Is it just me, or does Cecil’s answer to the goat and devil question demonstrate a remarkable incoherence? It seems like his basic answer to the question is, “I don’t know” (!), followed by a bizarre, rambling, stream of consciousness rumination on what Christian artist “might” have been thinking about. No cites, no supportive material, no quotes from biblical scholars or historians.
While superficially plausible, the statement: “It was only natural that they should seize on the frankly sexual figure of Pan.” just seems out of keeping with the whole SD oeuvre, I mean “it was only natural”? This is the sort of blanket assumption that gets people toasted around the SDMB. It’s also missing a marvelous opportunity to dive into an exploration of western culture’s proclivity to conflate sexuality and sin. It is not “natural” to do so, as not all cultures do this, right?
Please include a link to Cecil’s column if it’s on the straight dope web site.
To include a link, it can be as simple as including the web page location in your post (make sure there is a space before and after the text of the URL).
Cecil’s column can be found on-line at the link provided by adam yax.
It’s the first time I’ve posted to this forum! I had to go to the bathroom! My computer locked up! Aliens stole my brain and switched with GW’s! It’ll never happen again, I swear!
By the way, have any opinions in response to the actual OP?
Granted we don’t know exactly what Cecil is looking at, but I would qualify it as a particular cite.
**
First, we need to find common ground for terms. The devil, the way he/she/it is being talked about in the original question and the original answer is a Christian thing. So you are probably right that “not all cultures do this”, but I would suggest that this is directed to a very specific group at the onset. The opportunity, as you put it, is therefore non-existant since we aren’t dealing with all of western civilization to begin with.
However, Cecil did make the distinction in his response when he said,
Yondan: Is it just me, or does Cecil’s answer to the goat and devil question demonstrate a remarkable incoherence?
I think it’s just you.
Yondan: It seems like his basic answer to the question is, “I don’t know” (!), followed by a bizarre, rambling, stream of consciousness rumination on what Christian artist “might” have been thinking about. No cites, no supportive material, no quotes from biblical scholars or historians.
I think you should reread the article. What I see is the sentence “The goatlike features commonly attributed to the devil derive from the Greek pastoral deity Pan, who was half man, half goat.” which seems a pretty straightforward answer to the question. There is no cite or supportive material given, but that’s common enough in Straight Dope columns. (Remember that the columns are supposed to give information, but also be fairly brief and entertain, which can partly explain the lack of scholarly references.) I personally take the columns at face value (until proven otherwise) because the columns have a very high rate of accuracy.
I think adam yax has addressed the rest of your post.
In his essay on why the devil looks like a goat http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a990604a.html
Mr. Adams mentions a principle that I’ve heard people say before, that the gods of one religion tend to become the demons of the next. What is he basing that on? Of all of the religions and mythologies that I know, the only one I’ve ever heard of doing that is Roman Catholicism. There must be a number of other cases for this to be a general rule, what are they? A lot of religions and mythologies don’t even HAVE demons.
I would like to point out them horns on “Old Nick” is from a billy RAM, NOT a billy GOAT! Though the Christian model for the animal of Satan was the ever present Pan, the deity was the patron of Shepherds.
The other half of the problem I suppose would be compounded by the fact that the symbolic revelers of Dionysus were the Satyrs, and their leader generally so drunk he had to have a clutch of Nymphs to hold him on his, ahem, ass.
These deities of the Goatherds were the HALF GOAT - HALF MAN that we associate with horny, drunken, teenageresque country boys such as myself whom seem to have nothing else to do enaway.
My guess is the problem in the symbology. You couldn’t very well call a sheep or a drunken man the heavy in the celestial game without pointing out that the leader on the opposing team was a “lamb” of sorts. And that old stinky drunk doesn’t do anything for the boys in the home bleachers; if you catch my drift.
Check out the Last Judgement people; the Michelanglo one in the Sistine Chapel. The walls don’t get nearly the press as the ceilings, which is a shame, because you miss out on lots of fun. Mary, Mother of Jesus, in a transparent gauze skirt. Jesus as a beardless and visably pissed-off blond dude who, before some prude painted a rag over his privates was nekkid nekkid. Best of all, Satan, with a snake for a phallus and the face of a cardinal whom Michelangelo did not much like. You also get live skeletons popping out of the earth (Hey, Ray Harryhausen! Check this one out…) and various saints with the symbols of their various executions. This includes a fellow holding his own shucked skin (don’t worry, he is wearing a new one) which has Michelangelo’s face on it! Those renaissance men were full of surprises.
I did re-read the column, and I see what you are saying, but I was so thrown off by the first paragraph, which I quote:
**
…that I found it hard to concentrate on the succeeding text of Cecil’s response. I thought it was amusing and interesting, and I was trying to respond/comment in a similar vein, but I thought it was defintitely different from the rest of Cecil’s writing, in that there was a definite lack of linear coherence. (By the way, if you are reading this, Cecil, I do not mean to sound rude in not addressing you directly. I just can’t imagine that you have enoough time to read the voluminous amounts of mail you must get.)
And another thing, I notice that many posters did not include a link to the original column in their posts, but I have yet to see Mr. Winkelreid cuss at them about it. Was this meant to be funny? Or did I just irritate you in some way?
I suppose I should have put some kind of there. I was just kidding, it gets boring typing in the same text over and over. Can we still be friends?
Also you have more than 100 posts to your name, which means that more is expected from you than from someone who puts their first post here. So you did deserve more than the standard spiel. Change the cussing to a stern “schoolteacher” look.
I don’t think you need to worry too much about hurting Cecil’s feelings, he’s heard a lot worse. In the first paragraph, he is letting his mind roam a little.
The Zoroastrians of Iran turned the gods of the neighboring Hindu civilization of the Indian subcontinent into the demons of Zoroastrianism. The idea also has rather older roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition than you seem to suggest. In the Old Testament, the prophets of the Israelites tended more to say that the gods of their neighbors and enemies were powerless “idols” rather than powerful but evil “demons”. However, later Jewish thought seems to have picked up on the idea of literally “demonizing” alien gods, and this is reflected in the New Testament, where “Beelzebub” (which appears to be a contemptuous twisting of the name of an actual Canaanite deity) goes from a presumably powerless “graven image”, the worship of which offends the true God, to a powerful and malignant evil spirit.
there. I was just kidding, it gets boring typing in the same text over and over. Can we still be friends?