I am to receive volumes containing works by Poul Anderson that I have not yet read;
Multiverse, the long-awaited memorial anthology, will be published.
Meanwhile, I am rereading Mike Carey's eleven Lucifer graphic novels (see previous post). In Poul Anderson's fantasy novels, supernatural beings like Odin and Satan are real in some parallel universes but mythological in others. This common premise underlies several interconnected graphic fantasies by Alan Moore, Jamie Delano, Neil Gaiman, Mike Carey etc.
I will post about the previously unread Anderson stories when I have received them but will not have immediate access to Multiverse. I am sure that it will be appropriate not only to review the book as a whole but also to discuss individual stories and articles. One reader of this blog has over time emailed several articles about Anderson's works that have been published on the blog. I welcome any such reviews or discussions of the contents of Multiverse.
9 comments:
Hi, Paul!
And I hope that I will continue to be inspired from time to time to write additional notes or essays for this blog!
I do have a few comments about Satan which may be of interest. One thing I have noticed which has puzzled me is how I've seen people who say they believe God exists but deny that angels, including Satan, also exists. It makes no logical sense to believe in God but also to deny He made or could have made rational, non corporeal beings like the angels.
As a Catholic I believe not only in God but also that He made non corporeal beings such as the angels. And that the reality of the angels, including fallen angels, is a matter of revealed doctrine taught by both Scripture and tradition. After all, if Christ declared that, before His Incarnation, He had seen Satan fall like lightning from heaven, that is more than enough for me!
One interesting book I've read which discusses the issue of angels from a philosophical viewpoint is Mortimer Adler's THE ANGELS AND US. And of course Poul Anderson gives an interesting view of Satan and even of what hell might be like in OPERATION CHAOS.
Sean
Sean,
I grant that discarnate intelligences are logically possible but no more than that. Some of my fellow analytic philosophers argue that such intelligences are logically impossible but I can't see that.
I have known Catholics, including a Jesuit, who said: it was thought that God was a King, Kings have courtiers, therefore it was thought that God has courtiers (angels); an "angel" back in Genesis just means God's presence.
The Bible has: the serpent in Genesis; "How art thou fallen, Lucifer..."; the devil in Job; the tempter in the Gospels. My impression is that these were all distinct: the serpent was an Aesop's Fables-type talking animal; "Lucifer" referred to a deposed Emperor; the devil in Job was a "Devil's Advocate" or counsel for the prosecution in the Heavenly court. Milton made Satan possess the serpent, then say to Adam, "Now you know why this fruit is forbidden. It has made me talk like a man, so it will make you wise like a god." Apocalypse identifies Satan as a "Serpent."
Paul.
Sean,
On my Religion and Philosophy blog, May 2012, "Minds and Brains," includes my views on disembodied consciousness.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
And that, basically, is all that Mortimer Adler argues for in his book, THE ANGELS AND US: that norcorporeal beings are logically POSSIBLE.
And I certainly don't think it's wrong to think of God as a King! But, I prefer what Dante suggested, that God created other beings, such as the angels, from love and desire that other beings should exist.
And I agree the older parts of the Old Testament are not as clear about the existence of fallen angels as the later portions, the point is that revealed teaching about the angels was gradual. Yes, "satan" once had a legalistic meaning more akin to our "prosecuting attorney," But later books of the OT, such as Wisdom, shows that a clearer view of some angels being FALLEN had emerged. And the four Gospels certainly makes it plain that belief in both good and bad angels was common in Our Lord's time.
Time permitting, I'll look up your "Minds and Brains" article.
Sean
Sean,
I like it when one mythology (or belief) explains another: Milton said Pagan gods were demons; someone suggested fairies were neutral angels; the Olympians hid in Egypt disguised as animals, thus explaining Pharaonic zoomorphism etc.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
What * I * say is that pagan gods simply don't exist. Altho I am aware some used to believe pagan gods were demons. And, some, like the "gods" to whom the Aztecs offered human sacrifices in massive numbers, would certainly be demonic, if they had existed (whereas, of course, it was the human beings who performed human sacrifices who were being like demons).
And the zoomorphic gods of the ancient Egyptians were older than those of later peoples such as the Greeks. The Greeks were simply trying to harmonize their very different gods from those of Egypt. Syncretism, in other words.
Sean
Sean,
If we assume the real existence of demons, though, it is not much of a stretch to imagine them inspiring the Aztec religion and deriving their distorted version of pleasure from watching human sacrifices.
Paul.
The non-existence of other gods was an implication of what became Jewish monotheism: the tribal confederation was to have only one god; all other gods were as nothing before him; all other gods were nothing.
Hi, Paul!
I do believe in the actual existence of angels, both good and evil. And, yes, I can certainly see the fallen angels joyfully tempting and encouraging men to monstrous follies and evils, such as human sacrifices and "legalized" abortions. I need to stress however, that the Catholic Church teaches that God forbids fallen angels to tempt men beyond their strenght to resist such temptations. Sin and evil can be avoided, by cooperating with divine grace.
I've suggested this to others, my belief is that a MAJOR why a mere few hundress reckless adventurers led by Cortez were able to overthrow the Aztec kingdom was precisely because of the cruelty of the Aztecs. Their neighbors hated the Aztecs because of the wars they waged to obtain victims for their gods. Iow, they concluded that accepting Spanish rule was far preferable--if only because the Spanish would not sacrifice and eat them!
It is my belief that God actually chose a man originally named Abram to whom He revealed himself. And that He used the descendants of Abraham, the tribal confederation you mentioned, to slowly and gradually reveal Himself to first the Jews and then to all other nations.
The history of the Jewish people, as seen in the Old Testament, is a record of how difficult it was for many Jews to accept pure monotheism. There were so many instances of Israel backsliding into idolatry. Compared to Yahweh, the infinitely transcendent Other, no other can or will exist. The Prophets had to exhort and reprimand the OT Jews for both lack of faith and oppression of the weak among them.
Sean
Post a Comment