Author Information
Manifesto of the Devil's Advocate
Excerpts from the author's 'The Almight Abusive Father of Terrorism'
I. Crushed or Contrite?
The Thirty-Fourth Psalm of David was probably recited in early synagogues to assuage the anxieties of sufferers with promises of deliverance from their suffering. The psalm is designed to encourage the brokenhearted no matter how crushed they might be. Indeed, the Lord is closest of all to brokenhearted and crushed people. But there is a condition attached to salvation: one must fear the Lord. Lions may go hungry but people who fear the lord, particularly poor people, will have everything they need. And all who fear the Lord will have nothing else to fear except the Lord, for the angel of the Lord sets up camp around each person who fears Him. Therefore if a long life is desired, we must fear the Lord and be not ashamed to look up to Him with beaming faces. Of course one who fears the Lord will refrain from evil and do good; he will not slander people and lie. Most importantly, he will seek peace. In return, the wicked will be slain and the righteous man's enemies will be condemned.
Of course downtrodden righteous people to whom this psalm is sung may begin to wonder, When will the omnipotent Lord save me and kill my wicked enemies? In due course of time, of course. The righteous man may be very troubled, but he will be delivered from all of his troubles and not one single bone of his body will be broken.
We can imagine the plight of the man who has taken the Lord's word to heart, has feared the Lord, has been righteous, yet is still crushed. A minister's claim that 'crushed' means being contrite because one's swollen pride has been crushed flatter than matzah by the weight of original sin is hardly comforting: it merely adds insult to injury. And the claim that a vessel must be broken before being filled with a new spirit is absurd to someone who needs food and water instead of empty words.
Of course the paradox of evil in a creation supposedly created by a single omnipotent and benevolent god has perplexed people for ages. Thus are the sacred scriptures rife with contradictions which people have conveniently employed to justify any action whatsoever while avoiding the appearance of hypocrisy by clever argument and feigned humility. Still, a man may no longer feel righteous when he is literally instead of figuratively crushed - postmodern Christian doctrine sometimes maintains that being actually crushed in body and spirit is no longer necessary since Jesus was sacrificed as a substitute or scapegoat for all, hence we are only required to be figuratively crushed in heart - the ancient seat of the mind - lest we forget. However that may be, right may seem wrong to a crushed person; instead of fearing the Lord, which is good cause for loving Him and doing His bidding lest one be crushed, a man might hate the Lord. Or he might deny that the Lord exists except as a convenient myth to protect landlords and other human overlords who have exalted themselves. The crushed man may then revert to his natural jungle-right to survive by any means whatsoever, embarking therefore on a relatively 'evil' course. He may proceed to rob and kill and rape, and may even do so in the name of the Creator of the law of the jungle, in order to obtain food, defend himself and propagate his kind.
Nonetheless, there are always those who are martyrs or witnesses to the long-term advantage of righteousness; the more crushed they are, the more they suffer, the closer they are to nothingness or death, the nearer are they to salvation. At least among their own people they must not take the Lord's law, which is hopefully engraved on their hearts at an early age, into their own hands to revise it, then accordingly kill the landlord and distribute his stolen goods to the crushed poor that they may actually inherit the Earth forthwith. No, the Lord's martyr must suffer in all humility and welcome every indignity. We find the following explanation appertaining to our selected psalm, supported by cross-references to Revelation, in the Moody Bible Institute's 'Unger's Commentary on the Old Testament' (1981):
"It is a fact that although the afflictions of righteousness are many, they continually enjoy the Lord's deliverance out of them all, David's own life, as well as the lives of the Tribulation saints, being dramatic examples. The latter will experience God's great deliverance, whether by being spared death or suffering martyrdom; in fact, their martyrdom will bring them even greater reward and glory."
The Hebrew word for 'crushed' was interpreted for us long ago and rendered as 'contrite', but many revised bibles have reverted to "crushed." The 'Jewish Publication Society Hebrew-English Tanakh' (1999) translates Psalms 34:19 (see v.17 or 18 in some bibles) as follows:
"The Lord is close to the brokenhearted;
those crushed in spirit he delivers."
'The Authorized Version of the English Bible 1611' reads:
"The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit."
Not that 'contrite' has been expunged from the Thirty-Fourth Psalm in all modern bibles - such is not the case. In fact, the term "contrite" is even favored over the literal 'crushed' in the Jewish Publication Society's 'The Holy Scriptures According to the Masoreth Text, a New Translation'. And "contrite" is employed in the Fifty-First Psalm (51:19) and in Isaiah (57:15) of the Tanakh. But what does it matter? Contrite is from the Latin 'contritus', which means worn-down or crushed. However, the English 'contrite' means being overcome by a sense of remorse or a feeling of guilt and therefore wanting atonement. But if the righteous are crushed, why should they feel guilty? Well, one never knows if one is entirely righteous, and, as it is so often said, "Nobody is perfect." If it were not for that one little mistake or sin, that visible blemish on the bullock sacrificed to the Lord, or the invisible blemish on the crushed heart offered up for sacrifice, then maybe... Ah, but everybody is guilty no matter what they do. No wonder there is so much evil in the world.
Apparently much of what we call 'evil' is the rod of the Lord exacting punishment for our wickedness. Luther believed that of the Turkish enemy, and he admonished Christians to be duly educated as to their own sin while engaging in the just war - according to his formula, to rise against one's own lords is unjust unless they be conspiring Catholics. Which brings to mind the flattened Twin Towers. Everyone is a sinner. Was the swollen pride of the arrogant sinners crushed? Did they repent of their own sins before seeking the Lord's vengeance on their wicked enemies?
But how cruel! Is there no mercy or forgiveness or salvation for those brokenhearted people who are crushed in spirit yet do not feel guilty for their predicament? or for those who are too crushed or too unwhole or insane even to realize their errors or 'sins', while habitual liars, cheats, thieves and killers knowingly prosper with impunity? And does the Lord help anyone except by the aid of his servants on Earth? If those who suffer are closer to the Lord, one might expect believers to make sacrifices and suffer to help the crushed even though the crushed are not contrite or willing to grovel. But let us consult 'The New Interpreter's Bible' (1996) on this issue:
"'Contrite' is a more interpretive translation of a word that literally means 'crushed'... God does not want 'broken' or 'crushed' persons in the sense of 'oppressed' or 'dysfunctional.' Rather, God desires humble, contrite persons who are willing to offer God their whole selves."
On the one hand, humans as well as baboons, wolves and many other social animals worship Power and its representatives in one way or another and obediently submit to it. Submission may be to our mutual advantage in more ways than one. And of course the weakest is at the mercy of those above him; he may retire to the bush and die, or he may save his life by groveling in the dirt, perhaps presenting his rear in greeting to the Lord and accepting complete responsibility for his predicament in return for whatever concession he can get (note: we are still looking for the weaker baboons, the spare males who disappeared from their troops - we suspect they have been eaten by carnivores). On the other hand, the self-righteous interpreter, in all the sin of his pride and arrogant exaltation of his false humility, may simply place himself in the boots of the god he and other authorities have defined for the salvation of themselves while giving lip-service to the god of the brokenhearted and crushed. Instead of picking them up, the lord places his boot on their necks and makes the demand the despot makes of slaves: total submission and obedience. We might as well substitute his name for his god's, even though he may deny the identfication, and quote him directly instead of through his sacred mouthpiece:
"I do not want to save 'broken' or 'crushed' persons in the sense of 'oppressed' or 'dysfunctional.' Rather, I will only help humble, contrite persons who are willing to offer me their whole selves."
Do you blame him?
II. Beloved David
The responses are pouring in. Thus far men and women are reacting differently. We have joyful exclamations from the women, singing and dancing and hallelujahs praising the Lord. There are references to "gratitude" and to "joy." Not all joy is patriarchal: one woman simply rejects the Lordly lore and embraces joy directly. Another woman fears not the Lord but fears she is unworthy to enter into His presence. I am not an avid student of sexual politics, hence I was somewhat astonished by what appears to be cheerleading among the women instead of back talk.
No doubt men need to be cheered up - crushed men have been immediately inspired by a mere glance from a woman. Generally speaking, the clapping of hands and cymbals, the jangling of tambourines and blowing of trumpets, and women singing and dancing have an invigorating effect on men and have been known to set armies of men into motion. My favorite heroine in the Old Testament is Miriam, who, among other things, sang at least a portion of the great Exodus song celebrating the parting of the Red Sea - Miriam, like Isis and Mary, is associated with the element, Water. Now I happen to believe Miriam was a high priestess who practiced magic. I believe she composed an original, prophetic song, which she and her chorus sang to part the waters. Then Miriam, with Moses following closely behind, waving his staff to conduct the crowd, led Moses and her people to safety. But I shall quote the text (Exodus 15:20), which no doubt has been revised several times to leave Miriam, after the climax, with a bit part in the drama:
"Then Miriam the prophetess, Aaron's sister, took a tambourine in her hand, and all the women followed her, with tambourines and dancing. Miriam sang to them: 'Sing to the Lord, for he is highly exalted. The horse and the rider he has hurled into the sea.'"
On the other hand, the right hand in the ancient world, the men responding to my question were more critical of the Lord: so far I have not heard words of praise or a joyful exclamation from the men; of course "masculine" praises would be plenteous if I had deliberately placed the question in Lord-fearing quarters.
One critic's response is particularly noteworthy here because of his experience in the field of social psychology. He submitted a list of the characteristics of abusive fathers who beat up their children: They require constant praise. They never take responsibility for any problems. They blame others if there is a problem. They can't take the slightest criticism without getting angry. They become abusive if a child acts like a child or acts independently. They claim their violence is "because I love you." They are bad examples of what they want their children to be. They are bullies who mistreat and abuse their weak and helpless children to prop up their own weak ego. They are impatient and incompetent parents who neglect and then abuse their children. They are very hypocritical in demanding
self-blame from their children while modeling angry, self-righteous, false pride.
Let us now return to the Thirty-Fourth Psalm attributed to David. David is my namesake; when I was a child, I was told 'David' means "beloved"; the tale of David and Goliath was often told to me, and I could hardly wait to fight anyone who was bigger than me, even the Lord himself - my religious education was wanting. King David's reign is fondly remember by his nation, the descendants of Jacob, as its Golden Age. David united the nation and located its capital, which he named Jerusalem, midway between Israel and Judah - he brought the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem, hence the capital served as the national religious center. Furthermore, David expanded the nation's borders in all directions. He had many qualities that endeared him to his people, not the least of which was his military prowess. Indeed, his popularity on that account gave Saul cause to be jealous and to seek his destruction.
"When the men were returning home after David had killed the Philistine, the women came out from all the towns of Israel to meet King Saul with singing and dancing, with joyful songs and with tambourines
and lutes. As they danced they sang:
'Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands.'
"Saul was very angry - the refrain galled him. 'They have credited David with tens of thousands,' he thought, 'but me with only thousands. What more can he get but the kingdom?'" (1 Samuel)
Psalm Thirty Four bears this caption: "Of David, When he pretended to be insane before Abimelech (Achish), who drove him away, and he left." Said caption seems to have nothing to do with the psalm itself. That apparent irrelevance, together with the sophistication of the poetry, which in this case is acrostic, has caused scholars to believe this and other psalms were written by poets long after David's death. But we may assume there is or should be a general correspondence between religious thinking, or symbolic action, and actual deeds of a people, regardless of the authors of same. Therefore we proceed: Saul wanted David killed and David was duly informed of Saul's intentions. We do not see David cowering or groveling before Saul, but we do find him fleeing, hiding, and escaping from Saul's designs to kill him. Now the moral of our psalm is to fear only the Lord, to do good and to avoid evil, and to seek peace. No doubt David fled at the Lord's bidding; after all, we are told David often consulted the Lord. And we note well that he had two occasions to kill Saul, but he refrained from doing so because Saul was anointed by the Lord, hence killing him would provoke the Lord's wrath.
David fled to the Philistine city of Gath, ruled by Abimelech (Achish). But the servants spotted him:
"...the servants of Achish said to him, 'Isn't this David, the king of the land. Isn't this the one they sing about in their dances: 'Saul has slain his thousands, and David his tens of thousands?'
"David took these words to heart and was very much afraid of Achish king of Gath. So he pretended to be insane in his presence: and while he was in their hands he acted like a madman, making marks on the doors of the gate, and letting saliva run down his beard. And Achish said to his servants, 'Look at the man! He is insane! Why bring him to me? Am I so short of madmen that you have to bring this fellow here to carry on like this in front of me? Must this man come into my house?'"
David then escaped to a cave. If the author is to be believed, David did fear someone besides the Lord in this case: a Philistine king. So much so that he employed a deceitful strategy: feigning madness. We recall other famous instances of the trick: Lucius Junus Brutus ("brute" or "dullard") the founder of the Roman Republic acted crazily; and so did Hamlet and his barbarian prototype, the Icelandic hero Amleth ("stupid"); in fact, scholars believe the stories about Brutus and David may have influenced the legends of Amleth - I myself, a David, was counseled in my youth how to make an effective insanity plea if need be. David somehow managed to wind up back in Gath, now under the protection of Achish and leading an outlaw band of six-hundred men. He caused Achish to believe his outlaws were conducting raids on Israel and Judah when they were actually raiding Philistine settlements.
"Whenever David attacked an area, he did not leave a man or woman alive, but took sheep and cattle, donkeys and camels, and clothes... He did not leave a man or woman alive to be brought to Gath, for he thought, 'They might inform on us and say, "This is what David did." And such was his practice as long as he lived in Philistine territory. Achish trusted David and said to himself, 'He has become so odious to his people, the Isrealites, that he will be my servant forever.'"
III. Manifesto of the Devil's Advocate
History remains germane as long as we refer to it. For instance, the ancient escapades of David, which include such behavior as lying, robbery, and the murder of the men, women and children of entire villages, are still relevant. After all has been preached about peace, the war between the arrogant land-based gods continues in the Middle East. Today one god would have all the land while the other god wants to recover the portion he grabbed in his name a few thousand years ago.
Combatants everywhere have been reading the same sacred testaments of war after war for centuries; blood is shed accordingly. Should we not burn the classical holy books, bury the holy men along with the battle axes and send our kids along to collectives operated by social scientists? But alas, so many of their natural laws are abstractions inducted from the whimsical and brutal conduct of the ancient gods - "logical" laws which are in effect more sophisticated convenient fictions for justifying whatever one wanted to do in the first place. Artifices such as the One And Only Truth are not laws of life but are used by the living as ideological weapons supporting fanatic combat. A nineteenth-century thinker sounded the key question when he declared that the Jewish Question, "What should be done with the Jews?", was the wrong question, because everybody was Jewish; that is to say Christians, especially Protestants, are covert atheists leading an opiated secular life under blankets of religious propaganda.
Prime Minister Sharon recently declared that Israel's war on terrorism is necessary to "save the Jewish race." However, anthropologists and biologists report that there is no such race as a Jewish race. Israel is neither a religious or a racial state. Although Judaism has a strong influence on state policy, Israel is a secular state. Jewish culture is an "ethnocentric" culture without a racial ethnos. The modern secular nation of Israel is founded upon a belligerent response to belligerent nationalism; it was founded by "terrorists", some of whom, by virtue of a brilliant propaganda campaign, became renowned "freedom fighters" and then respected political leaders despite their "crimes against humanity."
Perhaps the world owes the wandering Jews an independent state on secure ground. The Jews have served the world well as scapegoats. The Hebrews recorded their history and made sure everyone was on the same page. Guilt for the human race's natural economic interest, including the territorial imperative - hailing back to the patriarchal primate horde - was projected onto the educated Jew that he may take the blame for the human race's money-grubbing and nationalism. The Jew, the Muslim, and the Christian are cultural artifacts; the roles vary, but behind the religious curtains are many frightened atheists who use religious grounds to stage their secular struggles. The deliberate hypocrisy is bad enough, but the ignorance of those who are unaware of their hypocrisy, who cannot see their ambiguity from their side of the wall, is even worse. They have symbolic rocks in their head and fight over holy rubble.
Palestinians and Jews are Semitic cousins. The tragic aspect from the perspective of comparative religion is that the Muslims are frustrated Jews - bigoted Christians hate Muslims accordingly. Impartial professors have praised Islam as the most logical or pure form of monotheism on record to date. Islam's monotheism would not make a distinction between secular and spiritual law, but now it faces its Reformation phase where some distinction must be made ir order for the religion to survive, at least in name only - Allah would most likely be confined to Heaven while Muslims embrace modern secularism in between prayers.
In any event, until all willingly love one god whether spiritual or secular, and voluntarily obey his dictates, unity is imposed by terror from the top down. Thomas Hobbes put it thus, in regards to the reasonable laws of nature opposed by passion, in LEVIATHAN:
"For the Lawes of Nature (as Justice, Equity, Modesty, Mercy and in summe) doing to other, as wee would be done to), of themselves, without the terrour of some Power, to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our naturall Passions, that carry us to Partiality, Pride, Revenge, and the like. And Covenants, without the Sword, are but Words, and of no strength to secure a man at all"
Therefore in the beginning an unimpeachable magistrate or final arbiter was wanted, an Uncommanded Commander who has the power to organize terror against the terrorism of his subordinates. One might rightly say that might was right in the beginning in order for right to make right in the end.
Unfortunately or not, depending on your perspective, heroes are mortal and heroes and kings may be murdered; those who live by the sword are more likely to die by it, and unwanted kings must be disposed of - even gods were killed in the good old days. The mountain tops and heavens were populated by gods as terrifying and abusive and self-contradictory as the ruthless warriors had been below. And one god crushed the others and absorbed them all - He ate their flesh and ground their bones into their blood and drank it. He is absolutely free and omnipotent. He has no leader or law above him: He is the Supreme Anarchist or Almighty Terrorist. He has no need to think, for thought is defensive: He is the Original Brute. He is irresponsible - not responsible to anyone: He is the Arbitrary Arbiter. He creates beings to abuse them and to kill them, and expects them to be grateful and to praise him. He is the Almighty Abusive Father who murders even innocent babies and who is immune from prosecution therefor. If we take His representatives' words for His words, He is Self-Contradiction Personified. In regards to the World, He, like President Bush, would act with "maximum flexibility" and "unilaterally" against all "rogue nations" whether the nations of the world like it or not: He is the Superpower, the Ultimate Rogue.
Lest anyone be offended by the foregoing representations of the Devil's Advocate, please take my word for it, He is no god at all, but a reflection of man's con-fusion; He is man's self-idolizing vanity mirror. But He is a convenient idol; He is the god of convenience and the god of the status quo. He is the god of double-talk and double-speak. He is the god of blasphemy, for His adulators use the power of the true god's greatest gift to man, his reason, to praise ignorance, hence He is the god of ignorance and stupidity. He is the god of hypocrisy as well. His professed, born-again servant, United States President George W. Bush, praises, for example, Jesus as his hero. But while George Bush was governor of Texas he would not give a born-again Christian, a murderer whose horrrific crimes are nearly unspeakable, another thirty days of life. Thirty days is all he could give her or anyone else; but no, that was against the will of the people who elected him. Reverend Robertson said Governor Bush would "have no mercy if he executes that poor woman"; he did not have any mercy, and god's minister went on to vigorously campaign for him. The death-penalty, war-mongering presidential candidate pandered to wealthy right-wing interests, to racists and bigots, and won the election after contradicting his state's rights ideology by running to the federal courts - but that is fair and square according to law, and he did win: so be it. Nevertheless, President George W. Bush is the guilty progeny of a vicious power clique that fostered crimes against humanity in the Middle East and in Latin America. Entire villages of poor natives were liquidated under the old diabolical "Christian" principle that, since the infidels of evil empires and axes of evil and will burn in hell, it is better to send them there now before they infest other people with their communist doctrines. Jews are silent about those pogroms because the United States gives Israel money and weapons to kill Muslims. Activist Catholics who wanted the poor to inherit some Earth here and now were raped and murdered while the right-wing Opus Dei looked the other way if not nodding approval or cooperating behind the veil of secrecy. Furthermore, members of the elite United States clique fostered and condoned state-sponsored terrorism, dealt drugs and guns, lied under oath, handed out pardons, made oil deals, lined their pockets, and bilked billions out of millions; but all is well because international terrorism is quite legitimate where there is no international law. Praise the Terrorist Almighty!
The heir of this awful dynasty justified his hypocrisy with the Reformation Hat Trick: he took off his religious hat and put on his political hat when in political office - he publicly declared that Christian principles are not the law of political office: therein, one must obey the will of the people. And his hand-picked servants swore the hypocritical oath, to put aside their principles and obey the will of an atheistic, unprincipled mass. Now, backed up by this Great Nation of Ours, the Swaggering Leader of World Civilization, Awesome Leader of the Greatest Superpower since the Roman Empire, would bomb the world into submission - and the fearful mass behind the big guns are glad of that and praise him to high heaven. Hail Ceasar! But a Chinese leader called him "extremely unwise", yet this lord almighty is not stupid at all; he only appears to be dull-witted, an appearance prophesied of the anti-Christ who is hardly unintelligent - quite to the contrary! Now the overwhelming irrational mass is devoted to his cause: who needs a god when the president is in his white house?
But what else is he or we to do? Who knows? Those who say they know say the President of the United States is mighty arrogant with the very arrogance that brought this predicament upon the United States, but that was then and this is now, and he is right, therefore he must have "maximum flexibility" to act "unilaterally" and to strike "pre-emptively." Furthermore, we should not condemn his "ethics", for the president in his oval office and especially back at the ranch suffers from the hypocrisy of us all, the hypocrisy we project upon our idols in heaven and on Earth. The President is our own hypocrisy made most obvious. Just what would we do, then, to resolve the apparent conflict between our real political office and our ideal spiritual office? Luther considered this vexatious problem in relation to the war against Muslims in his day:
"What I would do is keep the callings and offices distinct and apart, so that everyone can see what he is called, and fulfills the duties of his office faithfully and with the heart, in service of God... For Paul will not suffer it that in the Church, where all should be Christians, one assume another's office (Romans 12:4, 1 Corinthians 12:15 & 14:40), but exhorts every member to his own work, so that no disorder arise, but everything be done in an orderly way. How much less, then, is the disorder to be tolerated that arises when a Christian leaves his office and takes upon him a temporal office...?"
IV. The Abusive Father of Hypocrisy
If we visit the 'Works of Martin Luther' (The Castle Press, 1931) we find that in his 'On War Against the Turk' (1529), Luther said "to fight against the Turk is the same thing as resisting God, who visits our sin upon us with this rod." He said the pope and his crowd were "all in all, and through all, like God in the world", but they wanted to be the best Christians in the world too, hence the pope urged war against the Turks. However, these so-called Christians would "endure no evil, suffer neither compulsion nor wrong. I opposed them with this saying of Christ that Christians shall not resist evil, but suffer all things and let all things go." Luther charged the pope with using the Turkish war as a "conjurer's hat" to fulfil his own agenda. It did not please him "that the Christians and the princes were driven, urged, and irritated into attacking the Turk and making war on him, before they amended their own ways and lived like Christians." Further on he states, "Again, if I were a soldier and saw in the field a priests' banner, or banner of the cross, even though it were a crucifix I should run as though the devil were chasing me." Luther urged the ultimate hypocrisy of Protestantism, the separation of Words from Works, that there be no confusion of office and duties between Church and State. Carrying hypocrisy and contradiction to the breaking point, he did not forbid Christians to bear arms, but said the Turks would not be so powerful if all soldiers were Christians; yet war with the Turks "is against His doctrine, because He says Christians shall not resist evil, shall not fight or quarrel, not take revenge or insist on rights. It is against His name, because in such an army there are scarcely five Christians, and perhaps worse people in the eyes of God than are the Turks; and yet they would all bear the name of Christ. This is the greatest of all sins and one that no Turk commits, for Christ's name is used for sin and shame and thus dishonored."
In effect Luther's god is a mystery not to be found on Earth except in the terror of his arbitrariness and ambiguity; thus is this god unseen in heaven while the status quo remains on Earth. At least the time was not meet for a Kingdom of God in his day, thus he urged the princes to "stab and kill" his erstwhile supporters, the peasants who marched under the Rainbow Banner - 100,000 brethren were slaughtered by well-armed professional soldiers. So Christians are and are not to bear arms. In either case they will no doubt suffer; and that is as it should be, for the Lord has ordained that He is on high yet is nearest to the broken and crushed. Now the crushed might argue that the Lord is the highest god of the poor oppressed, therefore He should stab and kill the rich, but that is not what Luther had in mind - an exception might be made for rich and powerful Catholics conspiring against Protestants. Be that as it may, Luther suffered his day and his hypocrisy as we suffer our time and our hypocirisy in a different manner - as long as there is a difference between the idea and the real, we will be hypocrites. Times do change; one might hope religion would change accordingly and that its role model would be someone besides the Almighty Abusive Father and Terrorist. Before defending his anti-war position, Luther put his finger on the problem of change: "But it is not fair to forget how things stood in the world, and what my grounds and reasons were, and still keep my words and apply them to another situation where those grounds and reasons do not exist. With this kind of art, who could not make the Gospel a pack of lies or pretend that it contradicted itself?"
Indeed! And why not admit that the old good news is as ambiguous, arbitrary, and contradictory as its authors were? Well, the holy fathers have admitted as much, attributed the absurdities to our own ignorance, and praised paradox as "mystery." For instance, Augustine, in his 'Second Discourse on Psalm 33' (34):
"V.19: 'The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a contrite heart, and He will save the humble of spirit.' God is supreme; let a Christian be humble. If he would have God on high become his neighbor, he, for his part, must be lowly. Brethren, these are great mysteries. God is above all; you exalt yourself and do not get near Him; you humble yourself, and He comes down to you.
"V.20: 'Many are the afflictions of the just.' Does the Psalmist say: 'Let Christians be just and listen to my works, and then they will suffer no affliction'? No, this is not his promise; he says: 'Many are the afflictions of the just.' The truth is, if men are unjust, they suffer fewer afflictions; if they are just, they suffer many. But after a few afflictions or none at all, the former reach everlasting affliction, from which they will never be delivered: whereas after many afflictions the just received everlasting peace, where they will never suffer any evil. 'Many are the afflictions of the just, but out of them all will the Lord deliver them.'"
St. Augustine was the first to deliver Christ's sword to the temporal authority; Luther and young Calvin followed suit. Since Augustine laid down the doctrine with his interpretation of the "sheathing of the sword" scene, many Christians have fought even against other in the name of the same god who, it was presumed, determined which side was just: it is a mystery how that god of just wars differs from the god of chance. Now Solomon advised us not to count on our riches for success in war, yet the rich and powerful do tend to win battles if not the ongoing War. Not to worry. St. Augustine reminds us of the story of poor Lazarus who died in miserable circumstances yet was taken up into Abraham's bosom; on the other hand, withness the fate of the rich man after his luxurious life:
"What sort of death did this rich man die? What sort of death would a man die in purple and fine linen? How sumptuous, how stately! What magnificent rites were celebrated! With what quantities of spices was that dead body interred! And yet when, tormented in hell, he begged for a drop of water to be let fall upon his burning tongue from the finger of that despises pauper, even this boon he could not obtain. Realize then what 'The death of the wicked is very evil' means; and do not interrogate the couches spread with costly coverlets, and the flesh swathed in all maner of rich wrappings... But ask the Gospel, and it will reveal to your faith the rich man's soul burning in torments..."
Therefore, in this world, have faith and do not rely on works; do not sacrifice an ox and share it with the oppressed after the Lord and the divines have their portion; no, offer the Lord a virtual sacrifice of a crushed heart, and let the needy feast on your thoughts and prayers. As for the downtrodden: be broken and crushed knowing the Lord is nigh unto you while the ministers of your favorite salvation religion hold out the promise of deliverance in the other world or in the next life or lives as you obediently ascend the chain of being to the First Cause of all this suffering - the Cause is indeed nigh unto its effects. That is the good news of old-time religion. It served its organizational purpose in barbarous times; therefore fear the Lord! We creatures of habit are understandably afraid to let go even if custom is killing us. We suppose that if we deny the crude and barbaric god, then no god can exist now or in the future; having accepted authority as necessary for our security, we are unwilling to admit they do not know what they are talking about - or whom, if their god is personal.
The authority of authors, if truth be alive and reasonable instead of dead-letter law, must be progressive good news. Nonetheless, the past is our lesson book, the "church" is still under construction. We must not write Luther off as just another forked tongue. Consider this: if soldiers camp about the holy office to defend the faithful pacifist circle within, then that circle may grow until all are faithful and drink of the same loving cup and eat of the same loaf of bread. In that Age of Love, when the ideal is united with the real, the history of war shall end - some say the end of war will be the death of mankind, the martyrdom of humanity.
But the Last Day may not be upon us any time soon - god only knows the appointed time. In the interim, it appears Luther's god still reigns over Earth, and we cannot help but to sympathize with the Gnostics who say that god is Satan in disguise. Let us pick up 'Luther's Works' again and turn to Luther's mysterious interpretation of Psalm 51:
"God is not the kind of God who wants to frighten the frightened or break the broken even more, but one who loves the broken, afflicted, and humble... Hearts cannot grasp this spiritual wisdom, but when they are crushed by bitterness and sadness, they do not even dare to pray... I have learned now and again how difficult it is in this battle to say, 'Lord, help me!' A heart that feels the wrath of God does not see or know anything with which it can comfort or strengthen itself, so absorbed is it in its depair. Therefore I exort and admonish you, who will one day be the teachers of the church. When minds are in extreme despair, teach them in such a way that they will lift themselves up and dare to hope, because it is written here that hearts which are contrite and humble this way are a most pleasing sacrifice to God, which He prefers to all acts of worship. He expects this worship from all, and for the sake of obtaining this worship he sends pestilences, famine, the sword, and all dangers, so that in our affliction we may hope for divine help. He strikes in order to convert, but we receive the striking in such a way as we turn away from Him... This is what Isaiah says (Is. 9:13): 'The people did not turn to Him who smote them.'"
Luther does seem to be describing an abusive father or terrorist, the Almighty Abusive Father of Terrorism. The Psalm itself is a beautiful expression of contrition wherein the exiled psalmist seeks a pure heart free of bloodguilt; of course his lord requires no blood or cooked meat during the hard exile; but once the heart is purified, the temple will be restored and the animal sacrifices will be resumed. Of course, Luther would not have real sacrifices resumed by Christians since he divorces faith (words) from works (food offerings) and embraces faith alone. No doubt prehistoric man would shake his head over such an insane repudiation of the vital cooking ritual outlined by the cooks around the campfire shortly after fire was harnessed and a table raised up for the lord. The difference between life and death was a frequent topic among the cooks while hunters and warriors were in the field. The "primitive" would hardly grasp a symbology which causes one to doubt the real meaning of the food-sharing instructions in the sacred cookbook. He was not a Jew, a Hindu, a Pythagorean quite yet, but he felt some primordial guilt over shedding the blood of animals including the blood of the divine animal - man. The ultimate power over life and death usurped by man must be appeased with the best parts of the kill. The rest is shared to keep the peace. Be that as it may, examine the Tanakh, Ps. 51:16-21.
"Save me from bloodguilt
O God, God, my deliverer,
that I may sing forth Your beneficience.
O Lord, open my lips,
and let my mouth declare Your praise.
You do not want me to bring sacrifices;
You do not desire burnt offerings;
True sacrifice to God is a contrite spirit;
God, You will not despise
a contrite and crushed heart.
May it please you to make Zion prosper;
rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.
Then You will want sacrifices offered in righteousness, burnt and whole offerings;
then bulls will be offered on Your altar."
Finally, since Luther cites Isaiah, I follow suit, but by quoting verses from Chapter 57, which is pertinent to our discussion of broken and crushed or contrite people:
For thus said he who high aloft
Forever dwells, whose name is holy:
I dwell on high, in holiness:
Yet with contrite and lowly in spirit -
Reviving the spirits of the lowly,
Reviving the hearts of the contrite.
For I will not always contend,
I will not be angry forever:
Nay, I who make spirits flag,
Also create the breath of life.
For their sinful greed I was angry;
I struck them and turned away in My wrath.
V. Stretching the Truth
The Manifesto of the Devil's Advocate presents Beloved David as a liar, thief and mass murderer. David's god is identified as the Almighty Abusive Father of Terrorism, a terrible model said to be emulated to this very day, at least by those Judeo-Christians who projected their vices upon him; selfish vices which are, with all due respect to our respective races and creeds, those of the entire human race.
However, notwithstanding the protests of regressive protestants and despite the liberal's occasional backsliding on the conservative slime into the loathsome muck, the creative process is a progressive evolution, hence history is constantly being rewritten to bring it up to speed. According to the talmudic revisionists, King David allegedly said, "This nation (Israel) is distinguished by three characteristics: They are merciful, bashful, and benevolent." (Yevamot 79a). As for David's god, the phrase 'merciful and gracious God' does appear nine times in the Bible, therefore there is some justification for loving revision. As we have seen from the Psalms attributed to David, crushed people are closest to his god, and his god helps him crush enemies for good measure. "It is God who arms me with strength and makes my way perfect... I pursued my enemies and crushed them... I beat them as fine as the dust of the earth; I pounded them and trampled them like mud in the streets..." (2 Samuel 22:33-43). Yet his god is merciful to Jews: "Let us fall into the hands of the Lord, for his mercy is great; but do not let us fall into the hands of men." (2 Samuel 24-14). Indeed!
In any event, fellow Jews should not be hated: "Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke your neighbor frankly so you will not share in his guilt. Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but have your neighbor as yourself. I am the Lord." (Leviticus 19:17-18) From such glimmers of mercy in the old text history advances to universal love. Hillel the Great (b. 70 B.C.E.), founder of the lenient school which accommodates the strict law to current progress, reportedly said, "Whatever is hateful to thee, do not unto thy fellow man; this is the whole law; the rest is commentary."
Yes, human history advances. If it were not an advance, history would be irrelevant, of no more importance to us than the number of grains of sand in the desert is to a camel in want of water. Then the sacred scriptures, only made sacred because man is endowed with progressive reason, would serve us better as cooking fuel than as enlightening reading material. And on the last day of the regression to the original golden age, man would no longer be man whose essence is 'ma' in 'manu' or "he who measures out" thought after his mother issues him forth, but he would instead be an innocent beast again, a brute beyond the moral or thoughtful distinction of good and evil.
In any case we should take history in the context of its times and circumstances. Crude times have crude gods.The Devil's Advocate took evil out of context, ignoring the good the he secretly loves. But wherever evil is found, there some good is also located. Furthermore, present and future good is the progress from prior evils which were goods at the time. But now the Devil would persuade us that the archaic god is the Devil himself by illuminating the creator-god's destructive aspect. But we should keep in mind that the Devil or Satan loves his god above all; he refuses to love man, hence he is the one and only truly faithful monotheist. The Devil does not slander the true god, he denounces the faults humans project onto their false idol. Indeed, his hidden love for god is hate-based love: he must have something to hate in order to love something else; he hates man to love god; he hates others and their kind in order to love himself and his kind; he loves himself to hate himself; in self-consciousness he is self-negation.
We may trace the Devil's diabolical development in the psychological genesis of the individual human: he falls from the womb with an oceanic feeling of omnipotence but is soon confronted with the resistance against which he righteously rages when he does not have his way; but when his hate gets him nowhere or worse in the face of overpowering forces, his fear teaches him to love the world in order to save himself from the struggle defining him. In other words, human life is a willing relation between a would-be omnipotent subject and its natural object, the world that includes other omnipotent subjects with whom compromises must be made in order to survive. In plain language, the rule is simple: love people and their god or get your ass kicked - the Devil is god's ass.
The Hebrew god certainly had a violent self-loving disposition, but that violence was tempered by other-love; love at first for "his" tribe, then his nation, and then for all who obey a few commandments whether they are obeyed in his name or not. Judaism, in contradistinction to other world religions, believes that a non-Jew who obeys the seven commandments given to Noah shall attain heaven whether or not he believes in the Torah. That "righteous Gentile" (1) believes in one god, not necessarily Jewish, (2) establishes courts of law, (3) does not steal, (4) does not commit adultery, (5) does not worship idols, (6) does not curse god, (7) does not eat certain parts of animals. Therefore the Jew has no 'altruistic' need to proselytize in order to 'save' Gentiles.
The Devil's Advocate made much of the Jewish god's hateful personal characteristics. The advocate is really a Persian or Christian advocate, since Jews recognize that their god is fully responsible for both good and evil. In any case, Satan's complaint really appertains to man's faults, for the fallen angel loves his god. Be that as it may, Judaism's god is ineffable and cannot really be defined by language or properly denoted to by means of any particular form or name. The most that can be said is "I AM." The "He" is an anthropomorphic figure of speech cited by way of example for personal convenience, But no person can be YHWH; even posing that position would be a slanderous and blasphemous imposition, Jesus being a case in point. Neither could Jesus be the Messiah, for Jesus did not fulfil the prophecy of universal peace and universal recognition of one god, hence he was a "false" prophet.
In his personal capacity the almighty Jewish lord is not only violent and abusive: he is loving, forgiving, merciful, charitable; and his people aspired to his virtues and thought they deserved the abuse as punishment. Now we can employ the ambiguity and hypocrisy of the old texts for good or ill, or we can simply discard them as hopelessly contradictory. The Jews have taken some ancient provisions literally, as immutable traditions; for instance, the prohibition against eating "unclean" pork is observed even though modern science declares pork to be safe for consumption. But the doctrine of immutability does not apply to moral perceptions. Morality evolves or improves over time. The prophets protested many of the old injunctions; for example, Ezekiel (18:4) annuled the barbaric biblical doctrine (Exod. 20:5) prescribing punishment of children for the sins of their fathers - it appears the remnants of the Canaanites and other Palestinian descendents of Noah have been excepted from the annulment. Children in ancient Jewish schools were encouraged to ask questions and to participate in critical discussion of the Torah. Down through the centuries the rabbis and scholars kept up the debate over the right practice of morality; Jews are "of this world", hence good works are the way to love one's neighbors and to beautify and glorify god. To condemn the Jews because of the barbaric incidents recorded in their ancient history would be to condemn the entire human race along with a culture considered by many objective observers to be morally and intellectually superior to any Western culture; it is a culture that should be more famed for its love than infamous for its hate; it is an Eastern culture that may have done more to inspire Western civilization than the ancient Greeks. If only Jews could love others more than they love their own brothers, perhaps the Messiah would return pacific instead of militant, and Earth would be the temple of universal peace.
Yet love alone is not the panacea we want but more of a Pandora's box. Indeed, the ancients found love to be the cause of many ills including madness, and thererfore set reason against it as a restraint. But reason was all too often a dog tied behind love's cart. When reason did take the lead from time to time, it received a rather bad name for killing love, and its detractors plead ignorance as a religious virtue.
What is love? Love, for example, is your life, which by all means would endure forever if it could. Love is not fond of any impediment to the satisfaction of desire. On the whole love wants absolute freedom, but in individuals it craves particulars, that the individual may persist as a particular individual. Thus it is said that he who loves all loves nothing in the incomprehensible identity of Being and Nothing or Creation and Destruction. He who loves everybody loves nobody. Reason may restrain the affections and divert attention from particulars towards the abstract universal; the ultimate diversion to the unknown may be called the love of god universal, an operation some thinkers have identifed with an instinctive counter-will or death instinct unconsciously tending to the dissolution of the willing, suffering, divided in-divid-ual. Hence those who love god the most may seem to hate the world and to love death so much that they are moved to devote their lives preparing for death instead of loving the particulars of life. In fact, the loving holy man may be viewed from one perspective as the most arrogant and hateful man of all men.
In any case it seems that love and hate are Siamese twins and that those who preach one to the exclusion of the other are fools or fanatics. Jews have evolved but not to blind, unconditional love. Love without law is perverse and immoral. Common morality hates evil and loves good. Ecclesiastes 3:8 informs us that there is a time for everything including war and hate. The Talmud (Taanit 76) allows us to denounce arrogant people as evil and to hate them. Psalm 139:21-22 sets this tone to set the universal above the particulars: "Do I not hate those who hae you, O Lord, and abhor those who rise up against you? I have nothing but hatred for them. I count them as my enemies." The Talmud (Pasachim 113b) allows us to hae sinners. Furthermore, the Talmud (Yoma 22b) specifies that any Torah scholar who does not take revenge is not a real Torah scholar. After all, to defame the Torah is blasphemy. As for the Leviticus injunction against revenge, "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge," the talmudic scholars point out it pertains only to Jews, because the vengeance of Jew against Jew would be an assault upon one's own body, which is absurd. However, Numbers 25:19 clearly states, "The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death." But the courts took over that function, and the death penalty was rarely handed down. Death, by the way, was prescribed for violation of any of the Commandments; but kids, for example, were not dragged to the gate and stoned to death for disobeying their parents. Morever, we do not find the biblical "an eye for an eye" actually practiced in the courts; damages were paid in the form of money or goods instead of an eye.
Returning to our enemies, whom we should not hate by rejoicing when they fall, the Mishnah explains that means we should not hate them at the exact moment of their fall, but we can hate them before the fall and we can be happy they fell after they have fallen. Nonetheless, it is alright to rejoice at the moment when non-Jewish enemies fall. On the subject of hating sinners, we learn Jewish sinners are only hated in order to get them to repent.
We might ignore the nitpicking casuistry which excuses deeds we originally thought were prohibited, and sum up by simply saying it is quite alright to hate evil people. But no, we need casuistic stretching to refine the differences between right and wrong and to bridge the gap between good and evil. We would introduce principles suiting our present purposes while seemingly remaining faithful to the old principles. For example, after careful consideration of the texts, we might argue that missionaries should be hated because converting a Jew is one way to murder him; therefore, it stands to reason that missionaries are murderers. We are commanded to stone murderers to death, but that is carrying the metaphor too far. Neither do we take the commandments literally and stone to death all those who do not observe the Sabbath, who steal, blaspheme, commit perjury, covet wives and other property, have some god before the almighty god, worship idols, commit adultery, dishonors parents, and who actually murders someone. In fact, if only we would give ourselves greater latitude and use our freedom to stretch the old narrow truths far enough, even to the breaking point in some cases, the world might be a much better place to live in. Thus says the Devil's Advocate.
--Continued Next Chapter---
