Comments on The Lore of the “Djinn”-- a page from my somewhat unusual past

Go to The Agnostics Primer - Add a comment - Go to The Lore of the “Djinn”-- a page from my somewhat unusual past

I look forward to the next post.

Why not both animistic and monotheistic? One made of many.

posted by justAcarpenter on December 18, 2004 at 11:23 AM | link to this | reply

Rovesciato

I agree wholeheartedly that "spiritualism" is essentially the same regardless of the belief system, regardless of the particular decoration of the church, regardless of the particular doctrines. Spiritualism is a misnomer anyway, since none of us can observe a spirit (except perhaps the blogger Kay-Ren), since none of us can objectively isolate or identify our own spirit, and since every believer agrees that spirits can be GOOD or EVIL! If spirits can be good or evil (ethical or unethical), then was is the big deal about "being spiritual?" It all comes down to ethics or morals-- how we treat our fellow beings, and how we react to them, and how we communicate with them. Do a good job of that in the flesh here and now, and your "spirituality" will take care of itself.

Aside from that, who is to say that the animistic beliefs are any less valid than the monotheistic beliefs? They may be different perspectives on the same reality. Jesus cast unethical demons out of a man into a herd of pigs, did he not? He taught of the "holy spirit", an ethical spiritual force of God that permeates our world. He taught of angels. He taught of cherabim and seraphim, presumably different species of ethical spiritual beings. Demons, spirits, angels, cherabim, seraphim.... Jesus taught that spirits and spirit forces are everywhere, and that they can be good or evil. That is the basic belief of animism.

You are right, most people definitely want a label, an identity with a group, a hierarchy, and a sense of belongingness. And they are willing to kill and be killed for it. This situation seems to be getting worse now in world history, thanks to the fanatical, tyrannical, Jihadist wing of Islam. Too bad we can't get some good Djinn to go kick some terrorist butt! For as you will see in my next post, the Djinn do not seem to as inhibited as the spirits of other cultures, in their interactions with humans.

posted by GoldenMean on December 17, 2004 at 7:59 PM | link to this | reply

sounds like the muslims found it just as hard to throw off their pagan animistic roots as the christians did. its like this tussle between the season's greetings people and the merry christmas people, if they all realized that almost all religious traditions are either perverted by or wholly pagan and that spiritualism is well neigh the same regaurdless of the trappings people might feel a little silly about being either offended or indignant. but i guess what people really want is a label and they're willing to scrape for it. anyway, back to the djinn.

posted by rovesciato on December 16, 2004 at 12:55 AM | link to this | reply

They are Demons.

A Succubus is a female demon who has sexual intercourse with a man while he sleeps, and an Incubus is her male counterpart. These are demons from medieval european folklore.

I'm looking forward to your next post.

posted by jrmypatt on December 14, 2004 at 9:52 AM | link to this | reply

Those are some interesting questions/theories

Are the Djinn just an imaginary scapegoat, or can spiritual beings really get horny? I don't know. I can see how spirit beings could be envious of the pleasures of the flesh, and indulge in a little fling, if they are able to. But as you will see in my next post, the Arabs take the Djinn very seriously, fear them, and attribute crimes to them. Perhaps spirit beings are more active in places where they are feared, because it gives them more influence over the fearful humans.

I don't know what succubi and incubi are. Perhaps you could explain.

posted by GoldenMean on December 13, 2004 at 8:17 PM | link to this | reply

Could the Djinn be a representative of guilt?

Can the djinn be compared to the succubi and incubi? Is it possible that there is some supernatural force that sexually violates people in their sleep, and causes different cultures to give them different names? Do you believe in the possibility that these tories are religious explanations for wet dreams? I think that people in the past felt guilty for their sexuality, so they found a reason for what they were doing. You said that your friend's culture looks down on our sexual expression, so it would only seem likely to me that his ancestors needed a scapegoat for their transgressions.

posted by jrmypatt on December 12, 2004 at 7:35 PM | link to this | reply