Religion, Secularism, Politics – Conversations with History



– Welcome to a Conversation with History, I’m Harry Kreisler of the Institute of International Studies. Our guest today is the distinguished anthropologist Talal Asad, who is the 2008 Foerster Lecturer on the Berkeley campus. Professor Asad, welcome to Berkeley. – Thank you very much. – Where were you born and raised?

– Well, I was born in Saudi Arabia, actually, because my mother comes from there and my parents moved when I was a couple of years old to India, and then eventually to Pakistan. So, I was raised both in India and in Pakistan. Well, in very different ways. My mother was a very traditional woman. My father actually was an Austrian Jew who had converted to Islam in his twenties and was a correspondent, a foreign correspondent for the Frankfurt Allgemeine Zeitung and for the Neue Zurcher Zeitung as well.

In the 30s, he had to give up the first one, the Frankfurt one, because he was not allowed to continue. And he was very interested in the Middle East. And that was where he eventually settled for six years in Saudi Arabia, married my mother, and moved on to India,

Partly for reasons, journalistic reasons, but also because he had friends who urged him to come. So, the question about what, how they shaped my views, well, certainly my father was much more aware of, as it were, a European heritage, as well as the heritage of the Middle East,

To which he was very attracted. And although he had relatives, mother’s relatives, in Palestine at the time, in the 20s, he was born in 1900. – And he converted when? – [Talal] And he converted in his mid-twenties. – I see. – And he died in 1992 in Spain and he’s buried there.

But, he was always really a strong anti-Zionist. He felt that this was a great mistake, even before he became, before he was converted. – So, what I’m hearing you say is you must have gotten a real sense of the diversity of the world and the complexity of the world from them.

– Absolutely, and I was a child, but my father was interned during the war, as an Austrian citizen, even though he was a Jew, by the British, it was, of course, British India at the time. And I was a child, but most of the people there during those years

Were, in fact, from Central Europe, who’d been brought together. So, I have memories of them, as well. And then, shortly after the war, we went to the Punjab, which became Pakistan. And, you know, I was very much aware of many of the things that were going on politically there, as well.

My father was quite active intellectually in Pakistan, as well. – And were you raised in the Islamic? – I was indeed, yes, very much so. My mother being a very pious woman who is not at all an intellectual, but who, in some ways, looking back on it,

I can see that her approach to her religion, in some ways, unconsciously made me aware of different approaches and that is of an unreflective, what people have called an embodied approach to religion, rather than a highly intellectualized one. My mother was not an intellectual, of course.

– So, the religion is really part of the way people live. Is that right? – That’s right, exactly. That was certainly so. And it was certainly for, for my father, it was even more an intellectual matter too. He thought of this as a kind of an intellectual promise,

So to speak, of Islam as a way of living within a community and within a political community and so on. – I believe I read somewhere that, as a Muslim, you were actually, were you educated among Christians – in a school. – That’s right. – And that must have been a kind of

Another layer of a sensitivity to diversity. – Very much so. It was a boarding school and the teachers were British missionaries there. And I can remember being a very obstreperous boy who was determined to, as it were, hold on to his own religious identity among others who were mostly Christians. But, you know,

It wasn’t a very conflictual situation in school, I don’t want to suggest that. But certainly, difference was, you’re right, was very much a part of my early experience. – And how did your education beyond, you know, these first schools, but more your advanced education in England, impact your future scholarship?

– Well, I came to England at the age of 18 and I was, in fact, going to become an architect. That was my father’s choice. He decided for various reasons, because he was also perhaps an architect manque. He thought a, it was a wonderful profession

And b, he thought I needed a certain amount of discipline as well as an opportunity to be creative and what could be better than being an architect? So, he chose for me the profession. I went to London and did architecture, not very successfully, because my heart wasn’t in it,

For two years in the Architectural Association School of Architecture in London. But, I really wanted to be an anthropologist. And then I went off to that, took my own decision and went and did architecture at Edinburgh, sorry, anthropology at Edinburgh. I left architecture. And after that I went to Oxford

Where I did both my first postgraduate degree and my Dphil, the PhD, in Oxford. – And did you focus on religious studies and what was your dissertation on? – No, not at all. You know, I had to some degree, although I was brought up in a sort of a fairly conventional religious way,

Perhaps not quite so conventional, obviously, because given my parents’ background. But, I had to some extent revolted and felt myself to be, to have lost my faith already at the age of about 14 and so on. And I wanted very much to come to Europe,

Which I regarded as a source of all the wonderful things that seemed somehow not to be present in Pakistan at the time. And I remember that my father tried to, in his own way, to disabuse me of some of my ideas, which were rather naive.

But nevertheless, he allowed me to go to Europe, which was interesting. And indeed he, you know, he even encouraged me when I was a boy to try and learn the piano and things like that. And European music is something which I’m extremely fond of and still am deeply fond of.

But, going to Europe was, for me, both something which was exciting to arrive at and, at the same time, as I’ve said to friends, a kind of a slow disabusement, because I sort of had clearly had ideals, and so on, which were very misplaced in terms of what actually existed.

But, my intention to do anthropology was part of a, if you like, a purely secular choice and I eventually did fieldwork in a pastoral nomadic society in the deserts of northern Sudan in the 60s. And it didn’t deal with religion at all. It had to do with their economy

And their political system, primarily, their local political system. – Were there any particular political awakenings that you had in the 60s? I mean, coming from this background where you must have sensed, however young you were, the turmoil in the Pakistan region and then coming to your mature years of education in the 60s.

What stands out? – Well, I think one of the moments, a very important moment in my life was the ’67 war. And I’ve written about this elsewhere or spoken about it, anyway. It was very traumatic for me in the sense that I couldn’t quite understand the reaction of so many people in Britain

To what had happened and a kind of exaltation on the part of the British, which I thought was inexplicable to me. As I’ve said elsewhere, I think I could understand that the Israelis might have felt, you know, very pleased with the fact of the victory,

But why were the British so enormously satisfied with it and emotionally pleased? So, and that had to do with, of course, their earlier experiences. Particularly the ’56 war and their sense of humiliation at that time, when they were obliged, you remember, to withdraw. And some of that came back

And that was very important for me and it also made me think much more seriously about the entire colonial experience, which British society still somehow retained in part. – I wanna ask you about being an anthropologist, but what you just said is maybe a lead-in to this, because as an anthropologist,

One thing that stands out in the work of yours that I read is your sensitivity to power and the relationships of power between the former colonial powers and their former dependencies. And it strikes me that what you just said, was that an entree point into this insight? That is, with your background,

Sort of being surprised by the exaltation and then, sort of thinking about that? – Yeah, I think that’s a very good question. Because I was certainly aware of power in a very general sense and aware of the history of colonialism. But, the way in which it seemed to work

Within the psyche, if you like, of people both individually and collectively, was something that I felt was much more important than I had realized. And, you know, as I said, when I came to Britain, I was also enormously enamored of what one might call an enlightenment kind of culture,

Which I thought I would find. And I was enormously anticipatory with regard to ideas of equality and justice and rationality and so on. You know, held rather naively, of course, as a boy in my late teens. But, nevertheless, very powerfully. And in some ways I think

What my engagement with or my concern for power has been is a kind of complexification of those understandings. So, at first, I thought my goodness, how can this be that this is the culture which believes in all these things and compassion and so forth. And yet, it seems not to do that.

But then, of course, as I’ve said, I had to reinvent the wheel by recognizing that, you know, all sorts of cultures, all cultures, in a sense, are capable of bias of different kinds, every culture. So, the idea that there was one culture out there which would be without it

Was, in my view, very naive. – A theme that runs through your work is the power of concepts and often, how they are derived from power relations. And how those concepts then obscure the realities both of the conceiver and the object of the conception, so to speak.

Is that a fair, maybe simple, statement about some of the things that have interested you? – Yes, I suppose it’s one way of putting it. But, I think of power, now certainly, not simply as repressive and exploitative. I think of it also as something

Which is an opportunity to create, to rebuild, and so on. And the relationship between these two emotions of power, as it were, repressive and creative, it is what fascinates me and is certainly very involved. The ideas, the concepts which interest me, therefore, are both concepts that obscure the possibility

Of some kind of resistance as well as the possibility of some kind of creativity, as well. So, I do agree that that’s not an unreasonable way of describing things, of looking at the way in which these concepts are put together, in which we’ve received, in our culture,

And which in some ways are not adequately and critically and from a distance examined. – I’m curious, what, in the kind of work you do, what do you, what conclusions do you have about the skills that are required to do the kind of anthropology that you do well?

One thing that strikes me is sensitivity to culture, the different cultures. What else? – Well, certainly with languages. – Yeah. – You have to have languages which are necessary for what, I mean, as a medium, both in the field where you’re working but also, at the same, of other perspectives,

Even within the West, as it were, you know, to recognize that there are different national traditions, as well. I think the ability to listen is very important. I don’t know that that’s the kind of skill that can be very sort of systematically or formally learned. But it’s certainly has become easier for me,

Both through teaching, particularly through teaching, and through field work. And I think that that’s absolutely crucial for the anthropologist. To be able to listen, as it were, without too many presuppositions and being open to arriving at conclusions that might be quite startling, eventually, when you arrive at them.

But, not think that you have an answer. I’m giving you a really, perhaps not quite the answer you want. – No. – About skills, but. – Yeah, well, but that, this is, I should maybe I should have phrased the question better. But, that’s the answer I wanted. – [Talal] I see.

– Whether I gave you the right question. Now, how does the student and the scholar transcend the biases that come out of their own culture? That would seem to be a big problem. – It is a big problem and certainly, you know, I don’t think any of us can completely overcome our biases

And the formation that has made us what we are. But, insofar as one can try by encountering very different kinds of cultural phenomena, very different kinds of human beings in different societies, and demand of oneself that one listen, as I said a moment ago, and that one try and question

Not only what one finds out there, to question also oneself. I mean, I’m a great believer in criticism and a criticism which I think should not be confined only to, as it were, the cultural phenomena that we encounter, but also our own criticism, self-criticism. I don’t know, one can only try

And of course, we won’t completely succeed, I’m convinced. But, we can try and question ourselves. – If one looks at your works, it’s very clear that they’re steeped in comparative studies, comparative theory, interdisciplinary work, and combining that all with a sensitivity to the complexity of a particular setting and so on.

Talk a little about that. I know you’ve worked on reform in Egypt and religion and what emerges is a much more complex picture of what the interface between modernity and what the West would call modernity versus tradition. – Right, well you know, one of the things I’ve been very struck by

And I’ll come back to, more directly, to your question in a minute, but is, as I put it, that within the West there is much more argument, much more difference about what modernity means. And what it entails, how one gets to it, or what its problems, its primary problems are.

Too often, partly because it’s a presentation of Westerners who have, as it were, directed their words to the non-Western world and also, as a consequence, people in the non-Western world. There seems to be what I call a single face to modernity. I mean, this is no longer entirely the case.

I know that there are all sorts of developments going on, especially in East Asia and South Asia, and so on. But, there is a lingering sense here of, you know, we know what modernity is, modernity and we know how to get there and it’s quite different from our tradition.

I think in the West, one doesn’t think that. One recognizes how important traditions are, all intellectual traditions are traditions, first of all, we work through and we rethink them, but they’re still traditions and we think of them in or we try to think of them in a modern, i.e. contemporary way.

So, I would say that the question of, you know, the very different kinds of approaches to modernity, for me requires an exploration of kinds of knowledge from very different disciplines, both Western disciplines, if one might call them that. I’m not very happy with that, but still, you know roughly what I mean.

And the more traditional disciplines in the Middle East, theology, law, say Islamic law, Islamic theology and so on are I think very important to get into. As well as the different opportunities in the disciplines that we have in our liberal institutions. – I’m looking here at the definition in your book

And I’ll show the book, the Formations of the Secular. And just as an autobiographical note, you say, “Modernity is a project “or rather, a series of interlinked projects “that certain people in power seek to achieve. “The project aims at,” and then you list the and what just sort of struck me was

Many of these things must have been in your mind’s eye when you came to England, thinking that you had found a secular Mecca. – [Talal] And a modern, yes. – Yes, yeah, so. – Absolutely, yes. – And in another place, and I can’t unfortunately find the quote right now,

You mentioned that we forget that the notion of modernity that the West has come up with really emerges out of a particular time in our history when we made a transformation and we forget that and then want to apply the concept that emerged from that to other peoples who come from

Different practices and different histories. – Exactly, I think that that’s very true and that is, of course, part of the reason why we find so many problems, both social and political, in that part of the world. Indeed, we sometimes, you might say, some of these problems arise here too in the West,

Whether it’s the United States or Europe. For some people, the idea of modernity is quite straightforward and certain things must be rejected if one is to be truly modern. And then, for other people, not so. You know, one has seen arguments about the British political system. No doubt you’re familiar with these arguments,

Which say, well of course, the British system is not completely modern yet because, you know, the Church of England still has a certain important place in the British government and you can’t call that modern. Because in a modern state, and here we think of either the United States or France,

Both very different kinds of secular arrangements, in which, in some ways, the religion is at least politically intended to be kept out. So, but I’m not sure that it’s a good description, say, of the British system to say it’s not modern. This presupposes a single model.

The question is, is it the kind of society that is, that produces obstacles in the path of various developments which we think of as valuable or not? Rather than, is it modern or not? I mean, that’s why I’m a little leery of the idea of modernity as well.

– And you go on to point out in this book that the theory makes the assumption that it’s a binary choice, that it’s one or the other. And you’re trying to help us understand that there’s much greater complexity and in a way, I think you’re suggesting that you can’t actually understand

What’s going on in a place like Egypt and how it reformed itself in religious matters and how this interface between what came from the outside, interface with kind of living practices and a living religion. – Yeah, this is absolutely true as far as, you know, my work on Egypt is concerned.

This is what I’ve tried to do and I think of this as an anthropology which is, I think, appropriate for our time. By which I don’t mean it’s the only thing that one can do as an anthropologist, but I think it’s very important to be able to

Somehow tackle the question of various interconnections, as well as distinctions. But in ways that are not binary, as you’ve just rightly quoted. Because I think that the language that we use, that everybody uses, makes for very different possibilities of interpretation and of living and therefore, binaries are a rigid way

Of approaching these problems. I think it’s a mistake to even think of, you know, the secular and the religious in strictly binary terms. I think that there are all sorts of interpenetrations, especially if you look at it historically, as well as cross-culturally. That you see that there are various connections,

Various transmutations of concepts, of modes of behavior, of organizations, and so on. – Mmmhmm, you write, “In an interdependent world, “traditional cultures do not spontaneously grow or develop “into modern cultures. “People are pushed, seduced, coerced, and persuaded “into trying to change themselves “into something else, something new “that allows them to be redeemed.”

I’m curious because, of course, this is an insight into what’s going on in the developing world, but one could almost apply this to the United States itself and the way our secular modern elites have been shocked by the revival of religion in this country and the way it seeks to intrude into politics.

– Right, yeah, I’m still learning about the United States and the problem, or the problems, that people see of secularity and religion, but certainly, I think there is a greater awareness among various people of a complexity which we have overlooked. So that one can try to work out ways of accommodating

A certain kind of multiplicity and of interconnection, without allowing this to be repressive of individuals or of traditions and so on. And this is very difficult in any culture, certainly. In the Middle East, as well. You have forces which are repressive and you have forces which are opening up.

And it’s not always easy and I say this not as a criticism, but as a fact, not easy for people to know, certainly in the Middle East, where they should be going. And what, as it were, a more adequate and reasonable and just development of a tradition in moments of change might be.

So, and I think that this is true here too. You know, people are on the one hand worried by certain developments in the demand for the intrusion of religion into politics. But in other ways, they do recognize that there are some aspects of what we call religion

Which somehow could have a place, as it were, in the public square. But how to do- – And the important thing here, which we should say for our audience, is that secularity, being secular, defines a world in which religion is separated from the public space

And the two, although side by side, do not meet. And what we are encountering in the world and here at home is the concept doesn’t work completely. – Right, right and I think on this one finds ways in which one can address that difficulty. You know, the outcome will often be rather unpleasant.

And I do think that it’s necessary not just to keep insisting on a straightforward separation of two things, which are themselves very ambiguous, religion on the one side and secularity on the other, but to recognize that there have to be, one must analyze out what the implications of each are,

To what extent elements of each can be changed, accommodated, made to answer for its own claims. And I think that this can apply to both secularity and religion. – And a place where this problem emerges very strongly is in Europe today as it deals with its Muslim communities.

– Absolutely, yes, it’s a matter of both of great interest to me, as to what’s happening in Europe, and at the same time of considerable dismay that Europe has become so rigid in many respects and so fearful, really, of a population that is, on the whole, initially not at all,

Should not be seen as threatening. While elements might be, but I don’t think that the majority should be seen in this way. And there are ways of accommodating and some are more, and some states and some national traditions are very rigid. The French one, of course, is famously, extremely rigid

About accommodating certain kinds of religious differences. – For example, the veiling, the hijab, yes. – Yeah, absolutely. But you know, many people often forget that the French who are supposed to be so fiercely laic are also able to accommodate religious schools, Catholic schools, which have a place within the government educational system.

And it’s possible for people to do whatever they like, including cover their head and so on, in religious schools. But, not in government schools. I mean, there’s a degree of, you know, a contradiction and incoherence in our approaches to secularism, in Europe as well as, perhaps, in the United States.

– You write that when Europe or the West errs in its overemphasis or overstatement of its own modernity that you write, “The belief that human beings “can be separated from their histories and traditions “makes it possible to urge a Europeanization “of the Islamic world.” And you’re really suggesting that is gonna create problems?

Are you suggesting that? Or what are the implications beyond an insensitivity to the reality of people that one presumably would want to integrate? – Well, in the first place, yeah, I think that there are problems that will arise and have already arisen. The problems are partly also the result

Of certain claims, historical claims that liberal Europe has about degrees of autonomy, degrees of, as it were, self-determination, which are not simply political, but also social, cultural, and psychological, and so on. How is it that these ideas which were regarded as basic to Europe’s inheritance have now suddenly become difficult to apply

And you have to have one model? I think that integration, in other words, is something that requires a certain amount of give and take. The nations of Europe, as in the United States, have never been stable, stationary. They have evolved over time. We know this.

But, this very banal fact tends to be forgotten, time and again. That, you know, if we are changing then we can’t rigidly say there is just our way of life, which must stand forever and unchanged. But, also something in which one can give and take and at a reasonable level.

And that should apply, I think, to immigrants as well. – As a social scientist one has to analyze the factors that provide the social or political base for this blindness to both the inadequacy of the concept and the reality of one’s own history and evolution

And the reality, history, and evolution of the other, in this case. – Right, well, you know, there are clearly elements, if you like, on both sides so it’s not just a question of a straightforward blindness on one side. But, I think in some ways there’s a greater responsibility

On the part of the party which is much stronger and the party which is more secure in dealing with groups that are less secure that are expected to transform themselves. What are the origins of these? I think they are largely historic. In the case of Europe, the entire colonial experience

Has been very strong I think. That there’s no question in my mind, both for Britain and for France, certainly. In Germany, it’s a little more complicated, because the immigrants there are not from, I mean, the Germans have never had that kind of empire as the French and the British did.

But, that’s one part of it. And I think, if you like, that the modern nations in Europe are not sufficiently liberal, not sufficiently modern one might even say, provocatively, although I’ve criticized that idea as a simple idea, in not taking their own values seriously enough. But, there are all sorts of incentives.

For political, economic reasons, it’s easier to find scapegoats and so on. I often think that, in the case of Europe, I’ve said again, provocatively, that it’s almost as though the Europeans now, no longer able to publicly denounce Jews and persecute them, however sub rosa sort of anti-Semitic some of them might be,

But, it’s no longer possible for a person in Europe to be taken seriously as a respectable public figure and be anti-Semitic. This is no longer true. This is not true, of course, in relation to immigrants. So, there’s a kind of shift, almost. It’s almost, one might suggest,

Because they can’t any longer, as it were, choose one outsider or define one group as an outsider which they did and then, right up through the 30s, which was the most terrible period, and now they have to find somebody else. I mean, I’m making a provocative formula out of it.

– And you’re not saying that having lost the one, you have to do the other, it just tends in that direction, right? – In that direction. Because, of course, many people don’t do that. I mean, there are lots of very responsible people and lots of people who are warning against

Precisely the attitude which I’ve been describing with some dismay. Lots of Europeans who have made the very points that I’m making already about it being in conflict with liberal ideas, with democratic ideas, and so on. – Let’s talk now about 9/11 and look at the way

We’ve looked at this problem of suicide bombing. And let me show you, the audience, your book on suicide bombing, which is a series of lectures you gave at the University of California, Irvine, I believe. After 9/11 we were in a situation of having to reconceptualize our adversary,

So a lot of these themes that we’ve been talking about come into play in the way the West sees the other. What do you see as, what insights do you bring to that definitional issue that, you know, follows up on what we’ve just been talking about?

– Well, I think that, in some ways, this connects up with some of the things we’ve already said. And that is, the need to look critically at many of our received categories and received notions. In other words, not just to criticize the others or the perpetrators of that terrorist attack,

But to go deeper. And again, there were people who already suggested this at one time. At the time, it was a bit difficult to make this point forcefully. – [Harry] After 9/11. – After 9/11. – Yeah. – Nevertheless, there were some people and since then, there have been more

Who have urged that, you know, what we also need is an examination of the relationships between, say, the United States, in this case, it was the United States, and the rest of the world, but particularly, of course, in this case, the Middle East. Instead of just blaming,

Just as it’s, I think, quite wrong for Middle Easterners to blame everything that happens in Middle Eastern countries on the outside, which I think is not true, I’m extremely critical of the political situation in the Middle East, but it should be so too, in the United States, so that one can look critically

At our relationship, as I put it, to violence. In what way, historically as well as within the country, as well as between the United States and other parts of the world, what has been the relationship to violence and how has it been invoked at certain points and denied at other points

And what are the consequences of what we’ve done? I say we, ’cause I’m already now an American citizen, of course. So, I became an American citizen in summer of 2001. Rather, sort of symbolically. Anyway, so that’s what I would say in answer to, I don’t know whether I’ve really adequately, probably not.

– Yes, you had, but let’s explore, but at least in terms of looking at the other, you say, or you suggest, the way you see, define, explain terrorism gives a justification for the actions of the state. That’s my reading of what you’re saying. In other words,

That in going down one road of interpretation, it then makes it easier for the state to practice all kinds of violence and come up with a moral justification for that. – And a violence not only on the outside world, but within. – [Harry] Yeah, right, right.

– Exactly, and you know, so many people have complained a restriction of liberties and all sorts of things. We’re going over very familiar ground which, nevertheless needs, I think, to be stressed again and again. I think that the whole question of war and terrorism has fascinated me.

When I wrote this book and gave the lectures, I showed it to a friend who said yes, he liked it very much. And he could see, he was an American born and bred, he could see that I was rightly saying that in some certain instances, terrorism might be justified.

And I said no, this is not what this book is about. I am not trying to justify terrorism. I’m just trying to shake this sort of binary categorization which gives rise to certain kinds of policies. So, I had to actually spell this out. You may have seen this in my short introduction

That’s saying this is not intended as a justification for it. I’ve, as I’ve mentioned to you, I’ve become particularly interested also in the whole idea of just war and the reasons for it. And I’m working at the moment on that very category

And the way in which it is a kind of moralization of war, which I think should not be moralized at all. I’m not a pacifist, but I don’t for one moment think that just war is a coherent and valid notion. And the way in which this justifies certain kinds of violences,

Which are often of a enormously greater scale than anything that the wretched terrorists can do. There are so many things, not only in the way in which we have used air power in war, for example, but also in this very ambiguous business of when one transgresses the law of war.

And the law of war is, for me, fascinatingly, much more ambiguous than I thought it was. There’s a very fine and insightful writer on this, a law specialist, David Kennedy, who’s written, I’ve quoted him in my book, but since then he’s written another one on the law of war,

Which has, I think, extremely good insights about the law of war being not a series of rules which cannot be transgressed and which are supposed to justify just war, but really a language, what he calls a language for argument. And that’s what the law of war is.

There are others who’ve also developed this. Again, an international law specialist in City University who has written a number of wonderful articles called, I keep trying to remember rightly, was it Jonathan Berman? Oh, Nathaniel Berman, who’s written on this subject as well, very much about the question of the construction in war

Of various categories, including that which has allowed, you know, the proportionality business, the question of necessity, and so on. So, what I tried to do in this book, first of all, is to shake those categories so that we could think for ourselves.

I mean, I don’t provide any answers, as you know very well. But, I want, I hope that some readers will begin to question for themselves and find answers for themselves. And then, in the final part, of course, I was still fascinated by the reasons for horror at suicide bombing.

And there were all sorts of reasons, it seemed to me, one could draw on to try and explain what that sense of horror was. Which could be looked at without being moralistic about it, because as an anthropologist, I was and here I was much more thinking about it anthropologically.

And also reminding ourselves that, you know, in modern society, we are committed to all sorts of conditions that would otherwise be considered terroristic and horrific. And one of those, which I do mention in the book, you may remember, has to do with nuclear weapons.

– Go on, go ahead, please, no you know, finish, go ahead. – Well, I just wanted to say that, you know, in a number of official definitions terrorism is defined as not only an act, but also as a threat, the threat of terrorism. I mean, a particular kind of threat makes it terrorism.

Now, it has seemed to me, as well as to legions of other people, that possessing nuclear weapons, which you say you’re going to use if necessary and you will destroy not only the enemy, but in the process, yourself, you’re prepared to do that, seems to me, logically,

You have the logical structure of terrorism. And yet, we don’t see that and we don’t address it quite in those terms and I think we should. – This part of the conversation is raising an interesting point and that is, as a social scientist, as you try to disentangle

The complexity of our own development in thinking about an issue, violence and war, violence between combatants, and so on, we basically get some new insights about ourselves, we see different things about the adversary. Now, what’s interesting is the point you made about what your friend said, because when you begin to do that,

What you’re saying becomes politicized and people say, oh, you’re defending suicide. Talk a little about that, because it really is an important issue of where the academy can have insights, but in those insights becoming part of the political debate, there is a politicization in which people are accused of saying things

They didn’t say. – Yes, of course, this is very difficult to control, to some extent. Let me approach this indirectly by referring a review that was made of this book in the Times supplement, the Sunday supplement. A book review by Samantha Power, which, in fact, was about three books,

Including one of Petraeus, and this book, and one other, I forget which. And when she turned to that, she said among other things, well, she said a couple of nice things, but she disagreed, of course, fundamentally with it. But, she described it as an angry book

And she said in the end, rage overcomes him. And I’ve been saying to my friends, you know, did she read the book or didn’t she? Well, the point is, you can’t control how people read you. And I think that, you know, this is simply a rediscovery of a fairly obvious thing.

It’s no use by saying no, no, I wasn’t angry and I certainly wasn’t enraged. But, people will read you in odd ways and to some extent, you can control that by at least explaining yourself, but in the end, there are things that you can’t, I think,

Totally control how people will take up what you’re saying. My hope is that the, insofar as the politicization, it can be seen as an indirect one. I mean, I think of, if you like, of democratic politics also as a kind of personal, interpersonal kind of ethical encounter in which one can,

One should be able to treat others with whom one is engaging on equal terms, critically, but also listening carefully instead of jumping to the conclusion that, you know, that they belong to a certain category. What they’ve said, aha, we already know what he or she is saying

And we really will not tolerate that sort of thing. And asking oneself why one has these feelings of rejection, as well, as we proceed. You know, for me, in a sense, democracy is not just about, you know, voting and so on, which is, in some ways, the least problematic aspect of democracy.

There is that other aspect which I think is very important and very neglected, including the readiness to be self-critical. – Professor Asad, on that note I wanna thank you for coming to the campus to be the Foerster lecturer and also for appearing on our program.

– Thank you. – And thank you very much for joining us for this Conversation with History.

#Religion #Secularism #Politics #Conversations #History

Prof. John Blakeman ACE Lecture #3: Constitutional Politics and Constitutional Interpretation



Oh, welcome back. I’m glad you could join me again. I’m professor John Blakeman from the UW- Stevens Point Political Science Department and this is my ongoing lecture series on the U.S. Constitution sponsored by the UWSP Alumni Association and their Alumni College Experience

And so this is lecture number three, what I call Constitutional Politics and Constitutional Interpretation and this should give you hopefully a broad overview on some of the classic ways we argue about the meaning of the Constitution, that’s something that we will cover in

In lecture four as well, and it’s also an introduction to what I call Constitutional Politics, which is our ongoing give and take about what the Constitution means and how it applies. Now the book I’m reading, you know sort of a shameless plug,

But if you’re interested in reading a lot more about the founding era of the constitution and reading the writings of federalists like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison or even anti-federalists. About 25 years ago the Library of America released a two-volume set called “The Debate on the Constitution”

And I would highly recommend it. Okay let’s get underway. Institutional Politics. Understand I’m trained as a social scientist and so I tend to approach Constitutional law not only from a legal standpoint but also from a political standpoint simply because the the Constitution guides our public policy

And as we will see, our basic political institutions often have differing interpretations of the Constitution and so when I talk about Constitutional Politics, what I mean is in part the Constitution is a political document. It creates our national political system and it emerged from a very political meeting, the Constitutional Convention, which as

Scholars have noted the Constitutional Convention was a bundle of compromises. It was a series of compromises between delegates from the 13 original states, well actually 12 original states because one state did not bother to send a delegation, but they didn’t always agree on what the Constitution

Outcome should be and so they had to compromise on many different things. Now the Constitution itself is silent about who should interpret it and how it should be interpreted. Now later on we will come across a very famous case: Marbury VS. Madison,

1803, which I bet you’ve heard of Marbury. That’s where the Supreme Court declares that it has the power of Judicial Review, it has the power to interpret the Constitution and tell us what it means and it’s been that way for over 200 years but the document itself is silent about who should interpret

The Constitution and how the method of interpretation and so that leads to a lot of political debate. It leads to ongoing political, legal and constitutional debates over what the Constitution means and that’s just a fact of American political life. Some people like that; other people hate it. But the fact is

As we’ll see, any political era, there’s going to be sometimes very profound disagreement over what the Constitution means. Now who interprets the constitution? Well Marbury VS. Madison tells us that it’s federal judges and the U.S. Supreme Court, especially since the Constitution is a fundamental law

And the role of judges in our constitutional system is to interpret the law. There are two concepts here worth mentioning. One is Judicial Review and Judicial Review is simply the power of a court to review a law as to whether it’s constitutional or not. Now at the federal level, federal courts

Exercise Judicial Review frequently, they frequently review federal laws for their constitutionality, they can also review state laws for their constitutionality. Judicial Review exists at the state level as well, every state has a Supreme Court and every state Supreme Court will exercise some type of Judicial Review

Over state law, sometimes even federal law. Judicial Supremacy is a different concept, this is the argument that when it comes to interpret the Constitution, judges are supreme and especially the U.S. Supreme Court and Judicial Supremacy means that the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say on what the

Constitution means. Now that’s controversial, you make up your own minds to be sure, but over 200 years of political experience we’ve pretty much accommodated ourselves to the idea of Judicial Supremacy, that the Supreme Court has the final say. There are a couple of exceptions where

We have amended the Constitution to overturn a Supreme Court decision on the Constitution but that’s very very rare. There’s another concept to think about here too, what we call Coordinate Construction and we have to remember that the Judiciary, Congress and the Executive branch are co-equal, in our constitutional system they are

Meant to be equal to each other. Now you know one branch may have a check or balance over the power of another branch of government, absolutely, that’s what the separation of powers is. That’s what checks and balances means, but the separation of powers also means that each of the three branches

Is equal to the other two and of course that means when it comes time to interpret the Constitution, judges interpret the Constitution, members of Congress do as well, Congress as an institution interprets the Constitution, the Executive branch always has to interpret the Constitution and we are often caught up in conflicts

Over whose interpretation matters the most and sometimes that’s a really hard question to figure out. Now other things to think about: who interprets the constitution? Well judges do, Congress does, the Presidency does, Executive Agencies do, so not only the President, the White House or the

Executive Office but the IRS which is an agency has to interpret the Constitution from time to time, Health and Human Services has to interpret the Constitution, the Agriculture Department has to interpret the Constitution. It’s not so noticeable in the public’s eye, generally speaking, but Executive

Agencies have to have to figure out what the document means, what constitutional principles are important and guiding when they implement public policy. Interest groups interpret the Constitution. The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU, very focused on the free speech clause, freedom of expression, the NAACP, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People,

Has litigated a lot of 14th amendment discrimination equal protection cases, the National Rifle Association has litigated a lot of second amendment cases. Interest groups really matter and our constitutional politics are sometimes driven by how interest groups view constitutional interpretation as well. Don’t forget the states, we’ve got 50 states,

Several territories states litigate, states interpret the federal Constitution as it applies to them. Then there’s us, We the People, we have to interpret the Constitution as well. We have to figure out on our own what we think the document means, now of course

We should rely on judges, we should rely on Congress, we should rely on Presidents, interest groups, state governments, but at the end of the day we also have to engage in this process and that’s fine. We should argue with each other about what the Constitution means, we should do so peacefully, absolutely,

Respectfully, but yeah we should focus on how we interpret the document as well. Then others? I don’t know, foreign governments who diplomatically engage with the United States, they have to think about what our Constitution means from time to time especially when they are interacting with the U.S. State Department on a Treaty issue

For example. So there are others I’ve left out to be sure, but yeah this might give you a different perspective. So when it comes time to interpret the U.S. Constitution, it’s not just the Supreme Court and judges. We do rely on them mostly and that’s fine but all of these other institutions and

Agencies and actors have something to say as well.

#Prof #John #Blakeman #ACE #Lecture #Constitutional #Politics #Constitutional #Interpretation

Interfaith Education



The purpose of a, of a special focus day is where we actually stop teaching the IB, but it’s an opportunity to focus on the actual mission of of this UWC college. So, why interfaith? Identity and especially religious identity has been used and abused throughout history for political ends.

And to understand why the situation is like this in the current modern society it is really important to learn about religion. It´s really an interesting way to learn more about the people around you and the environment I am muslim and I am connected to foreign country and not a good time for

My religion itself because we have a lot of like, conflict areas now in foreign countries about the Islam and about terrorism by relating them together but like, I thought it may be a good thing that I come and maybe I can change something in people. People´s perspective of Islam

I think our work is to help people reclaim the voice of their religion and represent it in the way that it’s meant to be represented. As a force for love, as a force for harmony, as a force for bridge building in the world.

And looking at this kind of issue, the inclusivity of it If you are a member of that faith what do you believe in so to speak, they unite you with other members but, it excludes others and it’s that exclusion which can be exploited With two seminars to try and increase the

Amount of exposure that students could get to face speakers. My religion or my religious life it’s between me and between god, but, the social life and the rest of our life it´s for all of us together. If you believe or not believe, we are together. To built, the whole and the future.

I think Interfaith is so interesting because you learn more about like, the core part of how people perceive the world and how people think. So it’s not just the superficial culture exchange of oh, this is pretty; but, you learn about the meaning behind the objects and I think it really helps to

Understand other people. People who, maybe doesn’t believe in God, and doesn’t believe in any other religion and they just really listen and they have good questions and they really respect the religion and they respect each other and, they were really happy after it. So, this really surprised me.

#Interfaith #Education

The Crazy Real-Life Story Of The Satanic Panic



With Sam Smith’s…demonic performance at the 2023   Grammy Awards, all things Satanic  Panic seem to be back in the news.   But this recent trend actually has a long history  that stretches back to the Reagan administration. Satanic Panic was preceded by the  rise of evangelical Christianity that,  

In some opinions, cultivated a paranoid fear  of supernatural evil. This is exemplified by   the “evil empire” speech delivered by  President Ronald Reagan on March 8,   1983. The speech was delivered to the  National Association of Evangelicals,   shortly before Reagan was re-elected to a  second term. Though Reagan was talking about  

The Soviet Union, his use of concepts like good  versus evil spoke to a sea change in Americans’   relationship with religion, especially as many  joined the evangelical Christian movement. “We will never abandon our belief in God.” Because of this change, Reagan courted  the favor of the Moral Majority. The Moral  

Majority was a political action group formed  in 1979 by Baptist minister Jerry Falwell,   Sr. It successfully aligned itself with  conservative values and the political right,   setting the stage for the conservative  Republican politics that are still active in   the U.S. government. After Reagan’s election in  1980, his ties to the Moral Majority continued.

A growing number of Americans were taking part  in conservative Christianity that pushed back   against the more liberal cultural changes of the  1960s and 1970s and new religious practices like   the Church of Satan. Though the Church of  Satan was actually atheism dressed up like  

A carnival sideshow, from the outside it was  terrifying to Bible-believing evangelicals. As the 1980s progressed, it was clear  that mental health services were going   to be a more prominent part of American life.  However, the rise of legitimate psychologists,   psychiatrists, counselors, and other health  professionals was mirrored by the rise of  

Quack practitioners as well. Dubious  therapies like hypnotic regression also   helped to set the stage for a Satanic Panic  based on concepts like “recovered memories.” According to the British Psychological Society,  recovered memories are especially controversial   because they are often difficult to prove.  Additionally, they may be generated whole-cloth  

As patients ruminate on their experiences with  the help of over-eager therapists. Adding to   the confusion was the desire for fame and fortune,  which seemed to push many professionals to ignore   concerns as they gained renown for fighting  back against evil but unseen Satanists.

The proliferation of mandatory reporting laws  and strengthened child protection services over   the course of the latter 20th century is  also tied into the story. Unfortunately,   there’s no doubt that child abuse was a  persistent problem long before the 1980s. But,  

The growing attention towards abuse, paired with  rising concerns about the very soul of the nation,   primed a powder keg. With so many Americans  worried about evil in both its temporal and   supernatural forms, it now seems that  something explosive was bound to happen.

“Michelle Remembers,” published in 1980,  was the first work to claim that Satanic   practitioners were ritually abusing children.  Written by Michelle Smith and psychiatrist   Lawrence Pazder, the book contained lurid  stories of abuse uncovered during Smith’s   therapy sessions. It was during those sessions  that Pazder began to use hypnotic regression.

At first, these were worldly horrors  like purportedly witnessing a murder,   but as the sessions continued, the  recollections took on a paranormal tinge,   with graveyard rituals, consumption of human  remains, and even the Devil himself. At one point,   Michelle claims, occultists installed  horns and a tail into her own body.

“Michelle Remembers” has now been thoroughly  debunked, both because Pazder used unproven   methods and because no corroborating evidence  was uncovered. For those who believed that   well-organized Satanists were wreaking  havoc in the world, this was a stark,   terrifying confirmation. For others, it was  a graphic, compelling story that took hold of  

Their imaginations and made the changing world  all the more terrifying. For Smith and Pazder,   it was the ticket to a highly public and  lucrative career as speakers and consultants. “The book’s already a big bestseller!” “Did you realize that?” Though the writers of “Michelle Remembers” claimed  that a well-organized Satanic cult was operating  

In Canada, it wasn’t long before the Satanic Panic  hit the U.S. In California, the McMartin preschool   case proved to be one of the most expensive and  traumatic legal affairs to stem from the panic. It began with a call made in August 1983.  Judy Johnson, whose son went to the McMartin  

Preschool in Manhattan Beach, California, told  the police that her son had been abused by a   teacher. In a letter, she also said that her  son witnessed the teacher, Raymond Buckey,   flying through the air. His mother and school  administrator Peggy McMartin Buckey supposedly  

Took Johnson’s son to an armory where a “goatman”  was present in a “ritual-type atmosphere.” “Wouldst thou like to live deliciously?” During the investigation, police sent a  letter to the parents that graphically   referred to “possible criminal  acts” and named Raymond Buckey.  

This set off a panic. When interviewed, most  children at first denied that anything happened   but questionable interview techniques  pushed them to make lurid confessions. The court case that followed dragged  on for years and cost $15 million. It   fizzled into nothing after investigators found  no evidence to support the claims. Eventually,  

Judy Johnson’s initial testimony was  brought into question. After her death,   it was revealed that she had been  diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. Many of the children interviewed for the McMartin  preschool investigation spoke with Kee MacFarlane.   MacFarlane and her team, none of whom were  licensed, spoke to hundreds of children.

MacFarlane employed controversial techniques. One  assistant told children that others had already   divulged their “yucky secrets” in an effort  to defeat the teachers who were “sick in the   head.” The investigator even directly asked at  least one girl if “Mr. Ray” did the touching.  

When the girl denied this, the investigator  repeatedly asked how Mr. Ray “would have”   touched someone until the girl pointed to an  anatomically correct doll’s private parts. Could young children, who spoke of  secret tunnels beneath the school,   goatmen, and flying teachers, be trusted  when investigators like MacFarlane goaded  

Them on? In at least one exchange, quoted  by The New York Times, she told a child, “You’re just a scaredy cat.  How come you won’t tell me?” These and other dubious techniques spread  throughout the Satanic Panic. Investigators,   some of whom helped to imprison  accused people for years,  

Relied on unproven techniques like  the analysis of children’s drawings,   how they played with toys, and interviews  packed full of leading questions. As the panic grew, police departments began to  train officers for what seemed to be a rising   tide of Satanism. At least, that’s what people  like Kee MacFarlane believed. MacFarlane, the  

Unlicensed investigator who worked on the McMartin  preschool case, told California legislators that, “Preschools in this country in some  instances I think we must realize have   become a ruse of larger unthinkable  networks of crimes against children.” Police training for the Satanic Panic has  come into question. The training taught  

Police investigators to treat everything  from graffitied pentagrams to heavy metal   music as evidence of occult activity. One  document from the Chicago Police Department,   assembled by a “gang crimes and  ritual abuse specialist” in 1989,   alleged that even the innocuous peace symbol  was really an occultic “Cross of Nero.”

While paranoia grew within police departments,  practically no evidence uncovered a vast,   satanic conspiracy. Yet, people like Lawrence  Pazder, who co-wrote “Michelle Remembers” and   helped to set off the panic, remained in  high demand as a paid “expert” consultant.

As part of the Satanic Panic, people began to  grow wary of the imagery and culture of heavy   metal music. Tipper Gore, wife of then-Senator Al  Gore, helped to form the Parents Music Resource   Center in 1985. The PMRC was founded with  the intent to give parents greater control  

Over children’s access to music with violent  or sexual imagery, including occult themes.   It was tied to the same moral fears that gave  rise to the Satanic Panic. At the same time,   police departments and investigators were told  to be especially wary of metal music, which  

They were told contained hidden occult messages  that led teens along a dark, otherworldly path. “Well I know he and his friends  listened to devil music.” “The night Chicago died?” The paranoia surrounding the  look and sound of metal music   very nearly killed Damien Echols. Along  with Jessie Miskelley and Jason Baldwin,  

Echols was convicted of the 1993 assault  and murder of three boys in West Memphis,   Arkansas. The three young men were eventually  called the “West Memphis Three.” The evidence   linking the trio to the murder was scant and  largely circumstantial. The convictions were  

Based in part on their goth aesthetic and love of  metal music, which investigators linked to occult   elements that were supposedly identified  at the crime scene, but never confirmed. Though Echols was initially sentenced to death,   all three have now been released from prison. The  true killer of the boys has never been identified.

While people grew frantic at the prospect of  satanic groups abusing children, real people   were being convicted on little evidence. Some,  like Damien Echols of the West Memphis Three,   just barely escaped execution. Others  were imprisoned for many years,   only to be released when people questioned the  evidence presented. A few remain in prison today.

Frank and Ileana Fuster were arrested in August  1984. They were charged with committing abuse at   their home daycare in Miami, Florida. Janet Reno,  then serving as the Dade County state attorney,   prosecuted the couple based on child  testimony, a single medical test,  

And Ileana Fuster’s confession. Some argued  that the children were pushed to confess,   much like the minors in the McMartin preschool  case. Furthermore, Ileana eventually recanted,   maintaining her innocence while saying she  simply wanted the ordeal to be over. She   was imprisoned for three years and  then deported to Honduras in 1989.

A 1990 made-for-TV movie, “Unspeakable Acts,”  may have influenced public perception of the   case. Frank is still in prison today. Though the  evidence presented at the Fuster’s investigation   and trial was shaky, the truth remains that  Frank had prior convictions. This points to the  

Distinct possibility that some children, both  in the Fuster case and beyond, may be genuine   abuse victims whose stories are overshadowed  by claims of conspiracies and the supernatural. Though the U.S. seemed to be the heart of  a mysterious network of Satanic abusers,  

The panic spread outwards into other countries.  In 1992, it struck Martensville, Saskatchewan. A   local daycare was targeted after children claimed  to have been abused by the people working there.   Some claimed to have been taken to a blue shed  outside of town, which they called the “Devil  

Church.” It was there that they were supposedly  trapped in cages and made to participate in blood   rituals. The accusations went to trial  in 1993, but further scrutiny brought   police investigation techniques into question.  Though some of the accused were convicted, the  

Vast majority of their sentences were overturned  after authorities failed to produce any evidence. In 1997, Italy experienced its own Satanic Panic  with the “Devils of Lower Modena.” After a local   parent referred her child to a psychologist to  counter possible abuse, it spun into a widespread  

And paranoid investigation. Children claimed  that they were made to participate in murders,   blasphemies, and gory nighttime rituals held in  cemeteries. Sixteen children were removed from   their families and six people were convicted.  As in so many other cases of Satanic Panic,  

No one ever uncovered proof that satanic  ritual abuse or murder had taken place. Media outlets began to grow skeptical of the  moral panic beginning in the late 1980s. In 1992,   the U.S. Department of Justice published a study  written by Special Agent Kenneth Lanning that  

Debunked the whole affair. Lanning, who was a  consultant on hundreds of Satanic Panic cases,   criticized the mutable definitions  of Satanism used by law enforcement   agencies. He also noted that some of the  alarming symbols used by “Satanists” were   ultimately innocuous things like heavy  metal music and role-playing games.

By 1995, a television film  produced by HBO, “Indictment:   The McMartin Trial,” marked the  growing disbelief surrounding the   specter of satanic ritual abuse.  The movie portrayed Ray Buckey,   the accused man at the center of the McMartin  preschool trial, as a victim of moral panic.

That doesn’t mean the Satanic Panic was  entirely over. A training film called the   “Law Enforcement Guide to Satanic Cults” was  produced in 1994. Cases bearing the marks of   the panic are still in the court system. The  “Devils of Lower Modena” case that supposedly  

Centered on satanic ritual abuse in Italy was  still being argued in court as recently as 2019. Though it’s now largely derided by mental health  professionals, belief in ritual abuse committed   by a highly organized and efficient underground  group of devil worshippers is still out there. One  

Therapist practicing in Salt Lake City, Barbara  Snow, was put on probation for reportedly planting   memories of satanic ritual abuse in her patients.  Snow, who is still a practicing therapist,   at one time treated Teal Swan, a controversial  spiritual leader. Swan maintained that she had  

Been the victim of Satanists. The investigation  on her behalf stalled when Snow came under fire.

#Crazy #RealLife #Story #Satanic #Panic

The Existential Problem of Evil and The Brothers Karamazov



>> Philosophers sometimes distinguish between different problems of evil. So, the problem of evil. How is it that the existence of all of this suffering we find ourselves confronted with is compatible with the existence of an all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing God? If God is all-good, wouldn’t He want to prevent

So much of this horrific suffering? And if He’s all-powerful and all-knowing, wouldn’t he have the power and know how to do so? And so why do we find ourselves confronted with all this suffering? Now, this is a kind of theoretical problem. But it’s also, there’s also an existential problem that we face

When we encounter terrible evil in our own lives and in the lives of others. It can induce a kind of vertigo. It can make it very difficult to believe that there is a God of the kind described by traditional Christianity. And so you’ve done some really interesting thinking

And writing about this existential problem of evil. As it’s treated in the writings of Theodosius Dobzhansky and his beautiful character, Father Zosima. And so, I wondered if you could tell us a bit about how you think about the practical problem of evil, and what you think Dobzhansky’s solution

Or reply to this problem is. And then whether you think it works, whether you find it persuasive. Yeah, the practical problem is sometimes we find ourselves quite rightly feeling a revulsion against certain kinds of really horrific evil that certainly others in the world experience, and maybe we, ourselves, have been touched by

At some point in our lives. And it induces in us a profound sense of that the things ought not to be this way. And we don’t want to align ourselves with any grand scheme of things such that this is a part of what’s being planned. But, of course, as theists the problem is

God has permitted a world, for us to exist in a world where precisely such horrible things have happened. And so then, for some individuals, when they experience this kind of intense suffering, they find themselves just psychologically withdrawing from God. It’s, and it’s because, perhaps out of an identification with the sufferer.

They feel they don’t want to simply say that, “Well God is wholly just and God is perfectly good, and he will bring good out of horrific evil.” They worry that this seems to say that they should not properly grieve the suffering that human individuals experience. Many religious individuals sometimes report,

Not so much theoretically ceasing to believe that God exists when they encounter evil, but just God feeling distant, and feeling the inability to draw near to God and to love God, to trust God given his willing permission of these kinds of suffering. And that’s the way that Dobzhansky frames the problem of evil

In “The Brothers Karamazov,” which I think is just a terrific novel in many ways. You have three sons of, that are all interesting characters. But one of them goes off. It’s set in Russia of course. One of them goes off and is educated in the West

And becomes a, sort of Enlightenment, atheist-type figure. And he frames the problem of evil this way. You know, he says, “I don’t want to, even if it’s true “that God will bring great good “and cause an ultimate harmony of all things “in the eschaton. “I don’t want to participate in that.

“I, and, you know, I want to declare now I want to have no part of that.” And it seems to be a kind of moral righteousness stand of saying, you know, maybe God could cause me to acquiesce in it, but I don’t want God to do that.

I don’t want Him to change my mind about this. I want to just stand apart and stand with the suffering victim, so. >> He puts it in terms of the suffering of a young child and says >> Yes. >> if all of this requires the torture

Of this one innocent child, then I don’t want a part of it. >> Yes, exactly. So then there’s this other character that, and Dostoevsky very much wrote, he wrote it in stages. It was published in serial form, as many 19th century novels were. And we have some of his correspondence.

And he very much wanted the novel to offer response to the problem of evil, and he feared that he did a better job of framing the problem of evil than he did in giving a powerful Christian response to it. In fact in, as you know,

In a lot of anthologies devoted to the problem of evil, you often get an excerpt of just Ivan, the brother, the atheist, his statement of the problem of evil. And it’s very painful to read, his recounting of just some horrific atrocities that occurred in and around that time.

So, but, this character, Father Zosima, is a sort of, he’s, we’re introduced to him as this saintly monk that people come to, and they just feel spiritual comfort often just in his presence even when he doesn’t speak. He’s this powerful saintly figure. >> He’s a person of overwhelming love,

And that’s the thing >> Tim: Yes. >> that most strikes you about him. >> Right. So really a model of Christian virtue, a very Christ-like figure. But he, at one point, he recounts the story of his life, and he indicates that, actually, early on, he was a violently angry young man

And participated in dueling and such. And over the course of his life, he embraced the Christian faith and was slowly transformed. And all the, he functions, I think, in Dostoevsky’s hands as a kind of witness to, because he encounters people, people come to him who are suffering horribly. So he’s not sheltered from,

He’s aware of the intense suffering of many individuals. And he just speaks with great confidence that it is possible to be reconciled to that without diminishing it and while still identifying with the victim of suffering. And he doesn’t tell us how. He just says it is possible to come to see things

In this way. So he’s, I take it what Dostoevsky’s doing, he’s saying he’s a kind of witness. If you get to a point of spiritual development that an individual like Father Zosima has, it’s possible to have a integration of your deep, profoundest moral convictions about the wrongness of horrific suffering

And complete trust in the deep love of God. And so he, and we’re supposed to, what we the readers are invited to take away is listen to the testimony of some individuals like that. It’s true there aren’t that many of us that attain that level of saintliness in our lives,

But there are some, and we should listen to them. Because these are far from being individuals who are morally calloused. They’re not dismissive of suffering. They have great sensitivity to suffering, and yet they also have profound intimacy with God. And they can experience it as a moral committedness

And trust in the love of God. So I just think Dostoevsky’s solution is there are certain saints that are witnesses to us that it is possible >> So. >> to reconcile that. And then it’s an invitation for us to try to follow that path and to experience that for ourselves.

>> So is it that you can imagine someone in the grip of an existential crisis, finding themselves repulsed maybe by God because of horrific suffering and experience through a witness. And you can imagine trying to come in and give the person an argument, you know, a philosophical argument, >> Yes.

>> which maybe in some cases might help, but in many cases maybe would feel cold and lifeless and unduly abstract. Is Dobzhansky in effect saying I’m not gonna give you an argument? I’m gonna give you a picture. This is what it looks like to be full of love,

Wholly trusting in God and his goodness, wholly in solidarity with the suffering This is what it looks like. It can be done. Contemplate this, and it will bring healing to you? I mean is this an effect? >> Yes, I think that’s it. I think he should perhaps add what he no doubt believes

That some human individuals in this life may have experienced such profound suffering, say, seeing the, he recounts the story of a mother seeing her child being deliberately killed savagely right before her eyes. You know, that’s, it’s the people who experience wartime atrocities can become so psychologically damaged, it may be impossible,

Absent a miraculous divine intervention in this life for those individuals to experience the kind of peace and wholeness that a character like Father Zosima experiences. And I think we just have to recognize that. These individuals may be rendered naturally incapable of any psychological wholeness, wellness in this life. But God is capable of,

Jesus is the great physician, and we are promised that individuals who cling to God will, even if they’re not capable of experiencing that wholeness, that overcoming of deep woundedness, God can bring that about. And it’s hard to imagine sometimes how that could be. But I think as Christians,

We also have to bear in mind that the God we worship is a god who suffered greatly on our behalf. And a kind of brief loss for Marilyn Adams has interestingly speculated that one way in which people who’ve experience horrific suffering might actually come to, in a way,

Have that suffering take on redemptive value for them, even though it remains an evil thing, what they experience, but it can come to have redemptive significance if God enables them in a kind of mystical way to yoke their suffering, see their suffering as a means of identification with the suffering of Christ

On our behalf, right. The inner life of God who grieves over his suffering and sinful children and longs to have them return to them and experience profound suffering and alienation in the second person of the Trinity, incarnated and crucified. That could be, for some individuals in this life, they might say,

Well, I, you know, I can’t make that identification. It still, it doesn’t help me to, but God could cause them to have insight into the character of God that it could somehow take on redemptive significance for them. And I find that a helpful suggestion as just a,

A possible intimation of a way that that could be done. And no doubt, it requires supernatural activity on the part of God, but we’re already >> Tom: We’re already committed. >> committed to that, yeah.

#Existential #Problem #Evil #Brothers #Karamazov

Devil’s Breath – World’s Scariest Drug?



Robberies. They’re a messy business. We’ve  all heard the gruesome tabloid stories of   tweakers with cheap handguns shooting up a liquor  store for twenty bucks and a fistful of change.   Or maybe the knock-out mugger, arrested  after a string of robberies and assaults,  

Going to jail for half a decade for money  a white collar criminal triples in an   hour. These things happen so often in the US  that they barely even make the news anymore,   and often end up ruining the lives of  both the victim and the perpetrator.

But let’s see how a Colombian pro does it  without even needing to carry a weapon.   A pro like Demencia Black, the street name of a  Bogota drug dealer interviewed by Vice in 2012.   Demencia doesn’t need to carry a gun or a knife,  because he’s packing something even more deadly:  

A fistful of Devil’s Breath, a chemical  compound dubbed the World’s Scariest Drug by   many. And today, you’re going to find out  why it’s earned such a terrifying reputation. Let’s say Demencia wants to rob a man for all  he’s worth. He’ll spot his target – perhaps a  

Businessman boozing at a local night club  without a care in the world. The kind of   guy with a Swiss watch and a Platinum American  Express Card, both of which he loves to flaunt. When nobody is looking, Demencia will  stroll towards his target with a smile,  

Wearing a casual t-shirt and shorts – hardly the  most intimidating outfit for a hardened criminal.   But you don’t need to look scary when you have the  Devil’s Breath on your side. It’s a fine, white   powder, similar to cocaine in appearance. But its  effects are an order of magnitude more potent.

Demencia taps his mark on the shoulder,  and when the yuppie turns to look at him,   Demencia raises his hand – a scoop  of Devil’s Breath nestled in his   palm – and blows it into his victim’s  face. By this point, it’s already over.

In Demencia’s own words, from the aforementioned  Vice documentary, “With just that flash the   person is totally drugged. You wait a minute  and when you see it kick in, then you know   that you own that person. You can guide them  wherever you want. It’s like they’re a child.”

And for Demencia, this robbery truly  is like taking candy from a baby.   He tells the drugged businessman  to get up and follow him,   and the businessman does exactly as  he is told without a single complaint. The two of them take an evening  stroll to a local ATM, and the  

Businessman happily empties his entire  bank account for Demencia. After all,   people high on the Devil’s Breath  aren’t exactly famous for saying “No.”   By the time the transaction is over, Demencia  has made the kind of score your average American   stick-up man can only dream of. And he  did it without even carrying a weapon.

A lot of stories about the Devil’s Breath – also  known by its scientific names Scopolamine and   Hyoscine – play out exactly like this. Whether  they’re true or scary urban legends, they often   follow the template of a manipulative criminal  using the drug to make someone do something  

They wouldn’t normally consent to. Because the  drug is synthesized from a number of plants,   including a type of nightshade common  in the upper region of South America,   it’s become a favorite among shady  characters in the Colombian underworld.

One famous and often repeated example is a man  meeting a beautiful woman in a club one evening,   and deciding to take her home to his Bogota  apartment. However, when he woke up the   next morning, he found that the woman was  gone and his apartment was totally empty.  

Furious, he went downstairs to ask the doorman  what had happened. The doorman told him that a   van had pulled up in front of the building in  the middle of the night, and he and the woman   had loaded all of his possessions into the van.  He asked the doorman why he didn’t say something,  

And the doorman said that he had. The man had just  said it was fine, and he knew what he was doing. He would later find that the Devil’s  Breath had been slipped into his drink   back at the bar, and he’d entered a state  so suggestible that he was willing to be  

An accomplice in the wholesale  burglary of his own apartment. And sadly, robbery is not the full extent  of the drug’s use in a criminal context.   There have been a disturbingly large  number of reports of the Devil’s Breath   being used to facilitate forced  consent in sexual assaults,  

In place of the perennial drug  rohypnol, commonly known as “roofies.” Some incredibly sensational reports  have even claimed that scopolamine is   being used to incapacitate victims for organ  harvesting operations. Though to be honest,   that last one is most likely about as true  as the hook handed man on lover’s lane,  

Or the killer hiding in the back seat. The same goes for stories of criminals  somehow soaking the drug into business   cards and passing them to unwilling victims.  As scary as the thought would be – or just the  

Thought of having to talk to any stranger for  long enough to get their business card – it’s   unlikely that there’s any truth to it. There  just isn’t much of a pharmacological basis   for dangerous quantities of the compound  being soaked into the skin through those  

Means. But of course, the truth has never  gotten in the way of a good horror story. It’s a global tradition to move between  eras of drug hysteria every few years,   with one fashionable drug at a time typically  being labeled the “world’s scariest drug.”  

Typically, these drugs are connected  to a huge number of horror stories,   and given supposed effects that sound  like something out of a scary movie. In the 1980s and 1990s, people across the US were  terrified that PCP or “Angel Dust” was turning  

Drug addicts into unstoppable, superpowered  killing machines. A few decades later, after the   high profile cannibalistic attack of Rudy Eugene  – the so-called “Miami Zombie” – on Ronald Poppo,   people were calling Bath Salts  the “Zombie Drug.” Despite the   fact Eugene was never actually shown to have  the drug in his system during the incident.

A wide variety of other drugs have  been given this same treatment,   from Flakka to Krokodil, and the  Devil’s Breath is no exception. However, even if some of the tales of Devil’s  Breath terror are exaggerated, or the product   of tall tales told by drug dealers  getting high off their own supply,  

Scopolamine is still a genuinely  dangerous drug when abused. In 2015, the US’s Overseas Security Advisory  Council gave an unofficial estimate that there   are 50,000 scopolamine related incidents  in South America every year. Naturally,   this has put the fear into potential vacationers  considering a Colombian getaway – and likely  

Caused a few sleepless nights for members  of the Bogota tourist board as a result. Scopolamine can have incredibly toxic  effects on the body in high enough doses.   Many scientists believe that scopolamine depresses  the central nervous system, and can lead to a bevy  

Of side effects from hallucinations, to severe  drowsiness, to dry mouth, cardiac arrhythmia, and   amnesia. If you overdose on this stuff and can’t  find treatment in time, it’s extremely likely you   won’t live to see tomorrow. And when the elderly  are given the drug, it massively increases the  

Risk of dementia. So even if it doesn’t turn  you into a zombie on the spot, the drug can   rob you of your mind and cognitive faculties  in even more terrifying ways in the long run. You’d much rather deal with Demencia  Black, the Colombian drug dealer,  

Than the kind of degenerative dementia that  turns your life into a living hell over time. However, there is another side to  scopolamine that will probably surprise you.   Namely, the fact that it has a wide  variety of medicinal uses, even today.

Despite mainly coming into fashion as the “scary  South American mind control drug” in the last   two decades, scopolamine actually has a long  and storied history. Early, unrefined forms of   scopolamine and Hyoscine have been in use by  various cultures for thousands of years. For  

Example, the Aboriginal people of Australia – the  oldest continuous culture on earth today – have   long used similar chemicals from the soft corkwood  tree in Bush Medicine. And because of the powerful   psychoactive properties of Hyoscine, it has  also been used for spiritual purposes across  

The globe for thousands of years, inducing states  of ritualistic religious hallucination in users. It entered popular Western medical use in  the late 1800s, pioneered first by German   scientist Albert Ladenburg and later suggested as  a medical anesthetic by surgeon Dr. Schneiderlin.  

Because of its wide array of effects, the drug  was tried out for various purposes throughout   the 19th and 20th Centuries. It came into  use as a popular anesthetic for childbirth,   an antidote to gastrointestinal spasms, and an  effective treatment for postoperative nausea  

And vomiting. That last one is actually  still one of its most common uses today. Scopolamine and similar chemical compounds  have been used to stave off nausea for over   a century now. From tribal chiefs to the Allies  in World War II storming the beaches of Normandy,  

These chemicals have proven to be the  most effective in staving off seasickness.   But it isn’t just the sea that a small dose of  scopolamine can make a world of difference in.   Most scientists agree that scopolamine is the  gold standard when it comes to preventing all  

Kinds of motion sickness, and wearing a  small, prescription scopolamine patch can   make your travels far smoother  than they’ve ever been before. But hey, this video is called “The World’s  Scariest Drug”, not “The Drug That’ll Stop   You Getting Seasick.” Are there any other  frightening uses of scopolamine? The answer  

To that question is “Absolutely.” It goes without  saying that Colombian drug cartels are unsavory   people – vicious, ruthless outlaws who’ll do  anything to turn a profit. And if that involves   pedaling and using drugs like scopolamine, so be  it. But imagine if the drug’s scary, mind-bending  

Properties were used by a violent gang in full  cooperation with its country’s government? This exact situation played out during the  mid-to-late 20th Century in the Czech Republic,   thanks to an extremely frightening group  called State Security, colloquially referred   to as the Czech Secret Police. Much like the  East-German Stasi, this group was a ruthless,  

Repressive arm of the Soviet puppet-state. They  would spy, intimidate, torture, and murder to   keep their masters in power. And like a lot of  thugs working for repressive government regimes,   a big part of their job was forcing confessions  out of perceived enemies of the state.  

And like a cheesy Bond villain, you better believe  that these guys had ways of making you talk. Of course, while State Security were more than  happy to grab the rubber batons and bolt cutters   for some good, old-fashioned torture, they also  liked to mix it up a little. In the early 1900s,  

Hyoscine had often been used as a kind  of truth serum, but was soon discontinued   due to some of the unpleasant side effects  we’ve already discussed. But State Security   weren’t all that into human rights for their  prisoners, so they had no problems with using  

A little of the Devil’s Breath on their political  prisoners to make them more open to suggestion. It’s extremely likely that the answers  produced by this method of questioning were   unreliable to incoherent, but again, it’s  not like they really cared either way.   As long as they got somebody, they were happy.

And that is the story of the Devil’s Breath,  a semi-legendary drug favored by eccentric   Colombian robbers, sufferers of motion sickness,  and shadowy agents of the Czech secret police.   Is it the scariest drug in the world?  We’ll leave that up for you to decide,  

Given that much of its most terrifying stories  exist somewhere in the murky space between fact   and fiction. But either way, if Demencia Black  is walking towards us with a handful of powder,   we’ll definitely be making a swift  exit before he gets too close.

Now check out “Cocaine vs Heroin – Which Drug Is  More Dangerous (Drug Addiction)?” and “How Did He   Become the King of Cocaine – Pablo Escobar”  for more facts about some gnarly narcotics.

#Devils #Breath #Worlds #Scariest #Drug

The Disturbing Truth Of The Seven Princes Of Hell



The devil made you do it, but which one? There’s  more to the red guy with the horns, including   the fact that he’s actually seven guys with very  particular specialties to boot. Or cloven hoof. The Seven Princes of Hell are a collection of  fearsome foes spread across various religions  

And cultures, but they find their origins  in the writings of notorious witch hunter   and German bishop Peter Binsfeld.  Binsfeld tortured confessions out   of supposed witches that turned into what  he perceived as the chief villains behind   witchcraft — these seven princes. Each  one lorded over a specific sin and has  

Made appearances across various religious  texts, from the Bible to the book of Tobit. The demon princes have also found their way  into literature. Works such as Paradise Lost   and Dante’s Inferno feature the Princes in various  forms. And demonology experts across the centuries  

Have kept them nice and organized in encyclopedias  like the 1818 Dictionnaire Infernal or Infernal   Dictionary by Jacques Collin de Plancy.  Descriptions differ from source to source,   but a few core ideas remain the same. For  instance, each Prince is his own entity,   and each possesses significant power  that’s been seen throughout history.

For example, Lucifer presided over pride  and Satan presided over wrath. Beelzebub   represented gluttony, Belphegor symbolized  sloth, Leviathan was in charge of envy,   Asmodeus encouraged lust, and  finally, Mammon presided over greed. None of them are friendly by any means,  but here are some untold truths about them.

The name “Lucifer” has many meanings and  interpretations, including light-bearer,   giver of light, morning star, and the  super cool “lightbeard.” The story of   his name comes from his creation by God himself. “Satan at that time was Lucifer, or “the  daystar.” He was the brightest of the angels.”

Lucifer is often conflated with  Satan, and also with Beelzebub,   but they are three separate entities. And in  Lucifer’s case, his name sets him up as one of   the most interesting princes of hell, given the  power he had before his failed rebellion. This  

Failed rebellion gives another interpretation of  what his name means: “he who shuns the light.” The Book of Revelations tells the story of a  battle fought in heaven between Michael and   his angels against the rebel future-demons  and their angels. The leader of the rebels  

Was Lucifer himself. Lucifer was fed  up with the state of the universe. He   saw himself as superior to humankind and  couldn’t understand God’s love for them.   So he convinced a third of the angels to side  with him and rise up against the rule of God.

The war lasted for years. Lucifer turned  himself into a dragon. Fellow demons   Leviathan and Behemoth showed up to help, but  in the end, Lucifer lost the fight and was cast   out. This is where there are several versions  of the story. It’s possible that Lucifer’s  

Rebellion continued after his exile. Perhaps,  knowing how much God loved his humans, it was   Lucifer who corrupted Adam and Eve to stick it  to God out of pride — his deadly sin — and envy. There’s a lot of overlap between historical  accounts of witches and warlocks and the  

Power of demons. Binsfeld himself was a notorious  witch hunter who used confessions obtained through   torture to build out his seven princes of hell.  That being the case, it makes sense that outbreaks   of witchcraft, if you will, are often attributed  to the intervention of a demon or evil entity.

According to Puritan Cotton Mather in Of Beelzebub  and His Plot, Beelzebub was behind the witchcraft   in his backyard. Mather was a prominent figure  in the notorious Salem witch trials. And it’s   interesting that he chose to write about Beelzebub  out of all the other princes of hell. It could  

Be a conflation of the devil and his various  monikers, but throughout history, specific demons   are chosen for specific instances that back up  Binsfeld’s demonic descriptions. For instance, in   the Encyclopedia of Demons in World Religions and  Cultures by Theresa Bane, Beelzebub is linked to  

Divination and possession, traits that Mather and  his contemporaries piled on the accused witches. On top of that, in Arabic, Beelzebub  means “the patron god of witches.” Beelzebub is often conflated with Satan and  Lucifer, along with the more generic “devil,”   but Binsfeld identified unique characteristics in  each. For instance, Beelzebub has a very specific  

Connection to flies. Flies tend to show up  at demonic events — they were out in force   at the Amityville horror house, for example.  Beelzebub is the demon most often hailed as   the “Lord of the Flies.” So much so that he’s  often depicted as a giant fly himself, though  

There are variations on his appearance including  horns, tails, goose feet, and other delights. However, it’s the connection to flies that  separates Beelzebub from his contemporaries.   According to the Infernal Dictionary, he  has complete power over flies on earth  

And uses them to ruin harvests. And he’s  also the leader of the Order of the Flies,   a specific entourage in hell made up of  all Beelzebub’s lieutenants and underlings. And there’s a third reason he’s known as  the Lord of Flies. Beelzebub, himself, was  

Capable of flying. In fact, his title is sometimes  translated as “Lord of Fliers” for that reason. In what has to be one of the strangest tidbits  surrounding a Prince of Hell, the patron prince of   sloth, Belphegor, has a curious preference when it  comes to sacrifices. According to various demonic  

Grimoires, Belphegor accepts human excrement as  an offering. According to the Infernal Dictionary, “One renders homage to him  on a toilet and […] offers   him the ignoble residue of ones’ digestion.” Or, as the Encyclopedia of Demons puts it, “Belphegor accepts offerings of excrement.” Mm. Mm mm mm.”

What this has to do with his status as  the nefarious figurehead of sloth is a   bit befuddling, but it explains his  frequent representation on a toilet   himself. One such illustration appears  in the Infernal Dictionary, but there are   memes galore depicting the goat-horned  deity in deep contemplation on the can.

While Belphegor was assigned to the sin of sloth,  his abilities actually go much deeper. He was   inventive enough to create devices to do his work,  and even tricked humans into doing his work then   claimed credit for himself. So, in a sense,  sloth gave way to ingenuity. He’s slippery,  

Too. Belphegor’s able to take whatever form  is most beneficial for him in the moment. That meant that Belphegor could appear as anything  from a young girl to a giant phallus — whatever   was necessary to get the job done. When we trace  Belphegor back to his origins as Baal-Peor,  

He was both a sun god and a moon goddess  to the Moabites who worshiped him. Again,   whatever got people to do what he  wanted. Call him a crowd pleaser. Leviathan is the figurehead of envy.  While Beelzebub, Lucifer, Satan,   and the like are often conflated, Leviathan  has always been a separate creature who was,  

Quite literally, a monster. More specifically,  a monster of the sea. In the Bible, Leviathan   is the female counterpart to Behemoth, the  male beast on land. If you want specifics,   Leviathan is described in the  Encyclopedia of Demons as: “a monstrous female sea creature  three hundred miles long with  

Eyes glowing as brightly as twin suns.” Although she isn’t named, Leviathan makes an  appearance in Revelations 12:3, when a great   red dragon with seven heads emerges from the  sea. According to Howard Wallace’s article,   “Leviathan and the Beast in Revelation,” this  is the sea monstress fighting the war between  

Good and evil, since Leviathan  was known to have seven heads. Since Leviathan was a sea monster, it makes  sense that the rulers of hell found a use for   her monstrous size — as the gates of hell itself.  Along with swallowing all those guilty of envy,  

Leviathan’s gullet also served as the  general entry point into eternal damnation. This concept arises through Anglo-Saxon  art depicting the fires of hell spewing   forth from a massive mouth.  In the artistic renditions,   and as a concept dating back to the middle  ages, this maw is known as “hellmouth.”

The hellmouth motif can be seen in  various works of Renaissance art,   for instance “The Last Judgment” by Giacomo  Rossignolo, as well as a slew of other examples. Asmodeus is the prince that presides over the  sin of lust. There are many interpretations  

And variations of this dark prince, but  most agree that he looked terrifying. You may think the prince of lust would be sexier,  or, if nothing else, human-like. But Asmodeus is   a three-headed creature. The first head is a  bull, the second is a ram or sheep, and the  

Third is a fire-breathing man. Infernal Dictionary  also adds that he has the foot of a goose and,   because apparently all that isn’t enough already,  he rides a dragon and carries a lance with a flag. Pick and choose which physical traits  from which compendium, you’ve still  

Got a monstrous visage that is understandably  feared throughout his appearances in the Talmud. The Talmud offers one of the best  stories about a prince of hell,   and it occurs in the book of Tobit. As the story  goes, King Solomon asked God for wisdom. Then he  

Made a stupendously unwise decision. Solomon  needed guidance about building the temple,   so he took a rabbi’s advice and bound some  demons to find the instructions given by God. There are multiple versions of this story. In one,  the demon is helpful and friendly. In another,  

The demon is used to build the temple. And in  the third, he deposes Solomon and takes his   place on the throne. In this version, Solomon  unbound the demon as a sort of challenge,   at which point Asmodeus literally punted Solomon  across the world. This left the unwise ex-king  

With the task of retaking his throne, which  — spoiler alert — he does in the end. Still,   for a while there, the temple  was ruled by a prince of hell. It may not seem like a prince of hell thing  to fall in love, but if ever one was going to,  

Surely it would be the prince of  lust, the three-headed Asmodeus. “My dream is of eternity with you.” According to the book of Tobit, Asmodeus  fell in love with a woman named Sarah,   but given that he was a horrid three-headed  demon, he watched from afar, only coming  

Close enough to kill her would-be husband every  time she attempted to marry an actual human man. This happened seven times. Then Sarah met  a man named Tobias and, ever optimistic,   planned to marry for the eighth time. And this  time, with the help of the Archangel Raphael,  

Tobias defeated Asmodeus with a fish heart and  a liver placed over burning coals. Apparently,   Asmodeus couldn’t stand the smell  and fled the scene in horror. While nothing explicitly says that Jesus  had a specific rivalry with Mammon,   it was the Christian Messiah who mentioned  this particular prince by name in Matthew 6:24:

“You cannot serve both God and Mammon.” “You can’t serve God and Mammon  both. Mammon being money.” The simplest interpretation is  that Mammon is the figurehead   of greed. There are countless references  to Mammon in conjunction with capitalism,  

Including links to the British empire and whether  or not it was in service of Mammon. Of course,   this would refer to the figurative Mammon,  being the face of greed and empire,   but the usage of the specific demonic entity  can be seen in the Infernal Dictionary,  

Which states how Mammon taught humanity to  “wrest away” the treasures of the earth. Satan is by far the most common of the seven  princes of Hell to be associated with the   devil in general, but Binsfeld sorted him as the  patron prince of the deadly sin of wrath. He was  

Supposedly the primary opponent of Jesus  in the battle for humanity, but Satan was   so prevalent in the realm of man that his name  became a common noun. In the Hebrew scripture,   there was a difference between the Satan  and a satan. The latter referred to a human  

Adversary or obstacle, while the former  was the actual prince of Hell himself. According to The Devil Made David Do  It… or ‘Did’ He? by Ryan E. Stokes,   early Hebrew writings didn’t necessarily subscribe  to a belief in malevolent beings such as demons,  

Let alone the seven princes. So when  it came time to reprint the Bible,   they used satan as a general term. The word  often took on supernatural connotations,   but the Bible doesn’t commit to  Satan being a specific entity. Elaine Pagels digs even deeper  in The Social History of Satan,  

The “Intimate Enemy”: A Preliminary  Sketch, highlighting how, at the time,   Jews didn’t believe that a satan operated  on his own volition, and that all of these   supernatural beings were of Godly nature  and therefore working according to his will.

#Disturbing #Truth #Princes #Hell

The Darker Side Of Mary And Joseph’s Story



The Jewish province of Judea in Ancient Rome was an exceptionally conservative, religious place. Gender roles were strictly defined, as were expectations when it came to sex and marriage. Deuteronomy, as a part of traditional Jewish law, pronounced a brutal and strict punishment for women who fornicated:

“Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel.” So, it makes sense why a teenage Mary, after visiting her husband-to-be Joseph for several

Months and then becoming pregnant, would have not been merely in a lot of trouble with society, but facing death as a result of her supposed indiscretion. It also makes sense that if Joseph wasn’t the father, he would have wanted to dust off his hands and say bye-bye to his

Bride-to-be. That is, unless Joseph turned out to be precisely the kind of understanding, stand-up guy that he needed to be. The Bible uses a Greek word meaning “pledged to be married” to describe Mary and Joseph’s relationship in the time leading up to the birth of Jesus. Something between engaged

And married, and similar to “betrothed” this meant that Mary had passed along to Joseph’s rule from her father’s, but they were not yet allowed to have a sexual relationship. So, if Joseph noticed she was pregnant, whether he was the father or not, he could have exposed

Her and had her executed, even if only because he didn’t want to bear the shame of being implicated in a pre-wedlock pregnancy. Before they were betrothed, this right would have fallen to Mary’s father. Overall, the Bible doesn’t have much to say about Joseph, but his response to Mary’s unexpected

Pregnancy might be all we need to know about him and his character. Joseph didn’t rat Mary out, and in fact kept things hush-hush, planning at first to divorce her quietly, according to the book of Matthew. At this point Joseph hadn’t yet come around to accepting his divine fatherly duties, and

It’s understandable why he would have felt this way. Joseph also didn’t want to expose her to public disgrace, which is a nice way of saying that he didn’t want Mary murdered by rocks. Maybe not a high bar to clear, but it was still exceptional for the time.

Before Joseph could leave Mary, however, the book of Matthew states that an angel appeared to him, saying, “Fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he

Shall save his people from their sins.” The passage goes on to say that this occurred as prophecy foretold. This heavenly intercession, similar to Mary’s visit by Gabriel recounted in the book of Luke, was all it took to make

Joseph a believer. The Bible says he was a God-fearing guy who, we presume, must have been acquainted with the prophecy. The next morning, Joseph woke up and did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him to

Do, and took Mary home as his wife. Easy-peasy. And just to be extra clear about the whole premarital sex issue, the passage in question goes on to say that Mary and Joseph didn’t have intercourse before they were officially, formally married. In the end, it seems that

The Almighty did a good job of choosing a couple to act as wards for His earthly incarnation. “The baby’s kicking. He’s strong.” “Like his mother.” Despite cinematic depictions to the contrary, this is all supposed to have happened when

Mary and Joseph were teenagers. We know this because only legal adults of ages 18 or higher were required to take part in censuses to pay taxes, which is why Mary and Joseph traveled to Bethlehem around the time of Jesus’ birth. And as the Bible goes on to say, this is around

The time when Emperor Augustus called for the aforementioned census, which more or less forced Mary and Joseph to stick together and not backpedal from their celestial commitment. It would have certainly been a scandalous affair for a young, pregnant, betrothed couple

To take to the road in those days, but Mary and Joseph did it, nonetheless. Mary accepted her role, and Joseph stuck by her side, claiming Jesus as his own child. They set off towards Bethlehem, and the rest of the well-known story unfolds: they find no room at the inn,

Settle into a nice nativity scene, get a visit from three wise men, and chill with some livestock. Despite a challenging, mystical start, Mary and Joseph stayed together, raising Jesus prior to him setting off to preach at age 30.

Check out one of our newest videos right here! Plus, even more Grunge videos about the dark side of religion and history are coming soon. Subscribe to our YouTube channel and hit the bell so you don’t miss a single one.

#Darker #Side #Mary #Josephs #Story

Adrian Rogers: 1 Corinthians 15 – The Resurrection of Jesus Conquered Death



THE SECRET IS OUT AND WHAT IS THE SECRET? MILLIONS UPON THIS EARTH WILL ONE DAY GO TO HEAVEN WITHOUT DYING AND THOSE WHO KNOW THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, WHO SLEEP IN THE GRAVE, WILL BE RAISED UP. NOW THE LIVING SAINTS WILL BE CHANGED

IN A MOMENT AND THE DEAD SAINTS WILL BE RAISED FROM THE GRAVE. THERE IS GOING TO BE A RESURRECTION.YOU SEE, GOD IS NOT FINISHED WITH US. WHEN WE DIE WE GO IN THE SPIRIT IMMEDIATELY, AH, TO HEAVEN, BUT THE BODY GOES TO THE GRAVE TO

AWAIT THE RESURRECTION. WHEN ADAM, AH, SINNED AGAINST GOD, HE DIED IMMEDIATELY IN HIS SPIRIT, PROGRESSIVELY IN HIS SOUL, AND ULTIMATELY IN HIS BODY. AH, WHEN OUR LORD REDEEMS US, HE PUTS THAT IN REVERSE. WE’RE JUSTIFIED IMMEDIATELY IN THE SPIRIT, SANCTIFIED PROGRESSIVELY IN THE SOUL,

AND GLORIFIED ULTIMATELY IN THE BODY. GOD IS NOT GOING TO LEAVE THESE BODIES OF OURS IN THE GRAVE. WE ARE COMING OUT OF THAT GRAVE. YOU SAY, “ADRIAN, DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT?” YES, I REALLY BELIEVE THAT. YOU SAY, “ISN’T THAT A LITTLE SUPERNATURAL?” THAT’S IT;

YOU’VE GOT IT. THAT’S IT. THE WHOLE CREATION IS SUPERNATURAL. GOD MADE EVERYTHING OUT OF NOTHING. YOU THINK HE CAN’T RAISE ME OUT OF SOMETHING? PROFOUND TRUTH. SIMPLY STATED. THIS IS LOVE WORTH FINDING WITH PASTOR, TEACHER, AND AUTHOR ADRIAN ROGERS. WOULD YOU TAKE GOD’S WORD AND FIND FIRST CORINTHIANS CHAPTER

15 IF YOU WOULD. IN A MOMENT WE’RE GOING TO BEGIN READING IN VERSE 45. BUT, AH, LET ME JUST SAY THAT, AH, WE ARE TALKING TODAY ABOUT THE VICTORY THAT THE LORD JESUS CHRIST HAS WON OVER DEATH. THE TITLE OF OUR BIBLE STUDY THIS

MORNING; THE DAY DEATH DIED, THE DAY DEATH DIED. NOW DEATH IS A MONSTER TO BE DEALT WITH AND WITH EVERY TICK OF YOUR WATCH, SOMEWHERE ON PLANET EARTH, A SOUL DIES. [SNAP, SNAP, SNAP, SNAP, SNAP] PEOPLE ARE DYING. ALL AROUND PEOPLE ARE DYING, AND YET, HUH, WE, WE DON’T WANT TO THINK ABOUT

DEATH. WE DON’T WANT TO FACE DEATH. YOU MENTION DEATH AND PEOPLE WILL CHANGE THE SUBJECT LIKE THEY’RE SWITCHING CHANNELS ON TELEVISION. PEOPLE DIE AND THEY DIE IN STRANGE WAYS. HAROLD LEE DUNCAN WAS CUTTING HIS GRASS; HIS WIFE AND CHILDREN WERE WATCHING. SUDDENLY HE SEIZED HIS LEFT SIDE, CRUMPLED TO THE GROUND,

AND HE WAS DEAD. A SMALL, HALF INCH PIECE OF WIRE, NO BIGGER IN DIAMETER THAN A PENCIL LEAD, HAD BEEN FLUNG BY THAT POWER MOWER INTO HIS HEAD, ENTERED HIS BRAIN, AND HE DIED INSTANTANEOUSLY. DEATH IS A FACT AND PEOPLE DIE SUDDENLY, INSTANTANEOUSLY,

AND IN STRANGE WAYS. THERE ARE THREE THINGS I WANT US TO SEE IN THE SCRIPTURE, AH, THAT WE ARE GOING TO READ IN JUST A MOMENT, AND I’LL TELL YOU WHAT THEY ARE AHEAD OF TIME. I WANT YOU TO SEE THE SOVEREIGN MAJESTY OF OUR REDEEMER. I WANT

YOU TO SEE THE SACRED, UH, MYSTERY OF OUR RAPTURE. AND THEN I WANT YOU TO SEE THE STEADFAST MINISTRY OF THE SAINTS, NOW OF THE REDEEMED. NOW LOOK IF YOU WILL AS WE READ THIS SCRIPTURE AND SEE IF YOU CAN FIND THOSE THINGS. FIRST CORINTHIANS AND READ WITH ME NOW BEGINNING IN VERSE,

CHAPTER 15 BEGINNING IN VERSE 45, “AND SO IT IS WRITTEN, ‘THE FIRST MAN, ADAM, WAS MADE A LIVING SOUL; THE LAST ADAM WAS MADE A QUICKENING,” THAT IS, A LIFE-GIVING, “SPIRIT.’ HOWBEIT, THAT WAS NOT FIRST WHICH IS SPIRITUAL, BUT THAT WHICH IS NATURAL.” THAT IS,

THE FIRST ADAM CAME BEFORE JESUS. “AND AFTERWARD THAT WHICH IS SPIRITUAL. THE FIRST MAN IS OF THE EARTH, EARTHY; THE SECOND MAN,” THE SECOND ADAM, “IS THE LORD FROM HEAVEN. AND AS IS THE EARTHY, SUCH ARE THEY ALSO THAT ARE EARTHY; AND AS IS THE HEAVENLY,

SUCH ARE THEY ALSO THAT ARE HEAVENLY. AND AS WE HAVE BORNE THE IMAGE OF THE EARTHY, WE SHALL ALSO BEAR THE IMAGE OF THE HEAVENLY. NOW THIS I SAY, BRETHREN, THAT FLESH AND BLOOD CANNOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD; NEITHER DOTH CORRUPTION INHERIT INCORRUPTION. BEHOLD,

I SHOW YOU A MYSTERY; WE SHALL NOT ALL SLEEP, BUT WE SHALL ALL BE CHANGED, IN A MOMENT, IN THE TWINKLING OF AN EYE, AT THE LAST TRUMP, FOR THE TRUMPET SHALL SOUND, AND THE DEAD SHALL BE RAISED INCORRUPTIBLE, AND WE SHALL BE CHANGED. FOR THIS CORRUPTIBLE

MUST PUT ON INCORRUPTION, AND THIS MORTAL MUST PUT ON IMMORTALITY. SO, WHEN THIS CORRUPTIBLE SHALL HAVE PUT ON INCORRUPTION, AND THIS MORTAL SHALL HAVE PUT ON IMMORTALITY, THEN SHALL BE BROUGHT TO PASS THE SAYING THAT IS WRITTEN, ‘DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP IN VICTORY. O DEATH,

WHERE IS THY STING? O GRAVE, WHERE IS THY VICTORY?’ THE STING OF DEATH IS SIN, AND THE STRENGTH OF SIN IS THE LAW. BUT THANKS BE TO GOD, WHICH GIVETH US THE VICTORY THROUGH OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. THEREFORE, MY BELOVED BRETHREN, BE YE STEADFAST, UNMOVABLE, ALWAYS ABOUNDING IN THE WORK OF

THE LORD, FORASMUCH AS YE KNOW THAT YOUR LABOR IS NOT IN VAIN IN THE LORD.” NOW THINK FOR JUST A MOMENT ABOUT THE SOVEREIGN MAJESTY OF OUR REDEEMER. WHY IS HE KING? WHY IS HE LORD? HE HAS RISEN FROM THE DEAD AND HE IS LORD. JESUS

CAME OUT OF THAT GRAVE AND JESUS BECAME THE DEATH OF DEATH. NOW LISTEN TO ME. WHEN JESUS WALKED OUT OF THAT GRAVE HE DID MORE THAN SURVIVE DEATH, ARE YOU LISTENING? HE DECIMATED DEATH. HE DIDN’T SURVIVE DEATH; HE DESTROYED DEATH. HE IS CALLED, “THE FIRST FRUITS,” AND HE IS CALLED,

“THE LAST ADAM.” LOOK IF YOU WILL, AH, IN THE SCRIPTURE AGAIN HERE IN VERSE 47. LOOK AT IT, “THE FIRST MAN IS OF THE LA, IS OF THE EARTH, EARTHLY; THE SECOND MAN IS THE LORD FROM HEAVEN.” HE IS CALLED, AH,

“THE SECOND MAN,” OR AGAIN LOOK OVER IN VERSE 22 IF YOU WILL. HE IS CALLED, “THE LAST ADAM.” “FOR AS IN ADAM ALL DIE, EVEN SO IN CHRIST SHALL ALL BE MADE ALIVE.” HE IS, “THE LAST ADAM.” THE FIRST ADAM WAS THE ADAM THAT MARRIED EVE,

AND THE LAST ADAM IS THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. NOW, IN THE FIRST MAN WE ALL FELL. IN THE SECOND MAN WE’RE ALL REDEEMED. I READ SOMEWHERE OF SOME MEN WHO WERE CLIMBING THE MATTERHORN, THAT MAJESTIC, MAJESTIC, UH, MOUNTAIN IN SWITZERLAND AND THERE WERE FOUR OF THEM

TOGETHER. THERE WERE TWO GUIDES AND TWO TOURISTS. FIRST OF ALL, THERE WAS A GUIDE, THEN THERE WAS A TOURIST, THEN THERE WAS A GUIDE, AND THEN THERE WAS A TOURIST. AND THEY WERE GOING UP THAT STEEP, AH, ICY SLOPE AND THEY WERE ALL TIED TOGETHER. NOW THE,

THE LAST MAN, AH, THE, UH, OR THE FIRST, THE LAST MAN TIED TO THE ROPE WAS A TOURIST AND HE PUT HIS FOOT DOWN ON THE ICE AND HE SLIPPED AND HE SWUNG OVER THE SIDE. WHEN HE DID HE WAS TIED TO THE SECOND MAN WHO WAS A, A,

THE NEXT GUIDE WHO WAS A, A, A SKILLED ALPINE CLIMBER, BUT HE WAS DRAGGED OVER. WHEN HE WENT OVER HE, UH, HE PULLED THE NEXT MAN OVER. NOW THE LEAD GUIDE FELT THE TUG ON THE ROPE, HE KNEW WHAT WAS HAPPENING,

AND HE DUG HIS CLEATS IN AND PUT HIS PICKAX INTO THE ICE AND BULGED HIS MUSCLES AND HELD FOR ALL HE COULD HOLD, AND THESE OTHER THREE MEN WERE DANGLING, BUT THEY FINALLY GOT THEIR FEET BACK ON AND ALL FOUR OF THEM WENT UP, AH, THE MOUNTAIN TOGETHER. NOW FOLKS,

I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT FIRST MAN WHO SLIPPED WAS ADAM, BUT THAT LAST MAN WHO HELD WAS JESUS. HA, HA, WE’RE ALL TIED, WE’RE ALL TIED TOGETHER, BUT THANK GOD, THANK GOD FOR, AH, THAT, UH, THAT LAST MAN, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST,

WHO HAS SURVIVED FOR US. NOW, NOT ONLY IS JESUS IN THIS PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE CALLED, “THE SECOND ADAM,” OR THE, “THE SECOND MAN FROM HEAVEN,” BUT HE IS ALSO CALLED, “THE FIRST FRUITS OF THEM THAT SLEPT.” IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, IN THE OLD TESTAMENT WHEN THEY WERE HAVING A HARVEST THE

PRIEST WOULD GO OUT IN THE FIELD AND THEY WOULD FIND A SHEAF OF, OF FIRST RIPENED GRAIN. THEY WOULD TAKE THAT INTO THE TEMPLE AND, AH, THEY WOULD HAVE A, A REAL CEREMONY CALLED, THE FEAST OF THE FIRST FRUITS, AND, AH, THEY WOULD TAKE THAT, AH, SHEAF OF GRAIN AND THEY WOULD

WAVE IT BEFORE THE LORD AND THEN PUT IT ON THE ALTAR. WHAT IT WAS WAS THANKSGIVING TO GOD AND AN ACT OF FAITH SAYING, “LORD, THIS TYPIFIES THE HARVEST THAT YOU’RE GOING TO GIVE US.” NOW JESUS IS THE FIRST FRUITS OF THE RESURRECTION. AH, HE, MY FRIEND,

HAS APPEARED IN HEAVEN FOR US, AND LIKE HIS RESURRECTION, WILL BE OUR RESURRECTION. AH, WHEN HE COMES AGAIN WE’RE GOING TO HAVE THE HARVEST, OF WHICH THE LORD JESUS CHRIST IS THE FIRST FRUITS. NOW HERE’S THE SECOND THING I WANT YOU TO SEE. NOT ONLY THE, THE SOVEREIGN MAJESTY OF THE REDEEMER,

BUT IT FOLLOWS AS NIGHT FOLLOWS DAY YOU’RE GOING TO SEE THE SACRED MYSTERY OF THE RAPTURE. WHAT DOES HIS RESURRECTION HAVE TO DO WITH OUR RESURRECTION? WELL, OUR RESURRECTION, WE ARE, WE ARE THE HARVEST, HE IS THE FIRST FRUITS, SO PAUL FOLLOWS THIS UP A LITTLE BIT, AH, IF,

IF YOU WILL, AH, LOOK IN, IN, AH, VERSE 51. HE SAYS, “BEHOLD, I SHOW YOU A MYSTERY; WE SHALL NOT ALL SLEEP,” THAT IS, NOT EVERYBODY IS GOING TO DIE, “WE SHALL NOT ALL SLEEP, BUT WE SHALL ALL BE CHANGED.” SOUNDS LIKE A MOTTO WE COULD

HAVE IN THE CHURCH NURSERY. “WE SHALL NOT ALL SLEEP BUT WE SHALL ALL BE CHANGED.” [AUDIENCE LAUGHTER] HUH, HUH. “BEHOLD, I SHOW YOU A MYSTERY; WE SHALL NOT ALL SLEEP, BUT WE SHALL ALL BE CHANGED, IN A MOMENT, IN THE TWINKLING OF AN EYE, AT THE LAST TRUMP;

FOR THE TRUMPET SHALL SOUND, AND THE DEAD SHALL BE RAISED INCORRUPTIBLE, AND WE SHALL BE CHANGED. FOR THIS CORRUPTIBLE MUST PUT ON INCORRUPTION, AND THIS MORTAL MUST PUT ON IMMORTALITY.” NOW, NOTICE WHAT HE SAYS, “BEHOLD, I SHOW YOU A MYSTERY.” NOW HOW DOES THAT SENTENCE BEGIN?

“BEHOLD.” IT MEANS PAY ATTENTION. ARE YOU PAYING ATTENTION? THE APOSTLE PAUL IS TELLING YOU TO PAY ATTENTION. “BEHOLD, I SHOW YOU A MYSTERY.” NOW WHY DOES HE CALL IT A MYSTERY? WELL, IT’S A SACRED SECRET. A MYSTERY IN THE BIBLE IS SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD NOT FIGURE OUT YOURSELF. HUMAN WIT,

WISDOM, AND INGENUITY, SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATION WOULD NEVER SHOW IT TO YOU. IT IS A TRUTH REVEALED, AH, BY DIVINE REVELATION. AND THIS IS A MYSTERY, IT IS A SACRED SECRET THAT HAD BEEN A SECRET FOR MANY YEARS. IT WAS NOT REVEALED TO THE ANGELS. IT WAS NOT REVEALED TO

THE OLD TESTAMENT PROPHETS. IT WAS A MYSTERY. AH, NOT REVEALED TO ISAIAH, TO JEREMIAH, EZEKIEL, DANIEL, THEY DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT THIS MYSTERY UNTIL IN THE LAST DAYS GOD REVEALED THIS MYSTERY. THE SECRET IS OUT AND WHAT IS THE SECRET? MILLIONS UPON THIS EARTH WILL ONE DAY GO TO HEAVEN

WITHOUT DYING AND THOSE WHO KNOW THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, WHO SLEEP IN THE GRAVE, WILL BE RAISED UP. WE CALL THIS THE SACRED MYSTERY OF THE RAPTURE. YOU SEE, GOD IS NOT FINISHED WITH US. WHEN WE DIE WE GO IN THE SPIRIT

IMMEDIATELY, AH, TO HEAVEN, BUT THE BODY GOES TO THE GRAVE TO AWAIT THE RESURRECTION. WHEN ADAM, AH, SINNED AGAINST GOD, HE DIED IMMEDIATELY IN HIS SPIRIT, PROGRESSIVELY IN HIS SOUL, AND ULTIMATELY IN HIS BODY. AH, WHEN OUR LORD REDEEMS US, HE PUTS THAT IN REVERSE. WE’RE JUSTIFIED IMMEDIATELY IN THE SPIRIT,

SANCTIFIED PROGRESSIVELY IN THE SOUL, AND GLORIFIED ULTIMATELY IN THE BODY. GOD IS NOT GOING TO LEAVE THESE BODIES OF OURS IN THE GRAVE. WE ARE COMING OUT OF THAT GRAVE. YOU SAY, “ADRIAN, DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT?” YES, I REALLY BELIEVE THAT. YOU SAY, “ISN’T THAT A LITTLE SUPERNATURAL?” THAT’S IT;

YOU’VE GOT IT. THAT’S IT. THE WHOLE CREATION IS SUPERNATURAL. GOD MADE EVERYTHING OUT OF NOTHING. YOU THINK HE CAN’T RAISE ME OUT OF SOMETHING? OF COURSE HE CAN, OF COURSE HE WILL. AH, THAT’S THE REASON THE APOSTLE PAUL SAID TO AN INCREDULOUS KING WHOSE NAME WAS AGRIPPA IN ACTS

CHAPTER 26 AND VERSE EIGHT, “WHY SHOULD IT BE THOUGHT A THING INCREDIBLE WITH YOU, THAT GOD SHOULD RAISE THE DEAD?” IN THIS CHAPTER PAUL GIVES AN ILLUSTRATION OF IT. AH, LOOK IF YOU WILL IN, IN CHAPTER 15, UH, VERSE 35, “BUT SOME MAN WILL SAY ‘HOW ARE THE DEAD RAISED UP?’” I MEAN,

GOOD NIGHT, HOW’S, HOW’S THIS GOING TO HAPPEN? “‘AND WITH WHAT BODY DO THEY COME?’ THOU FOOL, THAT WHICH THOU SOWEST IS NOT QUICKENED, EXCEPT IT DIE.” WHEN YOU PUT A SEED IN THE GROUND THAT SEED HAS TO DIE BEFORE IT COMES BACK TO LIFE. “AND THAT WHICH THOU

SOWEST, THOU SOWEST NOT THAT BODY THAT SHALL BE, BUT A BARE GRAIN, IT MAY CHANCE OF WHEAT, OR OF SOME OTHER GRAIN. BUT GOD GIVETH IT A BODY AS IT HATH PLEASED HIM, AND TO EVERY SEED HIS OWN BODY.” NOW THE APOSTLE PAUL SAYS, “WHY SHOULD YOU MARVEL AT THE RESURRECTION?

EVERY TIME YOU PUT A SEED IN THE GROUND YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF THE RESURRECTION.” A SEED GOES INTO THE GROUND, IT DIES, AH, IT, IT, IT IS BURIED, IT DIES, IT ROTS, BUT OUT OF THAT SEED COMES NEW, GLORIOUS LIFE, MORE GLORIOUS THAN THE SEED THAT WENT IN THE GROUND. BUT,

NOW HERE’S THE POINT. FROM THE TIME THAT JESUS WENT AWAY TO THE TIME THAT HE IS COME AGAIN, HE COULD HAVE COME AT ANY MOMENT. UH, WE ARE NOT WAITING FOR SOME SIGN TO BE FULFILLED. THOSE THINGS MAY ENCOURAGE OUR FAITH IN A WAY,

BUT THEY DON’T PROVE THAT JESUS IS NEAR. HE COULD HAVE COME AT ANY TIME. YOU SAY, “WELL PASTOR, AREN’T WE LIVING IN THE LAST DAYS?” WELL THE LAST DAYS BEGAN AT PENTECOST. FIRST JOHN TWO VERSE 18, “LITTLE CHILDREN, IT IS THE LAST TIME, IT IS THE LAST TIME.” JOHN SAID THAT 2000

YEARS AGO. AH, THE SECOND COMING OF JESUS IS ALWAYS IMMINENT. AH, THE EARLY CHRISTIANS LOOKED FOR JESUS TO COME. PHILIPPIANS THREE VERSE 20 PAUL SAID, “FOR OUR CONVERSATION IS IN HEAVEN, FROM WHENCE ALSO WE LOOK FOR THE SAVIOR, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST.” HE TOLD THOSE IN THESSALONICA IN FIRST

THESSALONIANS ONE VERSES NINE AND 10. AH, HE SAID, “FOR THEY THEMSELVES SHOW OF US WHAT MANNER OF ENTERING IN WE HAD UNTO YOU, AND HOW YE TURNED TO GOD FROM IDOLS, TO SERVE THE LIVING AND TRUE GOD. AND TO WAIT FOR HIS SON FROM HEAVEN.” THOSE EARLY CHRISTIANS 2000 YEARS AGO WERE

WAITING FOR JESUS. THE APOSTLE JAMES SAID IN JAMES CHAPTER FIVE AND VERSE EIGHT. “STABLISH YOUR HEARTS; THE COMING OF THE LORD DRAWETH NIGH.” PAUL TOLD TITUS IN TITUS TWO VERSE 13 WE ARE TO BE, “LOOKING FOR THAT BLESSED HOPE, AND THE GLORIOUS APPEARING OF THE GREAT GOD AND OUR SAVIOR,

JESUS CHRIST.” FOLKS, WHAT AM I SAYING? I AM SAYING THAT JESUS MAY COME BEFORE I FINISH THIS MESSAGE. NOW WE HAVE AN IDEA WE’RE LIVING IN THE LAST PART OF THE LAST DAYS, SURELY, AND WE’RE 2000 YEARS CLOSER TO THE SECOND COMING OF JESUS THAN

THEY WERE IN PAUL’S DAY, BUT I’M TELLING YOU, FROM THE TIME THAT HE WENT UP PEOPLE WERE REMEMBERING THE MESSAGE OF THOSE ANGELS WHICH SAID, “YE MEN OF GALILEE, WHY STAND YE GAZING THUS INTO HEAVEN. THIS SAME JESUS WHICH IS TAKEN UP FROM YOU SHALL SO COME IN LIKE MANNER AS YE HAVE

SEEN HIM GO INTO HEAVEN.” SO WE’RE WATCHING AND WAITING FOR THE LORD JESUS CHRIST TO COME, AND HE MAY COME AT ANY MOMENT. SO, WHAT HAVE WE TALKED ABOUT? WE’VE TALKED ABOUT THE SOVEREIGN MAJESTY OF OUR LORD. HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD AND BECAME THE DEATH OF DEATH. AND THEN WE’VE TALKED,

NOT ONLY ABOUT THE, THE, THE SOVEREIGN MAJESTY OF THE REDEEMER, BUT THE, THE SACRED MYSTERY OF THE RAPTURE. AND NOW LET’S MOVE TO THE THIRD AND FINAL THING. AND THE THIRD AND FINAL THING, FOLKS, IS THE STEADFAST MINISTRY OF THE REDEEMED. WHAT DOES ALL OF THAT MEAN TO US? WELL,

NOTICE IN VERSE 54. HE BEGINS IT WITH THE WORD SO, HA, HA, SO, NOW HE’S, HE’S, HE’S BUILDING TO A POINT. HE IS NOT TRYING TO MAKE BETTER THEOLOGIANS OUT OF US, HE TRYING TO MAKE BETTER CHRISTIANS OUT OF US. SO, LISTEN TO IT NOW, “SO, WHEN THIS CORRUPTIBLE SHALL HAVE PUT

ON INCORRUPTION, AND THIS MORTAL SHALL HAVE PUT ON IMMORTALITY, THEN SHALL BE BROUGHT TO PASS THE SAYING THAT IS WRITTEN, ‘DEATH IS SWALLOWED UP IN VICTORY. O DEATH, WHERE IS THY STING? O GRAVE, WHERE IS THY VICTORY?’ THE STRING OF DEATH IS SIN, AND THE STRENGTH OF SIN IS THE LAW. BUT

THANKS BE TO GOD, WHICH GIVETH US THE VICTORY THROUGH OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. THEREFORE,” UNDERSCORE THAT, “THEREFORE, MY BELOVED BRETHREN, BE YE STEADFAST, UNMOVABLE, ALWAYS ABOUNDING IN THE WORK OF THE LORD, FORASMUCH AS YE KNOW THAT YOUR LABOR IS NOT IN VAIN IN THE

LORD.” NOW, WHAT’S HE TALKING ABOUT? HE’S TALKING ABOUT THE VICTORY AND YOU AND I ARE TO BE LIVING EVERY DAY, EVERY MOMENT, SERVING CHRIST IN THE LIGHT OF THAT VICTORY. WHAT HE IS SAYING IS THAT JESUS CHRIST HAS CONQUERED DEATH. JESUS HAS BEEN

THE DEATH OF DEATH SO HE TAKES THE PAIN OUT OF PARTING, THE GLOOM OUT OF THE GRAVE. HE TAKES THE STRENGTH OUT OF SIN AND THE STING OUT OF DEATH, AND HE GIVES US A HOPE THAT IS STEADFAST AND SURE SO THAT WE CAN LITERALLY MOCK DEATH. WE

CAN RIDICULE DEATH. WE CAN LAUGH AT DEATH. NOTICE WHAT HE SAYS. “O DEATH, WHERE IS THY STING?” WELL, HE SAYS, AH, THE STRENGTH, AH, “THE STING OF DEATH IS SIN, AND THE STRENGTH OF SIN IS THE LAW.” THE LAWS MAKE SIN SIN AND SO THEREFORE, SIN BECOMES A STING TO US,

BUT JESUS CHRIST PULLED THE STING FROM DEATH. JESUS TOOK THAT STING IN HIS OWN BODY AND REMOVED IT FROM, AH, DEATH. HE FULFILLED THE LAW FOR US AND THEREFORE DEATH HOLDS NO TERRORS FOR US. IF I CAN ILLUSTRATE THIS WAY; AH, AH,

AH, AH, A WOMAN HAD HER TWO CHILDREN IN A GARDEN AND THEY WERE ENJOYING A BEAUTIFUL DAY LIKE WE HAVE TODAY, AND A BIG BEE LIT ON THE LITTLE BOY AND STUNG HIM AND THE LITTLE BOY BEGAN TO CRY AND THERE CAME, A,

THAT SWOLLEN PLACE WHERE THAT BEE HAD STUNG THE LITTLE BOY. AND THEN THE BEE BEGAN TO BUZZ AROUND THE LITTLE GIRL. HA, HA, THE LITTLE GIRL WAS FRIGHTENED TO DEATH AND SHE WAS TERRIFIED. BY THIS TIME THE LITTLE BOY HAD QUIETENED DOWN, AND THE MOTHER SAID, “DARLING,” TO THE LITTLE GIRL,

“DON’T BE AFRAID. COME OVER HERE AND LET ME SHOW YOU SOMETHING. LOOK REAL CLOSELY AT BROTHER’S ARM. DO YOU SEE THE STINGER THAT’S THERE? WHEN THAT BEE STUNG LITTLE BROTHER HE LEFT HIS STINGER.” DID YOU KNOW THAT A BEE DOES THAT? HE CAN’T STING BUT ONE TIME. DO YOU KNOW THAT? HA,

HA. “AND THE BEE LEFT HIS STINGER IN LITTLE BROTHER. DO YOU SEE IT THERE?” SHE SAID, “NOW SWEETHEART, THAT BEE CAN’T HURT YOU CAUSE HE LEFT HIS STINGER IN LITTLE BROTHER. HE MAY BUZZ, HE MAY FRIGHTEN YOU, BUT HE CANNOT HURT YOU.” NOW FRIEND,

I WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING. THE STING OF DEATH WAS TAKEN BY JESUS AND DEATH CANNOT HURT YOU. AH, DEATH MAY FRIGHTEN YOU, BUT, BUT I WANT TO SAY THAT JESUS HAS TAKEN THE STING OUT OF DEATH, AND JESUS HAS TAKEN THE GLOOM OUT OF THE GRAVE AND YOU HAVE,

REMEMBER WE SAID THE RAPTURE WAS WHAT? AH, THE, THE LIVING SAINTS WILL BE TRANSLATED AND THE DEAD SAINTS WILL BE RAISED. NOW NOTICE THE TWO-FOLD ANTHEM OF THE REDEEMED WHERE THE APOSTLE PAUL HERE IS ILLUSTRATING IT. WHEN, WHEN JESUS COMES AT THE RAPTURE YOU AND I ARE GOING TO LOOK

BACK AT THE GRAVE AND AT DEATH AND WE’RE GOING TO MOCK THEM, AND THOSE OF US WHO HAVE BEEN, AH, WHO HAVE BEEN RAPTURED, AH, AH, AND WE NEVER DIE, WE’RE GOING TO SAY. “O DEATH,” HA, “WHERE IS YOUR STING,” AND THOSE WHO HAVE COME OUT OF THE

GRAVE ARE GOING TO SAY, “O GRAVE, WHERE IS YOUR VICTORY.” AND THEN TOGETHER WE’RE GOING TO SAY, “THANKS BE UNTO GOD THAT GIVETH US THE VICTORY THROUGH OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.” AMEN? NOW, NOW LISTEN, COME TO THE BOTTOM, BOTTOM LINE OF ALL OF THIS. THERE IS THE,

THERE IS THE SOVEREIGN MAJESTY OF THE REDEEMER, THERE IS THE SACRED MYSTERY OF THE RAPTURE, AND THEN THERE’S THE STEADFAST MINISTRY OF THE SAINTS. NOW I’M SAYING IT ALL TO BRING YOU TO THIS POINT. LOOK AGAIN WHERE HE SAYS IN VERSE 58, I BELIEVE, THEREFORE, LOOK AT IT,

LOOK AT IT, “THEREFORE, THEREFORE, MY BELOVED BRETHREN, BE YE STEADFAST, UNMOVABLE, ALWAYS ABOUNDING IN THE WORK OF THE LORD, FORASMUCH AS YE KNOW THAT YOUR LABOR IS NOT IN VAIN IN THE LORD.” YOU ARE TO HAVE STABILITY; BE STEADFAST. DON’T GET BLOWN AROUND;

STAY IN THERE. WE’RE LIVING IN A DAY WHERE EVERYTHING THAT’S NOT NAILED DOWN IS COMING LOOSE. “THEREFORE, MY BELOVED BRETHREN, BE YE STEADFAST.” HAVE STABILITY, BE UNMOVABLE. AND THEN HAVE FERVENCY, “ALWAYS ABOUNDING IN THE WORK OF THE LORD.” NOW, IF YOU BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS COMING AGAIN,

AND YOU DO, WHAT SHOULD YOU DO? GO TO WORK FOR JESUS. OCCUPY TILL HE COMES. GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF THE CLOUDS OF PROPHECY AND GET YOUR FEET ON THE SO, ON THE PAVEMENT OF SOUL WINNING. AND YOU KNOW THE, THE GREAT PROOF THAT YOU BELIEVE THESE

THINGS TO BE TRUE IS WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO WARN MEN AND WOMEN, BOYS AND GIRLS, TO FLEE FROM THE WRATH TO COME? THERE NEEDS TO BE ST, STABILITY. THERE NEEDS TO BE FERVENCY. AH, “ALWAYS ABOUNDING IN THE WORK OF THE LORD.” AND THEN THERE

NEEDS TO BE EXPECTANCY. “FOR YOU KNOW THAT YOUR LABOR IS NOT IN VAIN IN THE LORD.” IT PAYS TO SERVE JESUS, IT PAYS EVERY DAY. NOW WE KNOW THAT JESUS LIVES. HERE’S THE QUESTION; DO YOU LIVE? HA, I DIDN’T SAY DO YOU EXIST;

DO YOU LIVE? ARE YOU SAVED? DO YOU KNOW THAT YOU’RE SAVED? WELL, YOU CAN BE SAVED RIGHT NOW. GOD WILL SAVE YOU IF YOU’LL TRUST HIM. AND I WANT YOU TO PRAY THIS PRAYER AFTER ME OUT OF YOUR HEART RIGHT NOW, “DEAR GOD,

I KNOW THAT YOU LOVE ME AND I KNOW LORD JESUS THAT YOU WANT TO SAVE ME. YOU DIED TO SAVE ME. LORD JESUS, I NEED TO BE SAVED. I WANT TO BE SAVED. I WANT MY SINS FORGIVEN. I WANT TO BE READY WHEN I DIE, OR WHEN YOU COME,

TO MEET YOU. FORGIVE MY SIN. CLEANSE MY LIFE. TAKE CONTROL OF MY LIFE. BEGIN NOW TO MAKE ME THE PERSON YOU WANT ME TO BE. AND LORD JESUS, HELP ME NEVER TO BE ASHAMED OF YOU BECAUSE YOU DIED FOR ME. IN YOUR NAME I PRAY, AMEN.

#Adrian #Rogers #Corinthians #Resurrection #Jesus #Conquered #Death