this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
137 points (94.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36134 readers
679 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I have the feeling that over the past years, we've started seeing more TV shows that are either sympathetic towards Hell and Satan, or somewhat negative towards Heaven. I just watched "Hazbin Hotel" today, which isn't too theological, but clearly is fairly negative towards Heaven.

In "The Good Place",

Spoilers for The Good Placethe people in The Bad Place end up pushing to improve the whole system, whereas The Good Place is happy to spend hundreds of year not letting people in.

"Little Demon" has Satan as a main character, and he's more or less sympathetic.

"Ugly Americans" shows demons and Satan as relatively normal, and Hell doesn't seem too bad.

I only watched the first episode of "Lucifer", but it's also more or less sympathetic towards Lucifer.

I have a few more examples (Billy Joel: "I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints", or the very funny German "Ein Münchner im Himmel", where Heaven is portrayed as fantastically boring), but I won't list them all here.

My question is: how modern is this? I've heard of "Paradise Lost", and I've heard that it portrays Satan somewhat sympathetically, though I found it very difficult to read. And the idea of the snake in the Garden of Eden as having given free will and wisdom to humanity can't be that modern of a thought, even if it would have been heretical.

Is this something that's happened in the last 10 years? Are there older examples? Does anyone have a good source I could read?

Note that I don't claim Satan is always portrayed positively, or Heaven always negatively :).

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 61 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (7 children)

The idea of Satan as the embodiment of evil is arguably an early medieval borrowing from Zoroastrianism. In the Book of Job he works in conjunction with God as a tester of souls, and his roles in the garden of Eden and the temptation of Jesus aren’t inconsistent with that. And a lot of the popular folklore associated with him originates from morally-ambiguous trickster figures from other traditions that were absorbed into Christianity.

[–] ogmios@sh.itjust.works 22 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

It should also be noted that the Gnostic scriptures, an alternate version of early Christianity, don't actually mention Satan at all.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The Gnostics associated the Old Testament Jehovah with the Platonic concept of the Demiurge—an imperfect or misguided lesser deity who created the material world but botched it up and included evil as an unintended consequence—as opposed to the New Testament “God” who was the Platonic principle of transcendent Goodness or Unity. So the Gnostics didn’t need a separate Satan to explain evil, since Jehovah was already covering that role.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] socsa@piefed.social 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (3 children)

I would even argue that there is actually a distinction to be drawn from the old world ideas of good and evil, and the modern ideas which have almost become "good vs nuance." No ancient religion goes as far as modern Christianity in terms of condemning people for mere non belief. This has led to a rise in literary themes around the idea that such moral absolutism is itself a form of evil, and that to the extent it implies demons are merely the stewards of nuance, that they must be more sympathetic than God.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] bizarroland@fedia.io 8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This is cobbled together from a potentially sketchy memory, but doesn't Satan technically mean accuser? Like his whole role was to tell a whole bunch of goody goody saints in heaven what a piece of crap you are so that they would have something to compare and contrast the goodness that they see in everyone with?

But also going back to opie's original question, I do remember that one of the reasons for so many Kurdish massacres is that the Kurds have a belief that Satan after the fall fell to Earth and cried such tears that they put out the flames of God's wrath.

And so they occasionally have ceremonies where they pray on behalf of Satan that God would forgive him in hopes that if God can forgive Satan then God can forgive them for their sins as well.

The reason they are massacred is because the other people in the area have equated that concept with devil worship and so they are attempting to get holy +1 damage to their attacks buy first killing a bunch of devil worshipers and accruing the benefits of executing the wrath of God against sinners.

[–] ogmios@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 7 points 2 months ago

I do remember that one of the reasons for so many Kurdish massacres is that the Kurds have a belief that Satan after the fall fell to Earth and cried such tears that they put out the flames of God’s wrath.

You’re probably thinking of the Yazidis—a group that lives in Kurdistan and speaks Kurdish but is distinct from the Kurds proper (who are mostly Sunni Muslims). The Yazidis have a very syncretistic religion drawing on elements of practically everything that ever existed in the region—including religions that were seen as heretical/satanic by subsequent ones.

[–] Caligvla@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 months ago

and his roles in the garden of Eden

Not to mention that the idea of the snake being Satan is a more modern interpretation, for a good while the snake was just a snake.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] socsa@piefed.social 55 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Displaying nuance in "hell" as pushback against the binary concept of good and evil is arguably one of the oldest tropes in fiction. Both ancient Greek and Norse mythology very specifically depict the underworld as a place of ambiguity or even normality, with "heaven" holding a far more exalted status.

Even in Abrahamic mythology the idea of hell being some kind of default punishment for sinners is a fairly modern idea, arguably stemming from Dante, who absolutely works a good amount of sympathy for sinners into the story. It really only is the most recent take on the concept by evangelical Christians which holds that an otherwise innocent person will be tortured for eternity over a mere lack of faith, and that form of absurd extremism certaintly plays a large role in the modern backlash against the concept.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Bible does portray hell as the default, such as saying all have sinned and have fallen short of the Glory of God, Jesus saying He is the only way to The Father and saying that you're saved by grace alone and not by works

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 9 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Not going to heaven doesn't mean you automatically go to hell. Do you think the Jews thought all the gentiles were going to hell?

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

There were different sects. Sheoul was a thing that was mentioned several times as well. Revelation also makes it clear:

Revelation 20:12-15

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] yesman@lemmy.world 51 points 2 months ago

Milton's Paradise Lost doesn't paint Hell as pleasant, but Satan is absolutely the protagonist of the story. That's 1667.

[–] Graphy@lemmy.world 25 points 2 months ago (3 children)

I have friends who are still religious and it seems like they’ve pivoted from “lake of fire” to a more “hell is the absence of God” vibes

I live in a crunchy granola area so I just assume that’s how the church here operates to keep patrons.

[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

Historically hell has often been depicted as a rather cold place, away from the warmth of god's love or what have you.

Anecdotally, 20 or so years ago, that's what I remember being taught in CCD class when my parents were still making me go.

Dante's Inferno (c. 1321) for example, depicts the 9th and deepest circle of hell as a large frozen lake. And many of the damned he encountered throughout the different circles are at least somewhat sympathetic, especially at the first level of where the inhabitants are by and large good people who just to not be Christians. (And to be clear, Dante often found himself at odds with the church, so his works don't necessarily reflect official doctrine and were absolutely written to reflect his own agenda, that said a lot of our modern ideas about hell owe a lot to Dante's depiction, and any actual mention of hell in the Bible is scarce to non-existent depending on how you interpret certain passages, so his version is just as valid as any other in my opinion)

[–] reallyzen@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago (4 children)

What the, uh, crunchy hell is a "Crunchy Granola Area"? Or did you just fired the queen of all autocorrect ever & I'm being too obtuse to detect it?

[–] Graphy@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/crunchy-granola#

  1. characterized by or defining oneself by ecological awareness, liberal political views, and support or use of natural products and health foods.

My wife often goes “I’m looking like a granola girl today but fuck it”

granola girl

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 15 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

It means an area where cosplaying as an environmentally conscious hippie as you drive your SUV to your mid level job in an exploitative corporate/tech/finance firm is in vogue.

EDIT: Oh sorry, I forgot to mention that they will also moralize and dietarily advise you about how you really shouldn't eat any fast food or meat or eggs that aren't fairtrade and humane, whilst stopping at Starbucks to pick up their Pumpkin Spice ~~Latte~~ Coffee Themed Hot Milkshake.

[–] rebelsimile@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The type of place where people describe themselves as spiritual but not religious.

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 months ago

Aka, religion is stupid and bad but you are an asshole if you scoff at my reiki, astrology and and nonsensical 'toxin cleanses'.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 3 points 2 months ago

I mean, that's literally the actual historical interpretation.

[–] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 18 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Religion is pretty hard to believe if it wasn't the one you were raised into. And it's often times pretty hard to get out of the one you were raised into.

But outside of religion, a pretty common fictional view is that heaven is the extreme end of order, and hell is the extreme end of chaos. Neither one can harbor any middle ground, and thus they would both suck to be stuck in.

Inside religion, whatever your religion's version of heaven is, usually depends on what "your people(local and as a whole)" would want it to be. It changes over time and distance to better fit. But never bring up that it has changed, as it has always been this one and true correct way of depicting it, to question that is some kind of sin... and hell of course is similarly fluid despite having always been "this" way.

In truth, they have both been depicted every which way imaginable.

[–] JusticeForPorygon@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It's funny that you bring the evolution/interpretation thing because Hell didn't even really exist for centuries

[–] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago

Yeah, that's just one of the ways it has changed over time for some cultures, hehe. There were plenty of millenia before hell was even thought of the first time, we probably will never know what the first written use of it was, let alone the first time it was used in oral storytelling. But with what little evidence we do have from thousands of years ago, we can see that the idea of hell was never consistent since.

[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If you count Hel (one L) from Norse religion, older than the bible.

the idea of the snake in the Garden of Eden as having given free will and wisdom to humanity can’t be that modern of a thought, even if it would have been heretical.

In Gnosticism, the snake is sometimes identified with Jesus, while the god of the old testament is the demiurge. You're correct in that the catholic church really didn't like that.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 8 points 2 months ago

We don't know how old Hel is and it's probably the single most syncretized aspect of Germanic/Norse belief.

It's honestly pretty annoying that the Romans didn't just dislike recording details about other religions, they'd actively lie about them, like Tacitus saying the Germanics didn't have anthroform gods when we have so much proof now that they did.

[–] FooBarrington@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago

I think you misunderstood parts of The Good Place: >!It's not people in The Bad Place pushing to improve the system, they try their hardest to prevent any improvements (except for Glenn, he's the only demon that tries). Michael only became better because he learned ethics from a human perspective.!<

And that's what The Good Place is fundamentally about: you can't expect people to be good, if they don't get the opportunity to become good people.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Mark Twain had some interesting ideas about Heaven, Hell, and Satan.

[–] nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

"But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most?"

I went to a religious school and after learning the whole fallen angel backstory I used to pray for him, didn't know until learning of that quote that Im not the only one. I later learned from a smarter religious teacher that the devil is not canonical, at least not in the way they're portrayed today. You can thank Dantes Inferno for modern devil characterization.

[–] Dagwood222@lemm.ee 4 points 2 months ago

I remember reading an old fantasy set in Hell. The joke was that when souls come to Hell they bring their expectations with them. The older demons are sick of all the changes the new dead people bring with them.

[–] SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I think it is absolutely a reaction to more people becoming non-religious. There is much more in the world that is morally ambiguous than the Bible alone would lead people to believe. Things like my example here: hell frozen over with Satan stuck in an endless dopamine hit cycle, struggling with depression is just one of many ways we have "humanized" Lucifer.

I think, especially, in a world ruled by corruption, that people no longer have faith that those in charge actually have their best interests in mind. You question whether Lucifer was kicked out of heaven for pointing out similar issues with heavenly society. Is he truly the villain in the story? He kills far fewer in Biblical history than God does.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago

I would suggest it's the other way around. Sympathetic versions of hell and the underworld are if anything older. For that matter the concept of hell is very much borrowed from religions that came before Christianity. Heck the vast majority of our imagery for Christian hell comes from medieval retellings of Greek and Roman myths. Maybe with little bit of the pity and empathy taken out though.

[–] stringere@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Just a few off the top of my head that portray heaven in a negative light, are sympathetic to the devil, or have an otherwise non-traditional take on the judeo-christian mythos.

1995 - Memnoch the Devil, novel, Anne Rice

1995 - Preacher, comics/graphic novels, writer Garth Ennis and artist Steve Dillon, Vertigo Comics

2001 - American Gods, novel, Neil Gaiman

1990 - Good Omens, novel, Terry Pratchett

1978/1998 - What Dreams May Come, novel/movie, Richard Matheson - novel author

edit: formatting because ewww

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained

  • Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago

Letters from Earth was written by Mark Twain in 1909, but publishers refused to publish it until 1962. So, I’d say it’s fairly modern, starting around 1962 and becoming more acceptable since then.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 9 points 2 months ago

I’ve noticed this in video games too. For example, in Monster Train you fight as the champions of hell to save what’s left of your home against the forces of light.

Right now I can think of the buddhist "tale of the bug".

Two (human) friends died and were reborn. One in heaven, the other as a dung beetle (a type of bug) on a dung pile.

The guy in heaven tried to "help" his friend by going down to Earth and carrying his friend to the skies. But his friend refused, because the dung pile was now his home, and he didn't want to leave at any cost. Only then the guy realized that it is not heaven that makes you happy, but finding the place that you're destined for.

[–] TacticsConsort@yiffit.net 8 points 2 months ago

It's pretty modern if you mean popular, although the idea itself is REALLY old.

Rather than going into specific examples because there are a lot of them (especially in gaming and TV), I'd like to say my piece on cliches.

Basically, cliches come to exist because the cliche trope is a really good idea.

"The Butler did it" as a murder mystery trope is a fantastic idea because some people with too much money will use the protection money affords them to mistreat their employees, providing a great motive you can build on to create a great story with relatable morals and characters. It sets up a character with perfect motives, means and a reasonable position of trust to avoid suspicion.

Similarly, "Hell good, Heaven bad" is a fantastic trope because it lets you step back and analyse things like the negative impacts of religion and how authorities (and the bible) will portray themselves as good regardless of their actual actions. Plus of course there were periods of time where people were told doing virtually anything that didn't fit into an extremely narrow worldview meant you were going to hell. You know, stuff like basketball and Dungeons and Dragons.

Now, the problem with cliches is when someone sees a popular idea that's also a very good idea, but doesn't understand why it was a good idea. As a result, when they use the idea, it rings hollow at absolute best, and that kind of terrible execution of something that's already known and popular tends to be especially disappointing. I think the best example is The Hunger Games, which absolutely defined young adult dystopian fiction for years because it showed how the media industry mistreats its workers, and Alleigant, which used a lot of ideas from Hunger Games (and some other things) without actually understanding the ideas.

(TLDR: Hunger Games has a love triangle as a prominent plot element, but the actual reason is that it's perpetuated by the media pretty much on pain of death for Katniss so that she can entertain the viewers. By contrast, Alleigant also has a love triangle but the triangle IS the plot element and the author bends over backwards to make it happen despite the fact none of the characters really feel like they're suitable for it)

Anyways, cliches aren't bad but you need to know how, why, and when to use them in order to actually fulfil their potential, and the heaven-hell one you've mentioned above is no exception.

[–] cabhan@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 months ago

I completely forgot to mention His Dark Materials! Hell doesn't appear, but Heaven is portrayed as actively bad.

[–] dsilverz@thelemmy.club 4 points 2 months ago

From my own experience as an ex-christian and now a "pagan" person (syncretic demonolater), I'd point many factors that converged to a general understanding of how demons aren't so evil as we thought before (and how angels and God himself aren't so good as we thought before), while also leading to the understanding and reevaluating of the concepts good and evil, light and darkness.

Starting by the technological progress that allowed us to connect in realtime. Social networks, online communities that gathered people once unbeknownst to each other. Online platforms that connected people from different backgrounds, sharing once unknown knowledge. Books once distant from our reaches are now easily accessible through online libraries. Knowledge was never been so easy to reach (albeit there are many people that prefer ignorance).

This leads us to another important factor: the silent rediscovery and rising of ancient beliefs. The cyberspace brought us knowledge about the Sumerian faith, Hellenism beliefs and many, many others. Everyone can now know in detail about ancient deities and concepts in just a few clicks. Entities and deities such as The Mother Goddess (once extensively worshipped by our ancestors) is being rediscovered. We can easily know a Wiccan nowadays, or a Luciferian, or a neo-hellenist, or a Gnostic, or syncretic people like me, thanks to the internet connection and community. There's also the gnosis (i.e. knowledge through spiritual channelling) becoming available as soon as we have the basic openness to all this great knowledge and wisdom.

These two factors lead to a last factor: the weakening of Christiancracy (the former theocratic West where State and Christianity were intertwined as one) and the strengthening of both secularism (atheists, yet to understand how metaphysical aspects converge with the modern scientific inquiry; as an example, the modern chemistry began from the ancient alchemy) and syncretic ancient beliefs (once "pagan" and "forbidden" knowledge and both sacred and/or profane ritualistic practices, now openly available to be learnt and to be known).

In this way, movies and cinema are just echoes of these phenomena, echoes of the human awakening, becoming part of the culture, extending how the knowledge can reach and teach the masses, even though movies and TV series always have some degree of poetic freedom so they don't always represent things as precisely/concisely as a book/grimoire/oral knowledge. Media knowledge is far from perfect, but their esoteric and occult references spark the curiosity on part of the audience, people that will begin to really know what it's all about. As a personal example, I got to know some esoteric concepts through Supernatural TV series (although it demanded my own research that led me to Luciferianism and then to Lilith).

In summary, I'd call it the Aquarian Era, the Kali Yuga, the Revelation, the new Aeon. Some would call it "evil", while humanity as a whole can now rediscover what "evilness" really is: it's not the demons. It's a part of the Cosmos, it's a part of the Nature, it's a part of ourselves, as above so below. Our spiritual awakening is important to lead us to understand our own shadows through the wisdom of ancient, ambivalent forces, and reintegrating ourselves in Oneness with them.

[–] DarkThoughts@fedia.io 4 points 2 months ago

This is not an easy answer because what you think of as hell and demons was not always this Christian image. If we think of other older religious beliefs, such as Hades and his underworld, then things look already a lot more positively, or at least rather neutral (depending on their planes). Cultures differed quite a bit on those things and Christianity basically gobbled up parts of them, munched them together and replaced them. During the height of Christianity in Europe of course it would have been complete blasphemy to display hell and demons as something other than evil and would've likely got you killed. With modern times and people becoming more socially liberated it becomes less and less of an issue to say or think those things. So I don't think there's a clear cut time based border on when this happened, but rather it happened gradually with us becoming more and more educated I suppose.

load more comments
view more: next ›