I have the feeling that over the past years, we’ve started seeing more TV shows that are either sympathetic towards Hell and Satan, or somewhat negative towards Heaven. I just watched “Hazbin Hotel” today, which isn’t too theological, but clearly is fairly negative towards Heaven.
In “The Good Place”,
Spoilers for The Good Place
the people in The Bad Place end up pushing to improve the whole system, whereas The Good Place is happy to spend hundreds of year not letting people in.
“Little Demon” has Satan as a main character, and he’s more or less sympathetic.
“Ugly Americans” shows demons and Satan as relatively normal, and Hell doesn’t seem too bad.
I only watched the first episode of “Lucifer”, but it’s also more or less sympathetic towards Lucifer.
I have a few more examples (Billy Joel: “I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints”, or the very funny German “Ein Münchner im Himmel”, where Heaven is portrayed as fantastically boring), but I won’t list them all here.
My question is: how modern is this? I’ve heard of “Paradise Lost”, and I’ve heard that it portrays Satan somewhat sympathetically, though I found it very difficult to read. And the idea of the snake in the Garden of Eden as having given free will and wisdom to humanity can’t be that modern of a thought, even if it would have been heretical.
Is this something that’s happened in the last 10 years? Are there older examples? Does anyone have a good source I could read?
Note that I don’t claim Satan is always portrayed positively, or Heaven always negatively :).
Displaying nuance in “hell” as pushback against the binary concept of good and evil is arguably one of the oldest tropes in fiction. Both ancient Greek and Norse mythology very specifically depict the underworld as a place of ambiguity or even normality, with “heaven” holding a far more exalted status.
Even in Abrahamic mythology the idea of hell being some kind of default punishment for sinners is a fairly modern idea, arguably stemming from Dante, who absolutely works a good amount of sympathy for sinners into the story. It really only is the most recent take on the concept by evangelical Christians which holds that an otherwise innocent person will be tortured for eternity over a mere lack of faith, and that form of absurd extremism certaintly plays a large role in the modern backlash against the concept.
The Bible does portray hell as the default, such as saying all have sinned and have fallen short of the Glory of God, Jesus saying He is the only way to The Father and saying that you’re saved by grace alone and not by works
Not going to heaven doesn’t mean you automatically go to hell. Do you think the Jews thought all the gentiles were going to hell?
That depends on your denomination
There were different sects. Sheoul was a thing that was mentioned several times as well. Revelation also makes it clear:
Revelation 20:12-15
And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Why do you think the Book of Revelations speaks to the Jewish faith? I am not of the opinion that Jews follow the new testament.
We’re not talking about Jews here, we’re talking about Christianity
I clearly was talking about Judaism and you are not. It’s okay if “We” are talking about two different things 🤷
Mark Twain had some interesting ideas about Heaven, Hell, and Satan.
“But who prays for Satan? Who, in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most?”
I went to a religious school and after learning the whole fallen angel backstory I used to pray for him, didn’t know until learning of that quote that Im not the only one. I later learned from a smarter religious teacher that the devil is not canonical, at least not in the way they’re portrayed today. You can thank Dantes Inferno for modern devil characterization.
I remember reading an old fantasy set in Hell. The joke was that when souls come to Hell they bring their expectations with them. The older demons are sick of all the changes the new dead people bring with them.
Letters from Earth was written by Mark Twain in 1909, but publishers refused to publish it until 1962. So, I’d say it’s fairly modern, starting around 1962 and becoming more acceptable since then.
deleted by creator
In The Prophecy (1995), Christopher Walken played a corrupted Gabriel who is jealous of humans because God stopped talking to him (?). Viggo Mortensen plays Satan, not exactly sympathetically, but not too unrelatable. Constantine (2005) had a similar sub-plot With Tilda Swinton playing a jealous Gabriel, and of course Neo as Constantine.
It’s pretty modern if you mean popular, although the idea itself is REALLY old.
Rather than going into specific examples because there are a lot of them (especially in gaming and TV), I’d like to say my piece on cliches.
Basically, cliches come to exist because the cliche trope is a really good idea.
“The Butler did it” as a murder mystery trope is a fantastic idea because some people with too much money will use the protection money affords them to mistreat their employees, providing a great motive you can build on to create a great story with relatable morals and characters. It sets up a character with perfect motives, means and a reasonable position of trust to avoid suspicion.
Similarly, “Hell good, Heaven bad” is a fantastic trope because it lets you step back and analyse things like the negative impacts of religion and how authorities (and the bible) will portray themselves as good regardless of their actual actions. Plus of course there were periods of time where people were told doing virtually anything that didn’t fit into an extremely narrow worldview meant you were going to hell. You know, stuff like basketball and Dungeons and Dragons.
Now, the problem with cliches is when someone sees a popular idea that’s also a very good idea, but doesn’t understand why it was a good idea. As a result, when they use the idea, it rings hollow at absolute best, and that kind of terrible execution of something that’s already known and popular tends to be especially disappointing. I think the best example is The Hunger Games, which absolutely defined young adult dystopian fiction for years because it showed how the media industry mistreats its workers, and Alleigant, which used a lot of ideas from Hunger Games (and some other things) without actually understanding the ideas.
(TLDR: Hunger Games has a love triangle as a prominent plot element, but the actual reason is that it’s perpetuated by the media pretty much on pain of death for Katniss so that she can entertain the viewers. By contrast, Alleigant also has a love triangle but the triangle IS the plot element and the author bends over backwards to make it happen despite the fact none of the characters really feel like they’re suitable for it)
Anyways, cliches aren’t bad but you need to know how, why, and when to use them in order to actually fulfil their potential, and the heaven-hell one you’ve mentioned above is no exception.
You should watch more Lucifer.
You have a very flawed perception on what’s going on in the good place if you think the actors from “the bad place” are working to get people into heaven, or the reason the people of heaven leave so quickly.
But I’ll bite on what I perceive to be a barely good faith question and not a concern troll post.
When you look at the idea pushed (especially in the last few hundred years) of a dichotomy of infinite joy or infinite suffering, there’s a lot of realism that can be pushed in the gray areas. The absolutist of everything is good because everything is good and everything is evil because everything is evil has been portrayed from the good side for a long time, the somewhere in between that modern media takes from brings things towards the middle on both sides, but concern trolls can’t rationalize heaven to be anything but perfect, so they go on tirades about media they don’t care to look at critically, whenever they feel their absolutist belief of heaven good is analyzed with a modicum of scrutiny.
I know I probably shouldn’t engage, but I really just wanted to spark a conversation. I find the trope interesting. I agree that my Good Place example isn’t that good, but still, no need to be so accusing.
I would suggest it’s the other way around. Sympathetic versions of hell and the underworld are if anything older. For that matter the concept of hell is very much borrowed from religions that came before Christianity. Heck the vast majority of our imagery for Christian hell comes from medieval retellings of Greek and Roman myths. Maybe with little bit of the pity and empathy taken out though.
Right now I can think of the buddhist “tale of the bug”.
Two (human) friends died and were reborn. One in heaven, the other as a dung beetle (a type of bug) on a dung pile.
The guy in heaven tried to “help” his friend by going down to Earth and carrying his friend to the skies. But his friend refused, because the dung pile was now his home, and he didn’t want to leave at any cost. Only then the guy realized that it is not heaven that makes you happy, but finding the place that you’re destined for.
I’ve noticed this in video games too. For example, in Monster Train you fight as the champions of hell to save what’s left of your home against the forces of light.
I think it is absolutely a reaction to more people becoming non-religious. There is much more in the world that is morally ambiguous than the Bible alone would lead people to believe. Things like my example here: hell frozen over with Satan stuck in an endless dopamine hit cycle, struggling with depression is just one of many ways we have “humanized” Lucifer.
I think, especially, in a world ruled by corruption, that people no longer have faith that those in charge actually have their best interests in mind. You question whether Lucifer was kicked out of heaven for pointing out similar issues with heavenly society. Is he truly the villain in the story? He kills far fewer in Biblical history than God does.
Although God generally kills people as a punishment for evil which was inspired by the devil. Like raping each other.
I think you misunderstood parts of The Good Place: >!It’s not people in The Bad Place pushing to improve the system, they try their hardest to prevent any improvements (except for Glenn, he’s the only demon that tries). Michael only became better because he learned ethics from a human perspective.!<
And that’s what The Good Place is fundamentally about: you can’t expect people to be good, if they don’t get the opportunity to become good people.
The idea of Satan as the embodiment of evil is arguably an early medieval borrowing from Zoroastrianism. In the Book of Job he works in conjunction with God as a tester of souls, and his roles in the garden of Eden and the temptation of Jesus aren’t inconsistent with that. And a lot of the popular folklore associated with him originates from morally-ambiguous trickster figures from other traditions that were absorbed into Christianity.
This is cobbled together from a potentially sketchy memory, but doesn’t Satan technically mean accuser? Like his whole role was to tell a whole bunch of goody goody saints in heaven what a piece of crap you are so that they would have something to compare and contrast the goodness that they see in everyone with?
But also going back to opie’s original question, I do remember that one of the reasons for so many Kurdish massacres is that the Kurds have a belief that Satan after the fall fell to Earth and cried such tears that they put out the flames of God’s wrath.
And so they occasionally have ceremonies where they pray on behalf of Satan that God would forgive him in hopes that if God can forgive Satan then God can forgive them for their sins as well.
The reason they are massacred is because the other people in the area have equated that concept with devil worship and so they are attempting to get holy +1 damage to their attacks buy first killing a bunch of devil worshipers and accruing the benefits of executing the wrath of God against sinners.
Samael is the accuser.
I do remember that one of the reasons for so many Kurdish massacres is that the Kurds have a belief that Satan after the fall fell to Earth and cried such tears that they put out the flames of God’s wrath.
You’re probably thinking of the Yazidis—a group that lives in Kurdistan and speaks Kurdish but is distinct from the Kurds proper (who are mostly Sunni Muslims). The Yazidis have a very syncretistic religion drawing on elements of practically everything that ever existed in the region—including religions that were seen as heretical/satanic by subsequent ones.
It should also be noted that the Gnostic scriptures, an alternate version of early Christianity, doesn’t actually mention Satan at all.
That’s because he’s the fucking Demiurge in Gnosticism you armchair theist
Funnily enough, no, that’s what we call God. Old Testament God is an evil fuckhead in Gnosticism because he’s a fraud.
Possibly. A lot of modern scholars are revisiting what they think Gnostics believe and doing weird things like “believing them when they write what they believe”
The Gnostics associated the Old Testament Jehovah with the Platonic concept of the Demiurge—an imperfect or misguided lesser deity who created the material world but botched it up and included evil as an unintended consequence—as opposed to the New Testament “God” who was the Platonic principle of transcendent Goodness or Unity. So the Gnostics didn’t need a separate Satan, since Jehovah was already covering that role.
I would even argue that there is actually a distinction to be drawn from the old world ideas of good and evil, and the modern ideas which have almost become “good vs nuance.” No ancient religion goes as far as modern Christianity in terms of condemning people for mere non belief. This has led to a rise in literary themes around the idea that such moral absolutism is itself a form of evil, and that to the extent it implies demons are merely the stewards of nuance, that they must be more sympathetic than God.
The Epistle to the Romans and other Pauline epistles do seem to show that non-believers do generally go to hell.
Right but the classic Catholic interpretation of damnation is that there is a huge layer of purgatory between “hell” and “eternal torture” for those who are not wicked. It is only fairly recently that we’ve had this “straight to pitchforks and fire” concept of hell.
No, it’s the opposite. Purgatory is a new thing. It’s not mentioned in the Bible at all and only really came up in the last 1000 years. Not even the Eastern Orthodox believe in purgatory.
Satan is very much evil in the Book of Job. He literally kills the dude’s entire family and ruins his life.
Satan checked with God first to see if it was okay.
Not that it was okay, but to challenge God on His confidence in His servant. Satan will be punished for what he did to Job.
and his roles in the garden of Eden
Not to mention that the idea of the snake being Satan is a more modern interpretation, for a good while the snake was just a snake.
Milton’s Paradise Lost doesn’t paint Hell as pleasant, but Satan is absolutely the protagonist of the story. That’s 1667.
If you count Hel (one L) from Norse religion, older than the bible.
the idea of the snake in the Garden of Eden as having given free will and wisdom to humanity can’t be that modern of a thought, even if it would have been heretical.
In Gnosticism, the snake is sometimes identified with Jesus, while the god of the old testament is the demiurge. You’re correct in that the catholic church really didn’t like that.
We don’t know how old Hel is and it’s probably the single most syncretized aspect of Germanic/Norse belief.
It’s honestly pretty annoying that the Romans didn’t just dislike recording details about other religions, they’d actively lie about them, like Tacitus saying the Germanics didn’t have anthroform gods when we have so much proof now that they did.
