Brilliant Insights from Theodore Dalrymple (and, um, Paul Krugman, I Guess)

 

At the bottom of the Wikipedia page for Theodore Dalrymple, they list a few recurring themes from his writing. I was so impressed with this list, that I couldn’t help but share it. Somebody did a nice job summarizing such complex themes so concisely. And each bullet point is a brilliant insight that should be posted on billboards all over the country. Sorry for all the hyperlinks – again, I just copied and pasted this from Wikipedia. Enjoy:

  • The cause of much contemporary misery in Western countries – criminality, domestic violencedrug addiction, aggressive youths, hooliganism, broken families – is the nihilisticdecadent and/or self-destructive behaviour of people who do not know how to live. Both the smoothing over of this behaviour, and the medicalisation of the problems that emerge as a corollary of this behaviour, are forms of indifference. Someone has to tell those people, patiently and with understanding for the particulars of the case, that they have to live differently.[26]
  • Poverty does not explain aggressive, criminal and self-destructive behaviour. In an African slum you will find among the very poor, living in dreadful circumstances, dignity and decency in abundance, which are painfully lacking in an average English suburb, although its inhabitants are much wealthier.[27]
  • An attitude characterised by gratefulness and having obligations towards others has been replaced – with awful consequences – by an awareness of “rights” and a sense of entitlement, without responsibilities. This leads to resentment as the rights become violated by parents, authorities, bureaucracies and others in general.[28]
  • One of the things that make Islam attractive to young westernised Muslim men is the opportunity it gives them to dominate women.[29]
  • Technocratic or bureaucratic solutions to the problems of mankind produce disasters in cases where the nature of man is the root cause of those problems.
  • It is a myth, when going “cold turkey” from an opiate such as heroin, that the withdrawal symptoms are virtually unbearable; they are in fact hardly worse than flu.[30][31]
  • Criminality is much more often the cause of drug addiction than its consequence.
  • Sentimentality, which is becoming entrenched in British society, is “the progenitor, the godparent, the midwife of brutality”.[32]
  • High culture and refined aesthetic tastes are worth defending, and despite the protestations of non-judgmentalists who say all expression is equal, they are superior to popular culture.[33][34][35]
  • The ideology of the Welfare State is used to diminish personal responsibility. Erosion of personal responsibility makes people dependent on institutions and favours the existence of a threatening and vulnerable underclass.
  • Moral relativism can easily be a trick of an egotistical mind to silence the voice of conscience.[36]
  • Multiculturalism and cultural relativism are at odds with common sense.[37]
  • The decline of civilised behaviour – self-restraint, modesty, zeal, humility, irony, detachment – ruins social and personal life.[38]
  • The root cause of our contemporary cultural poverty is intellectual dishonesty. First, the intellectuals (more specifically, left-wing ones) have destroyed the foundation of culture, and second, they refuse to acknowledge it by resorting to the caves of political correctness.

I agree with many of his points, and I would love to debate with him on the others. We would have a wonderful conversation, I would imagine. But that wasn’t my first thought.

After reading this list, I wondered where I would go to read an equivalent summary of leftist thought. I honestly can’t imagine.

A friend once asked me why there was no leftist equivalent of Thomas Sowell. I flippantly responded, “Because Thomas Sowell makes sense. And leftism doesn’t.” We both laughed at my silly insult.

There must be more to it than that, right? There must be leftist writers struggling with the great questions of our day, like Mr. Sowell and Mr. Dalrymple. And Walter Williams and Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson and Larry Elder and Kevin Williamson and Jonah Goldberg and Victor Davis Hanson and on and on and on and on. So many fascinating thinkers, with so many different perspectives, on so many important topics, having so many fascinating conversations.

The left has Bill Maher. And AOC, I guess. I suppose they would claim Paul Krugman. I’m sure there are some others. What would a list of the great contemporary thinkers of the left look like?

And then imagine what a summary of their ideas would look like. Like the list above from the writings of Mr. Dalrymple. What would Mr. Krugman’s list look like? Or Bill Maher’s? Or, Lord help us, AOC’s?

No wonder the left talks about racism and climate change so much. Their ideas are uninspiring and uninteresting. They’re dangerous, too, of course, if you look at history. Which leftists typically do not.

But that’s not my point. It’s just that I would think that being a leftist would be terribly boring, for a thinking person.

I should go read some of Mr. Dalrymple’s work. I suspect I’ll learn something.

When a leftist reads Paul Krugman, or listens to Bill Maher or AOC, does that leftist learn anything?

I’m not sure. But I don’t think they care.

Which I don’t understand. Such a life must be terribly boring.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 57 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Ansonia (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat:

    Criminality is much more often the cause of drug addiction than its consequence.

    I don’t follow the logic of this. Anybody?

    I think it’s similar to an exorcist telling you the possessed person was doing something, or living in some way, that let the demon in.

    I can’t speak for Mr. “Dalrymple,” but my own interpretation of the comment (with which I agree) is this:

    It’s often asserted that people steal to support their drug habits. While that’s undoubtedly true, it suggests that, but for their slide into addiction, these people would have avoided a life of crime: it’s the relentless demand to feed their addiction that compels them to pursue crime.

    I think what the author is suggesting is that debilitating drug use is the kind of poor life choice that people inclined to break the rules and the law tend to pursue, and that it is more generally accurate to say that criminals take up hard drugs than it is to say that hard drug users take up crime.

    Why does it matter? Some tend to apply an illness model to addiction, separating it from the realm of volition and choice and equating it with any other health problem. If we see criminality as the consequence of addiction, we form a perhaps unrealistic view of the character of the criminal addict, seeing him as the victim of a medical condition rather than the victim of his own unwillingness to participate in life as a responsible citizen. That perception could shape our approach to policy, encouraging us to work to prevent addiction when more attention might reasonably be given to factors that influence criminal behavior in young men, such as education, gang formation, parenting, jobs, etc.

    My take on his comment, anyway.

    • #31
  2. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I think what the author is suggesting is that debilitating drug use is the kind of poor life choice that people inclined to break the rules and the law tend to pursue

    I believe that is exactly what Theodore Dalrymple has said.

     

    • #32
  3. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    If we see criminality as the consequence of addiction, we form a perhaps unrealistic view of the character of the criminal addict, seeing him as the victim of a medical condition rather than the victim of his own unwillingness to participate in life as a responsible citizen.

    That unwillingness is precisely the condition.  Or rather an indicator.

    People say ( or said, I’m old) “get out of it” to mean get high. And that’s accurate, it describes a desire to not be “in it”, to not be fully present in their own life.  A wish, or even need, to be absent.

    Spoiler alert: that tells you that the problem is their life.  (And that problem is not poverty, imho.)

    But to link to the OP – strong drink, or hard drugs, or extreme ideological or religious investment can all serve the same purpose when it comes to this. They give an individual a way to be not fully present in their own life. Again, jmnsho.

    • #33
  4. Franco Member
    Franco
    @Franco

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    It’s often asserted that people steal to support their drug habits. While that’s undoubtedly true, it suggests that, but for their slide into addiction, these people would have avoided a life of crime: it’s the relentless demand to feed their addiction that compels them to pursue crime.

    I think what the author is suggesting is that debilitating drug use is the kind of poor life choice that people inclined to break the rules and the law tend to pursue, and that it is more generally accurate to say that criminals take up hard drugs than it is to say that hard drug users take up crime.

    This is too absolutist – even tautological – for any reasonable exploration into this phenomenon.

    So the 14 year-old kid who smokes a joint where it’s illegal is innately a “criminal”, because he was inclined to “break the rules”? 

    Where does that kind of thinking begin and end?

    I noticed you are using the term “hard drugs”. Does that mean addictive drugs? How do define hard drugs?

    If something is criminalized – let’s say owning a shotgun in Maryland, is the person who keeps one  a de facto criminal because he didn’t obey the law? 

    Are you able to separate ‘criminality’ and immorality, or are they one and the same? 

    • #34
  5. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Dr. Bastiat: High culture and refined aesthetic tastes are worth defending, and despite the protestations of non-judgmentalists who say all expression is equal, they are superior to popular culture.[33][34][35]

    This is the one I would have debate on. Often, popular culture eventually exhibits characteristics of high culture, at least where the proles are attempting to imitate the high culture.

    So popular culture is a mimicry of high culture.

    My irritation with the formulation is that it implies popular culture originated the crass culture we have today, but, in fact, much of our crass popular culture began in High Culture. While popular culture is more vulgar than high culture, when high culture abandons certain rigor, popular culture emulates the same lack.

    High Culture, to be worthy of preservation, must seek inspiration in truth and beauty, rather than seeking deconstruction around every corner (which has been it’s pretentious wont for decades, if not a centennia). Popular culture would be better for it.

    • #35
  6. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    Dr. Bastiat (View Comment):

    And I’d love to hear him explain the link between sentimentality and brutality.  I’m not sure I disagree, I’ve just never thought about it.  Very interesting thought…

    Sentimentality frequently attaches itself to a particular object, which then, in attempts to protect or cherish that object, accepts all manner of brutality on all that threatens it.

    The planet? Support population control measures. Your own people? Support genocide of foreigners. Blacks? Support oppression of white people. The poor? Resdistributive justice against the rich.

    The more sentimentality exists, the harsher to the perceived threat. Think hoarders as the ultimate extreme in sentimentality.

    Compassion, I think, is viewed outside the sentimental framework, as compassion should not be divorced from an accurate accounting of that receiving compassion and is not limited to viewing only one thing with compassion.

    The left has an over abundance of sentimentality and a paucity of compassion.

    • #36
  7. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Franco (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    It’s often asserted that people steal to support their drug habits. While that’s undoubtedly true, it suggests that, but for their slide into addiction, these people would have avoided a life of crime: it’s the relentless demand to feed their addiction that compels them to pursue crime.

    I think what the author is suggesting is that debilitating drug use is the kind of poor life choice that people inclined to break the rules and the law tend to pursue, and that it is more generally accurate to say that criminals take up hard drugs than it is to say that hard drug users take up crime.

    This is too absolutist – even tautological – for any reasonable exploration into this phenomenon.

    I think you and I are probably missing each others’ points pretty thoroughly. I’ll try to explain mine more clearly.

    The author’s phrase was this: “Criminality is much more often the cause of drug addiction than its consequence.”

    It should be clear from that that the author is speaking of instances in which both crime and drug addiction are present. That’s necessary for any claim of causation, in either direction. I think we can also assume that the author was not making a facile argument that, since the possession of illegal drugs is itself illegal, it follows that all users of illegal drugs must necessarily be criminal. I’m going to credit him with making a more nuanced point.

    So the 14 year-old kid who smokes a joint where it’s illegal is innately a “criminal”, because he was inclined to “break the rules”?

    As I said, I don’t think this is what the author had in mind, any more than he meant to include every minor who drank a beer or smoked a cigarette. I think we should try to read his comment as having a larger point.

    Where does that kind of thinking begin and end?

    It does seem kind of simplistic and silly, doesn’t it? Let’s assume it wasn’t what the author was saying.

    I noticed you are using the term “hard drugs”. Does that mean addictive drugs? How do define hard drugs?

    The author spoke of addictive drugs. I was trying to distinguish those drugs most likely to correlate strongly with significant criminal behavior, rather than the whole world of legal and illegal drugs. Some very addictive drugs probably don’t correlate very strongly with criminal behavior — nicotine, for example. Others, such as heroin and methamphetamines, probably more so. I don’t have a particular definition in mind for “hard” drugs; feel free to replace the word with “powerful and addictive” if you like.

    If something is criminalized – let’s say owning a shotgun in Maryland, is the person who keeps one a de facto criminal because he didn’t obey the law?

    Well, I think lawbreaking is generally one of the first warning signs that one might be a criminal, yes.

    Are you able to separate ‘criminality’ and immorality, or are they one and the same?

    That’s an odd question. I suspect they tend to correlate pretty well, in that people who engage in significant crime probably exhibit behavior which most of us would consider immoral. (I’m not sure it goes the other way.) But I don’t think I understand the point you’re trying to make.

    • #37
  8. Weeping Inactive
    Weeping
    @Weeping

    Ansonia (View Comment):

    Before we can fairly come up with a list of their themes, we have to come up with a fair list of contemporary leftist thinkers.

    Question: Does Mark Lane qualify as a leftist ? I’m mesmerized listening on audible to his last book on the assassination of J.F.K.. ( It certainly has me persuaded that the C.I.A. did it.)

    This is something I’ve never heard an explanation for before. Why does he think the CIA did it? What would have been their reasoning?

    • #38
  9. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Ansonia (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat:

    Criminality is much more often the cause of drug addiction than its consequence.

    I don’t follow the logic of this. Anybody?

    I think it’s similar to an exorcist telling you the possessed person was doing something, or living in some way, that let the demon in. The possessed person isn’t exactly a completely an innocent victim of the demon.

    In the non-Chistian world’s not all the demons were bad. Some gave knowledge and power. 

    • #39
  10. Django Member
    Django
    @Django

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I think what the author is suggesting is that debilitating drug use is the kind of poor life choice that people inclined to break the rules and the law tend to pursue

    I believe that is exactly what Theodore Dalrymple has said.

     

    Half a century ago the phrase “monkey on my back” was common among jazz musicians. Charlie Parker used to tell younger musicians who emulated his style that heroin was his thing and that they didn’t need it to play. I read that Anita O’Day was hooked for a while. Was playing jazz the reason for addiction? Or was it just part of the lifestyle? 

    • #40
  11. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Django (View Comment):

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I think what the author is suggesting is that debilitating drug use is the kind of poor life choice that people inclined to break the rules and the law tend to pursue

    I believe that is exactly what Theodore Dalrymple has said.

     

    Half a century ago the phrase “monkey on my back” was common among jazz musicians. Charlie Parker used to tell younger musicians who emulated his style that heroin was his thing and that they didn’t need it to play. I read that Anita O’Day was hooked for a while. Was playing jazz the reason for addiction? Or was it just part of the lifestyle?

    I’m not sure that your last two questions aren’t really one question: was addiction a common part of the lifestyle of a jazz player?

    I think it is the author’s contention that addiction is a common component of a criminal’s lifestyle.

    Perhaps if one replaces the word criminal with “rock star” the author’s point becomes more clear. In those cases where a rockstar is also a drug addict, do we believe that the addiction followed the stardom and the lifestyle it entailed, or do we think that the addiction perhaps brought about the talent that lead to fame?

    I think the author’s point is that addiction to illegal drugs is more often a product of unconventional living than the cause of it.

    • #41
  12. Eustace C. Scrubb Member
    Eustace C. Scrubb
    @EustaceCScrubb

    The Left considers Ta-Nehisi Coates an intellectual. He did after all write a number of Marvel comics.

    • #42
  13. J Climacus Member
    J Climacus
    @JClimacus

    A list of thinkers that have inspired/generated today’s leftism would include Herbert Marcuse, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Richard Rorty, Saul Alinsky, Paul Krugman, Tom Friedman, Paul Ehrlich, Margaret Sanger, Betty Friedan, among others. I guess for current leftist thought we’d have to go to someone like Ta Nihesi Coates. One thing that sticks out about current leftist thinkers vs the ones of the past is that the ones of the past, as wrong as they were, were at least erudite.

    • #43
  14. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Franco (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    It’s often asserted that people steal to support their drug habits. While that’s undoubtedly true, it suggests that, but for their slide into addiction, these people would have avoided a life of crime: it’s the relentless demand to feed their addiction that compels them to pursue crime.

    I think what the author is suggesting is that debilitating drug use is the kind of poor life choice that people inclined to break the rules and the law tend to pursue, and that it is more generally accurate to say that criminals take up hard drugs than it is to say that hard drug users take up crime.

    This is too absolutist – even tautological – for any reasonable exploration into this phenomenon.

    I think you and I are probably missing each others’ points pretty thoroughly. I’ll try to explain mine more clearly.

    The author’s phrase was this: “Criminality is much more often the cause of drug addiction than its consequence.”

    . . .

    Franco, you should take a look at some of Dalrymple’s books and essays. That should clear up any doubts about what he meant in these quotes. Dalrymple, by the way, worked for many years as a physician in a prison and in a very poor neighborhood.

    • #44
  15. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Eustace C. Scrubb (View Comment):

    The Left considers Ta-Nehisi Coates an intellectual. He did after all write a number of Marvel comics.

    Many Marvel Comics are more sophisticated and thoughtful than Ta-Nehisi’s books. 

    • #45
  16. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Ansonia (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat:

    Criminality is much more often the cause of drug addiction than its consequence.

    I don’t follow the logic of this. Anybody?

    I think it’s similar to an exorcist telling you the possessed person was doing something, or living in some way, that let the demon in.

    I can’t speak for Mr. “Dalrymple,” but my own interpretation of the comment (with which I agree) is this:

    It’s often asserted that people steal to support their drug habits. While that’s undoubtedly true, it suggests that, but for their slide into addiction, these people would have avoided a life of crime: it’s the relentless demand to feed their addiction that compels them to pursue crime.

    I think what the author is suggesting is that debilitating drug use is the kind of poor life choice that people inclined to break the rules and the law tend to pursue, and that it is more generally accurate to say that criminals take up hard drugs than it is to say that hard drug users take up crime.

    Why does it matter? Some tend to apply an illness model to addiction, separating it from the realm of volition and choice and equating it with any other health problem. If we see criminality as the consequence of addiction, we form a perhaps unrealistic view of the character of the criminal addict, seeing him as the victim of a medical condition rather than the victim of his own unwillingness to participate in life as a responsible citizen. That perception could shape our approach to policy, encouraging us to work to prevent addiction when more attention might reasonably be given to factors that influence criminal behavior in young men, such as education, gang formation, parenting, jobs, etc.

    My take on his comment, anyway.

    “….seeing him as the victim of a medical condition rather than the victim of his own unwillingness to participate in life as a responsible citizen.”

    Exactly.  That unwillingness made possible the choice to abuse the drugs to which he or she became addicted.

    • #46
  17. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    J Climacus (View Comment):
    One thing that sticks out about current leftist thinkers vs the ones of the past is that the ones of the past, as wrong as they were, were at least erudite.

    I might have to disagree with that. Foucalt was so clearly nonsensical even if he was a very good writer. 

    • #47
  18. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    Weeping (View Comment):

    Ansonia (View Comment):

    Before we can fairly come up with a list of their themes, we have to come up with a fair list of contemporary leftist thinkers.

    Question: Does Mark Lane qualify as a leftist ? I’m mesmerized listening on audible to his last book on the assassination of J.F.K.. ( It certainly has me persuaded that the C.I.A. did it.)

    This is something I’ve never heard an explanation for before. Why does he think the CIA did it? What would have been their reasoning?

    According to Mark Lane, the reasoning or motive of some people within the C.I.A. for getting rid of Kennedy would have been to prevent Kennedy from diminishing the C.I.A. and ending the careers of certain people within it. Lane believes that  Kennedy, if elected again, would have made the C.I.A. a lot less powerful; a lot more limited to intelligence gathering and a lot more responsive to the President’s desire for information.

    The process of bringing that about would have cost powerful people within the C.I.A. their jobs and reputations and, maybe, put a few of them in jail.

    • #48
  19. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Ansonia (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat:

    Criminality is much more often the cause of drug addiction than its consequence.

    I don’t follow the logic of this. Anybody?

    I think it’s similar to an exorcist telling you the possessed person was doing something, or living in some way, that let the demon in. The possessed person isn’t exactly a completely an innocent victim of the demon.

    In the non-Chistian world’s not all the demons were bad. Some gave knowledge and power.

    Yeah, that’s what I heard. In the pre-Christian world a demon was a god.

    Anyway, according to an exorcist, obtaining or seeking to obtain knowledge, or power or whatever, in some  way forbidden by God, would make one more vulnerable to those “gods”. Right ?

    • #49
  20. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Ansonia (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Ansonia (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat:

    Criminality is much more often the cause of drug addiction than its consequence.

    I don’t follow the logic of this. Anybody?

    I think it’s similar to an exorcist telling you the possessed person was doing something, or living in some way, that let the demon in. The possessed person isn’t exactly a completely an innocent victim of the demon.

    In the non-Chistian world’s not all the demons were bad. Some gave knowledge and power.

    Yeah, that’s what I heard. In the pre-Christian world a demon was a god.

    Anyway, according to an exorcist, obtaining or seeking to obtain knowledge, or power or whatever, in some way forbidden by God would make one more vulnerable to those “gods”, Right ?

    It is common for Christians writers to think that the old gods were either sided with Satan or they were the Angels that left heaven but did not side with hell. So Molech and Ba’al were viewed as Satanic gods because they were way into human sacrifice and the Irish gods were the descendants of fallen Angels but they weren’t insanely vicious like some of the Semitic gods (well most of the Irish gods anyway.) Milton talked alot about that.

    However, I don’t know what the exorcists believed in.

    • #50
  21. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Dalrymple”s best insight was the story he relates of talking to prisoners about how they came to be criminals-they would all say “I fell in with the wrong crowd”. He would reply-“It’s strange that I meet so many people who fall in with the wrong crowd, but I never meet any member of the wrong crowd itself”.  He said they would all either laugh or flash a sheepish grin after he said that.

    • #51
  22. Ansonia Member
    Ansonia
    @Ansonia

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Ansonia (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Ansonia (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat:

    Criminality is much more often the cause of drug addiction than its consequence.

    I don’t follow the logic of this. Anybody?

    I think it’s similar to an exorcist telling you the possessed person was doing something, or living in some way, that let the demon in. The possessed person isn’t exactly a completely an innocent victim of the demon.

    In the non-Chistian world’s not all the demons were bad. Some gave knowledge and power.

    Yeah, that’s what I heard. In the pre-Christian world a demon was a god.

    Anyway, according to an exorcist, obtaining or seeking to obtain knowledge, or power or whatever, in some way forbidden by God would make one more vulnerable to those “gods”, Right ?

    It is common for Christians writers to think that the old gods were either sided with Satan or they were the Angels that left heaven but did not side with hell. So Molech and Ba’al were viewed as Satanic gods because they were way into human sacrifice and the Irish gods were the descendants of fallen Angels but they weren’t insanely vicious like some of the Semitic gods (well most of the Irish gods anyway.) Milton talked alot about that.

    However, I don’t know what the exorcists believed in.

    Has any archaeological evidence of child or human sacrifice been discovered in Ireland ? I read somewhere, years ago, that such a discovery had been made. The person was writing about it very cautiously, but human sacrifice seemed to me to be what she was saying the archaeological discovery indicated.

    C.S. Lewis also seemed to be very open to the idea that there were, or had been for a time, gods who were not in heaven but had not sided with Satan. (At the same time, obviously, he would have thought it evil and dangerous to put them before God. He seemed to view them as potentially destructive to people who gave them….more of a place in their lives than they were meant to have.)

    • #52
  23. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Ansonia (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Ansonia (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Ansonia (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat:

    Criminality is much more often the cause of drug addiction than its consequence.

    I don’t follow the logic of this. Anybody?

    I think it’s similar to an exorcist telling you the possessed person was doing something, or living in some way, that let the demon in. The possessed person isn’t exactly a completely an innocent victim of the demon.

    In the non-Chistian world’s not all the demons were bad. Some gave knowledge and power.

    Yeah, that’s what I heard. In the pre-Christian world a demon was a god.

    Anyway, according to an exorcist, obtaining or seeking to obtain knowledge, or power or whatever, in some way forbidden by God would make one more vulnerable to those “gods”, Right ?

    It is common for Christians writers to think that the old gods were either sided with Satan or they were the Angels that left heaven but did not side with hell. So Molech and Ba’al were viewed as Satanic gods because they were way into human sacrifice and the Irish gods were the descendants of fallen Angels but they weren’t insanely vicious like some of the Semitic gods (well most of the Irish gods anyway.) Milton talked alot about that.

    However, I don’t know what the exorcists believed in.

    Has any archaeological evidence of child or human sacrifice been discovered in Ireland ? I read somewhere, years ago, that such a discovery had been made. The person was writing about it very cautiously, but human sacrifice seemed to me to be what she was saying the archaeological discovery indicated.

    Thomas Cahill said there was human sacrifice. I also listened to a podcast about an ancient artifact in Ireland with human sacrifice written on it. Human sacrifice was like the in thing for two thousand years. 

    • #53
  24. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):
    Human sacrifice was like the in thing for two thousand years. 

    That’s nothing compared to how all the cool people do it now.  

    • #54
  25. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Ansonia (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Ansonia (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Ansonia (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Dr. Bastiat:

    Criminality is much more often the cause of drug addiction than its consequence.

    I don’t follow the logic of this. Anybody?

    I think it’s similar to an exorcist telling you the possessed person was doing something, or living in some way, that let the demon in. The possessed person isn’t exactly a completely an innocent victim of the demon.

    In the non-Chistian world’s not all the demons were bad. Some gave knowledge and power.

    Yeah, that’s what I heard. In the pre-Christian world a demon was a god.

    Anyway, according to an exorcist, obtaining or seeking to obtain knowledge, or power or whatever, in some way forbidden by God would make one more vulnerable to those “gods”, Right ?

    It is common for Christians writers to think that the old gods were either sided with Satan or they were the Angels that left heaven but did not side with hell. So Molech and Ba’al were viewed as Satanic gods because they were way into human sacrifice and the Irish gods were the descendants of fallen Angels but they weren’t insanely vicious like some of the Semitic gods (well most of the Irish gods anyway.) Milton talked alot about that.

    However, I don’t know what the exorcists believed in.

    Has any archaeological evidence of child or human sacrifice been discovered in Ireland ? I read somewhere, years ago, that such a discovery had been made. The person was writing about it very cautiously, but human sacrifice seemed to me to be what she was saying the archaeological discovery indicated.

    C.S. Lewis also seemed to be very open to the idea that there were, or had been for a time, gods who were not in heaven but had not sided with Satan. (At the same time, obviously, he would have thought it evil and dangerous to put them before God. He seemed to view them as potentially destructive to people who gave them….more of a place in their lives than they were meant to have.)

    I assume you mean angels who were not in heaven rather than gods since there is only one God.

    • #55
  26. Stina Inactive
    Stina
    @CM

    MiMac (View Comment):
    I assume you mean angels who were not in heaven rather than gods since there is only one God.

    There are people who try to understand The Hebrew plural in the OT.

    • #56
  27. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    The left expresses itself in f bombs and accusations, not words of wisdom. When words fail them, they post memes.

    • #57
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.