Meeting Persephone

I'd watched the teaser for NightLine on Wednesday night and because of it I was determined to catch the Thursday night show. The topic was "Does Satan Exist"? It wasn't intended to be a discussion on the evil forces or the dark side but whether there really is a being that is Satan. There were to be two representatives for each side. On the "yes there is a real devil" side was a young happening pastor (Mark Driscoll) and a former prostitute who has found god (Annie Lobert). On the "there is no real devil" side there was Deepak Chopra and Bishop Carlton Pearson, a bishop deemed heretic by his own church.

The absurdity of the presentation cannot be overstated. The "debate" took place in a church with approximately 1,000 on-lookers present. Of course the pre-debate footage showed the pro-Satan side very confident about their position because they had the bible and their experiences to back up their arguments. The no-Satan side was shown as being a bit more uncertain of the forum and those who would be in the audience. And so the games began.

I really can't say more about the pro-Satan side that I haven't already said. There was passionate pleas for understanding as well as acceptance of Jesus coming from Ms. Lobert as she explained desperately the horrors of her drug and sex-filled past and the voices she'd heard in her head telling her to take her own life. And then Pastor Driscoll, confident in his position, simply referred every question posed to him right back to biblical stories as his proof.

Deepak Chopra came off as mostly arrogant and I attribute the majority of that to editing (not that he wasn't arrogant at times) and Bishop Pearson's argument was based in "I used to be one of you [pro-Satan] and I was a demon 'getter-outter'". Chopra pulled science out only a few times as his proof that Satan doesn't exist and that which everyone places on Satan are easily explained with other sources considerably more reliable.

In the end the side that won depends on your own perspective though I'm sure Ms. Lobert's tears swayed a sympathy vote if not certainty of Satan's existence. It's hard to make any final decisions on how the "debate" went because it was so far from an actual debate. Neither side holding up their end very well and NightLine (ABC) chopped it up so much and took so many commercial breaks that it was perhaps 15 minutes worth of show in a half hour.

I'm of the belief that if someone professes something to be true, the burden is theirs to prove it. The pro-Satan side did nothing of the sort. The arguments were all based in the "because I believe it" instead of the factual (because there is no tangible proof). The no-Satan side was ineffective because of Chopra's rotten attitude and Bishop Pearson's "I don't believe that anymore" position. These are not convincing arguments for either side. The entire thing was a waste of time and I only regret staying awake for it.

The fact of the matter is, if you're going to argue theology of a particular group with that particular group, you cannot do so from outside of that religion. Chopra was never going to get anywhere with is position because it's too easy for the group to write him off based on all of the rhetoric surrounding the stories of their own religion ie - "those who speak of Satan's non-existence are actually being controlled by him unbeknownst to them". It's a no-win argument. And Bishop Pearson's argument was most like Ms. Lobert's which says little for him in this particular case.

If you want to argue against the existence of Satan you must do it using their own information as well as universally accepted science - and I mean universally as in the science that even the most Fundamental Christian cannot deny. The word "exist" is a very specific word requiring that very specific criteria be met in order to make the "proof" definitive. Feelings, beliefs, experiences (that nobody else is literal witness to), and personal certainty are not proof of anything real other than your own experience of something which does not require others to accept the reality of what you're saying and incorporate it into their own beliefs.

I also believe that if a religion is going to be based on the back of another religion, as Christianity is in regard to Judaism, that Christians have an obligation to understand religious points from a Jewish perspective. Few do this because they are arrogant enough to believe that they are the ones with the proper understanding of what the Torah really means and it's the Jews who don't get it. If the Jews got it they'd be Christian therefore it's up to Christianity to interpret for them. Talk about arrogance! However, the fact remains, Christianity was built on top of Judaism using their one god as well as their texts how they've seen fit. But if you're going to hi-jack someone else's texts it might behoove you to learn what they mean in their original context.

When it comes to the idea of Satan, he's mentioned countless times in the Christian scripture but on a couple of times in the Tanakh (Hebrew scripture). Why is that? Because he was simply a minor player in the Jewish context. He was not an equal but opposite power to their god, he was a servant of their god. He was ordered to do certain things and he did them at their god's will. HaSatan is the actual name of this being and means essentially "adversary". Much like god or Christ are titles, not names, so is that of Satan. He is performing a job that was given him by their god. Period. Other than that he serves no purpose within Judaism. So why would Christianity create a whole new story regarding HaSatan? It's awfully convenient to have a being to pin all of your wrongs onto. Accepting responsibility is not exactly a theme of Christianity - "the devil made me do it" or "god/Jesus saved me".

Does he exist? That is the question that neither side really bothered to answer in concrete terms on the show. The answer is "no". He was not proven in a tangible nor scientific way that is understood to solidify the certainty of "proof" of his existence. Nearly every position was based on each individual's own experiences and that does not prove anything either way. That is the reality of debate - no matter how strongly you feel about your position - if you cannot PROVE IT in very specific terms, you lose the debate. Chopra could have very neatly tied the whole debate up with a neat little bow if he'd actually stuck to the rules of debate but he allowed himself to be distracted by the irrelevant and therefore only won by default.

All in all it was a half hour of my life I can never get back. That will teach me to think that I might actually enjoy anything presented in that format on network television.

So few puppets so many puppet masters.