be better if we had a consistent "no invasions" policy around the globe; but that would involve leading global powers holding themselves to that standard.
The did an enormous amount of nation-building. Billions and billions and billions of dollars over multiple decades. It was just a complete and utter failire.
The book “The Afghanistan Papers” covers the US’s misguided efforts there well.
When second- and third-world countries invade and enrich their military sectors: corrupt government enriching their oligarch class. When the US does it: aww shucks, tried our best but failed to build a democracy again.
> It's not like NATO did any major nation building in Afghanistan or Iraq, at least nowhere near close to post-WW2 Germany... so in that point he did keep his promise.
What? So he carried out nation building in 2 countries rather than 1 and that means he kept his 'no nation building' promise? What kind of logic is that?
> The entire world lost out as a result of that - there is a direct link from the failures in Afghanistan and Iraq to the Russian invasion into Ukraine.
I don't think most of the world cares one bit if europe burns or not. Heck if we had a vote, most of the world would vote for europe buring given europe's monstrous treatment of 'most of the world'.
> What? So he carried out nation building in 2 countries rather than 1 and that means he kept his 'no nation building' promise?
He didn't carry out "nation building". Blasted both countries to pieces and left them mostly alone with reconstruction, didn't install any oversight mechanism against corruption or other issues (such as the "military" serially raping young local boys in Afghanistan) by the local sham governments, and instead funneled insane amounts of money into military "contractors". Zero perspective for the people to make a living, zero incentive to not just go to the Taliban or whatever other warlord.
I don't even have anything against the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq per se, freeing people from dictatorships is a worthy goal in itself, but come on, if you want something sustainable you have to invest into more than guns, ammo and fortress walled gardens for Western embassies and army outposts.
Want to see what "nation building" looks like, look at post-WW2 Germany. A decades long occupation, with serious oversight to make sure that what caused the war never appears again.
> I don't think most of the world cares one bit if europe burns or not.
Skyrocketing prices for food and fuel affect everyone.
> The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality
This is not true. The 'neutrals' were not even granted the honor of a place in one of the circles of hell.
'These souls are forever unclassified; they are neither in Hell nor out of it, but reside on the shores of the Acheron. Naked and futile, they race around through the mist in eternal pursuit of an elusive, wavering banner (symbolic of their pursuit of ever-shifting self-interest) while relentlessly chased by swarms of wasps and hornets, who continually sting them'
And they certainly weren't anywhere near the hottest places in hell. If we are to assume the lowest circles to be the hottest then it would be the lowest part of the 8th circle which housed the falsiers and counterfeiters. The 9th circle, which housed satan, was actually a frozen lake. While we think satan is burning in hell, he's actually freezing in hell according to dante.
> 'The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality"
I think with a hindsight of history, my view is different:
'The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who push people into active enmity claiming a moral crisis'
The Thirty Years War was a result of this and never needed to have happened.
More recently, and dealing with Kennedy, the Vietnam War was result of this kind of thinking. (Domino theory and that unless we opposed every single advance of communism the entire world would fall and be plunged into darkness).
The Cultural Revolution was another manifestation of this kind of thinking.
Someone, much wiser than both Dante and Kennedy once said: "Blessed are the peacemakers".
EDIT:
And even prior to Dante's time, there were the Crusades, where in the name of a "moral crisis", people were mobilized, and great atrocities were committed and much death and destruction resulted.
The sheer irony of you citing the vietnam war, which for the americans, was literally defending a nation against an unprovoked invasion, hurts my brain.
The Vietnam war, or at least the fighting that us Americans refer to by that name, was started by the sovereign state of North Vietnam invading the sovereign state of South Vietnam and ended when America (and allies) stopped defending the state of South Vietnam and North Vietnam conquered it.
You can make all sorts of arguments as to whether or not it was moral to partition the original state of Vietnam into two separate states or whether it was moral for America to be involved at any point, but I'd make the general argument that the state starting a war with a literal invasion is rarely the moral party in such situations.
The vietnamese won their war of independence against france ( aka first indochina war). Then the US stepped in to protect 'european colonial interests' gave the southern half of vietnam to france with the promise that the vietnamese people will have a vote. When polls showed southern vietnamese were overwhelming for reunification with the north, we renegged on our promise and did not allow a vote. And hence the 2nd indochina war happened.
> The Vietnam war, or at least the fighting that us Americans refer to by that name, was started by the sovereign state of North Vietnam invading the sovereign state of South Vietnam
The vietnam war was the US fighting the Viet Cong. Do you know who the viet cong was? They were SOUTH vietnamese. The vietnam war wasn't the US fighting north vietnam. It was the US fighting south vietnamese freedom fighters.
The Vietnam War was definitely involving the North Vietnamese military, PAVN, what? Just because the Viet Cong in the South was involved doesn't mean the North Vietnamese were twiddling their thumbs.
> When polls showed southern vietnamese were overwhelming for reunification with the north, we renegged on our promise and did not allow a vote. And hence the 2nd indochina war happened.
Which is why the south fielded close to a million man army and the north had to murder several hundred thousand south Vietnamese when they won the war? They just wanted to reunify peacefully so badly?
> Which is why the south fielded close to a million man army
What does this have to do with the fact that most south vietnamese wanted reunification? You mean governments are able to pay poor men to sign up for wars? Shocking.
So we are agreed that the south vietnamese wanted to vote for reunification and the US renegged on that vote. Nothing else matters. That's the crux of the problem.
> and the north had to murder several hundred thousand south Vietnamese when they won the war?
But most of the south vietnamese military supported the north. Especially towards the end of the war. If your assertion was true, then how evil must the US truly be to allow hundred of thousands of soldiers to be murdered? Oh wait, you are just making shit up. And if the north was murdering hundreds of thousands of south vietnamese soldiers, there would have been an uprising. Oh wait, there was no uprising. Stop making things up.
> They just wanted to reunify peacefully so badly?
Yes. It's why the vietnamese agreed to the partition. They foolishly expected that the US ( the self-proclaimed defender of democracy and freedom ) was negotiating in good faith. Hopefully the vietnamese learned their lesson.
You are outright lying about basic historical facts. Not sure why you expected to get away with it. Especially here.
>The Viet Cong were able to pay those poor men too, but the vast majority of them chose to fight for and to be paid by the south.
If this is true why couldn't the South beat the North, or at least defend itself on its own? After the US left the South Vietnamese folded pretty quickly.
> So we are agreed that the south vietnamese wanted to vote for reunification and the US renegged on that vote. Nothing else matters. That's the crux of the problem
Just to be clear, my argument is that launching an invasion of the south was an immoral act.
It doesn't necessarily justify any immoral actions by america (or anyone else) but vice versa it's extremely hard to justify launching an invasion.
One side can honestly claim that because they other side said they would replace the entire government with stooges who could be "informed" what the constitution means by a man who doesn't even read briefs whose stooges would refuse to accept any vote that didn't affirm his parties control.
It also doesn't hurt that he said he would send red state militias into blue states to collect millions of migrants to be herded into concentration camps.
They have been running on destroying America while calling it saving it for 8 years. Meanwhile in their I know you are but what am I press strategy they are claiming that the other side is somehow destroying America despite all evidence to the contrary despite the only existential threat presented by business as usual being the widening gulf between their deranged super fans and the normals.
I think on one extreme you have the failures of neutrality that contributed to WW2, and on the other you have trumped up "moral crises" that characterized much of the Cold War.
Arguably, the reason the Nazis came to power was that a great many right-leaning German voters looked at their options and thought "this Hitler guy seems pretty crazy, but that'll probably cook off, so long as he helps us beat the communists", which is a special kind of neutrality that people can never seem to shake free of.
I get what Kennedy was responding to, his sin was in failing to understand (just like the German right) that "leftist" != Stalinist/Maoist, and that a communist takeover need not look like the October Revolution, and the regime need not look like Russia ca. 1935, nor China ca. 1960.
> I think on one extreme you have the failures of neutrality that contributed to WW2, and on the other you have trumped up "moral crises" that characterized much of the Cold War.
I don't know that I would characterize giving pieces of another country to the Germans as "neutrality".
As much heat as Neville gets for his policy of appeasement (deserved or otherwise), I'm not sure Britain was in a position to stop Germany by force anyway. American neutrality is certainly open to criticism, and I think America's performative neutrality is why American companies like IBM ended up in such pivotal roles during the Holocaust.
That said, I am referring specifically to the "this Hitler guy probably isn't so bad" phenomenon that happened inside Germany and Austria. It was a dramatic failure to take a stand against Nazism, by middle class people whose neutrality on the persecution of untermenschen was motivated by a fear of losing their economic position (and the perceived economic opportunity of seizing the persecuted's assets. That is where the "socialism" in national socialism comes from, by the way), which overrode their ability to see all the violence and hatred that the Nazis wore on their sleeves. Its very similar to the neutrality of the Swiss during the same period of time.
> I think on one extreme you have the failures of neutrality that contributed to WW2, and on the other you have trumped up "moral crises" that characterized much of the Cold War.
I would guess for every moral WWII, there are 10 (if not 100) other wars that use the language of WWII and result in a complete waste of lives and money and cause far more problems than they solve.
WW2 wasn’t a war about morals/a moral war, it was a war of hunger and greed vs self preservation. Just like most.
If it wasn’t that way, Dresden and Tokyo would never have been firebombed. No one thought those missions were moral or good. they were in the service of annihilating the enemy for survival.
That isn't how that sort of thinking is ever used in politics. If politicians start using language of "you've got to pick a side on this one!" it usually hints they're about to do something stupid. Occasionally evil.
The world is just too large and complicated for anything to ever boil down to just two sides. We can pretend it does for rhetorical purposes because otherwise political conversation gets hard; but it is important to leave space for the large group of neutrals who in all honesty probably have accurate interpretations of any given issue.
The truth is often close to one side or the other. Believing that is never the case is radical centrism, and leads to the absurdity where one can't decide between siding with the Jews or with the Nazis. I'd hope everyone sides with the Jews in that particular conflict, which isn't the same as saying they have to agree with every single thing every Jewish person ever does.
> The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who push people into active enmity claiming a moral crisis
This statement usually implies that people who act according to a moral framework that isn’t “Live with the minimum amount of intrusion to other people’s lives” are doing wrong. I personally don’t buy that.
When they are told, “Do not spread corruption in the land,” they reply, “We are only peace-makers!”
Indeed, it is they who are the corruptors, but they fail to perceive it.
I think there is some moral clarity in the Ukraine situation. There was simply no good reason to attack Ukraine. I understand that the Russians may be worried about the NATO expansion but that doesn’t justify to lead such a war.
This is just a lie. They funded and armed separatists in this area which predictably led to armed conflict. When the conflict they started shed blood they had pretense to intervene. There was NEVER a genocide against ethnic Russians just a fight they started.
It appears that only Russia could prevent or end the conflict. On the territory that Russia controls they have build concentration camps to torture and murder the insufficiently loyal as they set about grinding their cities to dust their people to gore and erasing a culture and a people.
It seems like ceding any territory now would lead to further conflict soon both in Ukraine and elsewhere based on both recent history and Russias statements.
Furthermore it would abandon those in these territories to privation and mass murder same as the soviets perpetrated against them in the past.
You forgot the best part. Satan has 3 faces and each face has a mouth. One mouth is continuously chewing judas, another mouth is chewing brutus and the third is chewing cassius. For eternity.
It's a great book, but it really shows how christianity ( or religion in general ) is glorified fan fiction.
I don't think Dante's inferno is actually part of anyone's religious beliefs. Everyone does and always has regarded it as a work of fiction. It's not a reflection on Christianity.
Frankly after reading Inferno, I am failing to see the hype about it. It is a descriptive poem where he describes various chambers in the netherworld, but there is no narrative, nothing lyrical, nothing elegiac.
It is like reading tour guide for a place one does not intend to visit.
Literally so, for Dante. I don't believe there are any cats or dogs or horses or ferrets in Inferno; in the various rings are there any animals at all?
She was dressed in “a decorous and delicate crimson.” (Virgil) 'Were you listening to me, Alighieri? Or were you looking at the woman in the red dress?'
