- Satan and Sadists is part of the series on sexuality and religion -
In the
preface of his book “The Devil”, American historian and religious studies
scholar Jeffrey Burton Russell gives us a remarkable quote regarding evil:
“Evil – the
infliction of pain upon sentient beings – is one of the most longstanding and
serious problems of human existence.”[i]
The
personification of this evil is called ‘devil’, also known as the great adversary
and obstructer of (the triune) God and the Heavenly Host. So, at face value,
Sir Cameron, as a born-again Sadist, is in the finest company of the fallen
Angels that descended from above into the earthly mess of abomination – then didn’t
those Sons of God in Genesis six not lust after the human females?[ii]
Yet, as
Russell does not believe in a historical Satan, we leave this line for now, but
it is nevertheless interesting, how he defines evil. Now instead of trying to
argue that evil is not limited to the infliction of pain, but a result of the
fall by humanity and the world they live in – in which allegedly Satan played a
sneaky role too – we simply take the stance that we are not insulted, as
inflicting – as we see it - consensual pain is not evil whatsoever.
Nevertheless,
the attempt to identify evil with inflicting pain is something that seems to be
a natural tendency, as sadists are often confronted with horror, fear and
repulsion; hurting someone is plain wrong. The poor ‘victims’ are either abused
or sick themselves, preferably due to wrong religious teachings, childhood
abuse or bad self-image. Defending your sadist position often leads to
aggression or rejection on the other side. Why is this?
Generally
speaking, I think it has – beside repressed sexuality – mainly to do with
lacking a proper way to deal with evil, pain and death. Then consider; when
indeed sadism is evil, then BDSM is all about religion. This is a point I have
been defending ever since, as, in accordance with C.G. Jung, Sir Cameron sees
human beings as being religious by nature and sexuality as embedded in our
moral and religious convictions.[iii]
But let’s
return to the controversial issue of evil and BDSM; The sole reason why people
– at first sight – often reject BDSM is because they do not understand the
motivation, but what they believe they understand is what they see; perverted
sex. The notion of perversion is of course related to normality, regardless if
you see this in a moral or statistical sense. The sadist perversion is rendered
a deviation from the normal regular sexual praxis.
The trained
observer will undoubtedly also see the similarity between the way how good and
evil is contrasted with the way how a moral judgement regarding perversion and
normality is justified. We will not go into the question to what extend
normality is normal, or if normality – as such – is even depending on deviation
in order to be normal. Nor will we look at justifications for moral judgements
with regard to certain sexual praxis; the only issue we will look at for now is
that of similarity.
The Devil -
at least in the three great mono-theistic religions of Judaism, Christianity
and Islam - is not just a personification of evil, it is also the source. In
fact, for Christianity and perhaps in a weaker sense for Islam too, the image
we have regarding the devil is of great influence on how we see God and his
actions regarding mankind. In that
sense, Russell is right to mention that the problem of evil is closely related
to any view on mankind, this is because evil – as it is – requires an answer,
which religions – more or less - try to give.
The idea of
blaming the devil in order to make God not responsible for all the wrongdoings
of his creatures is of course a well known answer in our Western culture. Yet,
there are some minor irregularities connected to it; first of all, in the
Tenach - the Jewish ‘old testament’ - Satan is seen as one of the sons of God[iv],
a particular group in the Hierarchy of Angels. According to the same traditions
angels are creatures themselves, thus leaving us with the task to explain evil
while God is good.
Elaine
Pagels - another theologian scholar that denies the existence of the devil as a
person – even argues that the figure of Satan became a way for orthodox
Christians to demonize their religious opponents, namely, other Christian sects
and Jews.[v]
Irrespective
if Pagels is right or not, the idea of Satan as the opponent of God is for
certain a method to set a group apart. Particularly groups that advocate Scriptural
infallibility actually need Satan in order to explain their view on the Holy
Texts; denying Satan is therefore paramount to rebuking the whole view on e.g. Christian
truth as seen by religious conservatives, as you have no scapegoat for evil
left, the fall is being questioned, just as the need for the Kingdom to come,
the Anti-Christ and so on.
Now - by
way of analogy of relations - we can see that the same dynamics as we find between
God and the Devil play a role when contrasting kink and vanilla sexuality. Yet,
let’s assume - for the sake of argument- that the devil does not exist; we accordingly
have to find evil either in ourselves or even in God. Therefore we cannot
really use a method of projective identification – blaming the devil – for
sexual variance. Nor can we use a negative connection between female sexuality
and sin, that some desperately seem to derive from Scriptures at all costs.
Face value
rejection of BDSM urges may indicate a denial of sexual reality in favour of a
delusional projection of ‘devilish sins’ to warrant for moral condemnation.
This is a hard judgement, as I know very well that many conservatives are in
fact kind and gentle people. But – as the good observer has noticed – my
extensive use of Freudian terminology also makes clear, that words are indeed a
two-edged sword[vi].
The same Freudian terminology that was once used to stigmatize ‘perverts’, can
equally be used against the very premises that had initiated them in the first
place. We have moved on.
‘To love
one's neighbour as one's self’[vii]
- with or without pain - can only be done with the right mindset; that of
genuine appreciation and acceptance of the other, sensitive to the needs of the
other and that of yourself, expecting mutual responsibility and a consensual
affirmation towards loving.
Allegorically
speaking, respect for the Christian heritage of our culture, in which we tried
to find and express our views on life gathered in a common religion with texts
and historical traditions, does also show that the context of a writing is
fundamental for understanding what an author meant. I admit that by presuming
that the devil is a construction, I went beyond that what we might think what
the authors meant.[viii]
In this sense, my use of ‘quotes’ is equally biased as the exegesis of many
conservatives.
Yet,
neglecting our heritage would be an even less appropriate solution.
Interpreting a codex of texts at least attempts to take for serious what our
ancestors did believe to be valuable. And so Sir Cameron speaks about what he
thinks is valuable; to live out our natural – or who wishes; God given - urges
in a way that ‘approaches sexuality in an explorative, adventurous and
celebratory manner’.[ix]
Happy
Celebrations to all of you!
[i] Russell, Jeffrey
Burton (1977), The Devil: Perceptions of
Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity, (Meridian , New York
[ii] For those
not introduced into the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words; the Greek again from ‘born-again’ is a translation
of anothen – from above – and the
Hebrew word for Sons – Bene – who were seen as descendents or offspring of God.
Lusting for strange flesh – just as in Sodom
[iii] So next
time you are about to spray all over you slave(s) face(s), think twice before
shouting ‘holy shit’
[iv] E.g. in Job 1:6 “And there
was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before JHWH; and
Satan came also among them”.
[v] Pagels,
Elaine (1995), The Origin of Satan: How
Christians Demonized Jews, Pagans, and Heretics, (Vintage Books)
[viii] Yet, as we
have no ‘autographa’, we never can be certain that we know what the authors actually
said, let alone what it would have meant for them at their time and for us in
our time.
No comments:
Post a Comment