Crossroads Demons and You?

[mswood]

Even if your life is the most agonizing drudgery ever, it is less than an eyeblink compared to eternity. If you believe in heaven and hell (and given that we're talking about making deals with demons in this thread, that's a fair assumption), then why would you even consider making the deal?

The basic assumption is that their are some things worth more then one beings soul.

Say the ability to save hundreds, or thousands, or millions of beings versus your one soul. Would that be a something worth eternity in hell?

Supernatural had their two leads go to hell (at different points). One did it because he couldn't leave without his brother, the other did it to prevent Lucifer from destroying all of humanity (at the worst). Clearly, a considerably larger stake at play then the first.

 

[FordSVT]

So anyone who doesn't say "Yes" to the question either doesn't understand the question or is a sociopath?

No. Anyone who's reaction to the question given with "I'd be sad. :'(" is a sociopath. Go read it again. The question included the stipulation that you loved these people with every ounce of your being and couldn't imagine living a single moment without them in your life. "I'd be sad :'(" is not a viable response to that portion of the question. That's what makes someone a sociopath. Someone who can't feel and has no idea what those words actually mean, his own answer of "I'd be sad :'(" included.

Your inability to separate that from the overall question is a failing on your part, not mine.

Yes, I understand perfectly: every single person in the world who loves their family would automatically answer the question "Yes, I would burn in eternity in order to save the people I love", and if they didn't they're sociopaths who don't know what love is.

You're not interested in discussion, you're beating your opinion over our heads and being condescending to boot.

Again, since you seem to enjoy being belligerent, TNZ is that-away V , you'll fit right in.

 

[Plan 9]

Yes, I understand perfectly:

No. You clearly don't.

You can still admit that losing them would be absolutely devastating and that you'd be willing to endure that miserable existence instead of selling your soul. "I would be sad. :'(" is a pathetic response to the situation proposed, and it's that response that I've spoken about in every single post I've written. Your inability to comprehend that notwithstanding.

You're not interested in discussion, you're beating your opinion over our heads, you condescending little....

I'm more than willing to discuss the topic. It's people like you who can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Vendikarr]

Watch a Canadian show called "The Collector." That show was based on the premise of the Devil's deal, and the consequences.

In this show, you get ten years, but as your time runs out, your deal begins to unravel.

It was a great show, and it's a pity we didn't get it here in the U.S.

Sounds interesting, is it on DVD?

tvshowsondvd.com says yes.

 

[Silvercrest]

Say the ability to save hundreds, or thousands, or millions of beings versus your one soul. Would that be a something worth eternity in hell?

Okay, I'll grant that this situation is a little fuzzier. However, I'm not sure that Heroic Sacrifice To Save The World is in the same category as the Crossroads Demon Deal. The implication is that the demon shows up to offer you some sort of wish gratification, which lasts for ten years. Something you desire badly enough to exchange your soul for. If the demon shows up to offer a means out of a world-threatening situation and you feel you have no choice but to accept, that's not a deal -- it's blackmail. (And you don't even get the ten years!)

Another way of looking at it is this: If a demon contacted me to explain that thousands or millions of people were at stake and that I could save them by offering my soul, I wouldn't believe him.

If I was already aware that thousands or millions of people were at stake and THEN the demon contacted me with the deal, then I wouldn't trust him. There's too great a risk that he fabricated the whole thing just to capture my soul (and no one is really at risk), or that he'll let the people die anyway once he has me. In either case my sacrifice doesn't save anyone.

The only way I might remotely consider it is if I was already aware of the threat and the offer came from someone else. But at that point we're not even talking about the Crossroads Demon Deal at all, so we're off topic.

 

[Smiley]

^ That quote should actually be attributed to mswood, not me.

The offer to save millions in exchange for one soul is not a valid choice no matter how the sentence is interpreted. If you mean save in the secular sense, then the saving is only temporary because everyone dies eventually. Saving souls can only be done by God, so the devil/demon could not offer that in the first place.

A more interesting dilemma would be one without eternal implications. For example, what would be sufficient incentive for somebody to agree to 20 years of hard time in jail?

 

[Silvercrest]

Hmm, not sure how that happened. Fixed.

Good point, though. I believe the implication was supposed to be saving people's lives here on Earth (which I imagine our hypothetical demon could offer). But sacrificing your life to save millions of lives is one thing, while sacrificing your soul to save millions of lives is another. What have you saved, exactly? What if the demon set it up so that all those people are going to hell anyway?

 

[Silvercrest]

I'm more than willing to discuss the topic.

That's good to know -- considering that you've made six posts so far, and the last four were just lambasting other people for being wrong, foolish, or sociopathic.

Feel free to, y'know, discuss the topic.

 

[Othello]

If crossroads demons were real would you try and make bargain with one?

This is the meat of what you wrote. A yes or no question. The answer was no.

You then elaborated on it by saying that the demon or devil in question may not be as simplistic as we're describing. He may, in fact, be more evil or more frightening than what we said.

Okay, why would the answer be anything other than still no? Except louder. Not only "No!", but "Hell No!" (Or possibly "Heck No!", under the circumstances.)

What else did you want?

Because a complex devil may lie but that doesn't mean automatically that everything they tell you or agree to is a lie. I personally don't see how anyone could believe the "simple" version of Satan you describe. Evil that simple would be quite easy to defeat/resist.

 

[Silvercrest]

Actually, I didn't say I believed that particular point. That was Mr. Laser Beam. We have a lot of agreement on this question, but we may not exactly agree on the nature of Satan.

In any event, I'm still trying to understand your objection, because the nature of the hypothetical demon wasn't in question. If he's a simple demon, the answer is no. If he's a complex insidious demon, the answer is still no. It sounds like we both agree on this (since you acknowledge that defeating or resisting him is desirable), so what was your objection?

 

[Plan 9]

I'm more than willing to discuss the topic.

That's good to know -- considering that you've made six posts so far, and the last four were just lambasting other people for being wrong, foolish, or sociopathic.

Hypocrite much?

 

[Silvercrest]

Okay, point taken.

 

[Silvercrest]

Now the radio is playing "The Devil Went Down to Georgia." I think it's a sign.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

If a demon contacted me to explain that thousands or millions of people were at stake and that I could save them by offering my soul, I wouldn't believe him.

If I was already aware that thousands or millions of people were at stake and THEN the demon contacted me with the deal, then I wouldn't trust him.

And that gets directly to the nub of my gist. One cannot ever believe anything a demon (or Satan) says, or trust them in any way. They will always find a way to cheat anyone who tries to deal with them. Even if, when they lay out the terms of the deal, they speak truth, they will go behind your back later (or rig it so it was an unfair question anyway).

That being said, anyone ever seen this episode of the 80's Twilight Zone?

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoQ6ZC8EUQ0[/yt]

 

[Silvercrest]

I especially like the changing T-shirt.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I love that last line: "Get Lost."

 

[Othello]

Actually, I didn't say I believed that particular point. That was Mr. Laser Beam. We have a lot of agreement on this question, but we may not exactly agree on the nature of Satan.

In any event, I'm still trying to understand your objection, because the nature of the hypothetical demon wasn't in question. If he's a simple demon, the answer is no. If he's a complex insidious demon, the answer is still no. It sounds like we both agree on this (since you acknowledge that defeating or resisting him is desirable), so what was your objection?

Ahhhh no.... as there are definitely circumstances where I would make a deal. Our ideas of defeating/resiting are different. Yours is no no matter what and mine isn't. Seeing as I based this off of Supernatural, which admittedly some in the thread likely don't watch, the demons actually do live up to their end of the deal. Make no mistake they tried to get as much out fo you as they can but ultimately they lived up to their ten year part of the deal. Now, understandably some of the people in the thread are going off of a different idea of the demons and that's ok too.

The nature of that evil is important though because, ironically, you actually would desire a more complex evil. A more predictable evil like he envisioned would have a much more difficult time promlegating evil in the world but the more complex version, while having to work harder and smarter and likely to be overall more successful, would also offer areas of exploitation.

 

[Silvercrest]

Okay, I see why you're approaching this from the angle you are. I'm afraid I've never watched Supernatural (and no one mentioned that the show has "honest" demons), so the only way I could interpret this was from the traditional Faustian angle. Which usually ends badly. (Unless you're the demon.)

 

[hyzmarca]

Demons are implicitly lawful. If they could just take your soul then they would without bothering to make any sort of deal. The fact that they do make deals suggests that they can't. And if they can't just take your soul without paying for it, then they also can't cheat you. If they breached the contract then you wouldn't be required to provide payment.

The cliche of being cheated by the devil has more to do with quibbling than actual cheating. The devil is a literal genie and will explicitly follow the plain language of the contract, except that he'll interpret any ambiguities in the wording in the way most favorable to himself. The easiest way around this problem is to have the contract drafted by a contract lawyer, who will know how to word it without introducing such dangerous ambiguities.

 

[Silvercrest]

Actually it's not quite that simple. He doesn't just have to interpret ambiguities in the wording. He can give you everything you ask for, but can still stick it to you. "One billion dollars in gold? No problem!". And one day after you receive it, someone invents a machine that can create gold out of thin air, rendering all your gold worthless.

I referred to "honest" rather than "lawful" because they're not necessarily the same thing. I'll allow that these hypothetical demons may be "lawful" and required to follow the exact terms of the agreement, but someone who's "honest" would undertake the agreement in good faith and wouldn't look for the first loophole to get out of it... or to stick it to you. According to Othello, the demons from "Supernatural" are both. I guess. It's a straight business arrangement. Wish-fulfillment, no messing with your head in the meantime, and at the end of the time period, you deliver.

Whereas the devil as described by Mr. Laser Beam is lawful but not honest, and will do everything he can to make you regret the arrangement. And at the end of the time period, you still deliver.

Personally, I wouldn't deal with either one of them, but I can see how some people might take the chance with the first type.

A contract lawyer? Are you kidding? They already work for the opposition! Talk about conflict of interests....