Never satisfied: illustrating that proverb about man's insatiability...

The song's been out a while, but every time I hear it I think of the proverb, "Hell and destruction are never full; so the eyes of man are never satisfied" (Proverbs 27:20 KJV).

--"Gold Guns Girls" is the fourth single from Canadian rock group Metric's fourth studio album Fantasies..." [Wikipedia]

(Discovering that my cheap computer speakers don't hold a candle to the cheap workvan speakers while I'm at it: this song is somewhat trance inducing for the harmonies and softness, contrasted by the language and material.)

It's one of those verses which translated as that above betrays Hebrew idiom, appropriately so given, as we know, our hunger for spectacle, but by extension, signifying man's extensive and unending desires.

I thought on this, after hearing this song today, about said desires, their throbbing passions, and how not only are they turned to evil, though once they were good, now corrupted by our natures, and thusly turned to violence and harm, but that one could speculate of their greatness, that it evinces a glimpse of how great is the Creator who made their possessors--yet captives, and so also is evinced by their intensities, yet like all good things misused, become evil.

So the language appropriate, "Sheol and Abaddon", death and destruction, the wage or reward and eternal abode of all sinful. Many admire men just for greatness and intensity of passion (mindedness) and desire. There are aspects of which we deem worthy and admirable , but also the caveat of the nature of man's mind and wishes, because of his current nature, and the means by which he will attempt to gain ills(the one even freaked out simply by the divisive label "Chrisi; even that desired which is of itself good, he intends often only for his own misuse, and so corrupts in his heart before obtainment.

I mentioned good turned evil. I meant that: once a friend invited me to a Church small group he attended, and I remember the head of this gathering asking a rhetorical question (i.e. he intended to go there but asked and wanted some group participation points), that is, "where does evil come from"; "It's merely the misuse of good", I said, and then he continued as though the origin of evil were still a problem, "we don't really know where...", as if evil were some abstract and intangible, reified entity, not really knowing what to do with that answer or not wanting to do so, which after all may seem so simple.

But the sudden impulse to move on disturbed the buddy, "but wait, he just answered it...", his voice just trailed off in something of shock to the response. Do we not see it, though, in the very opening pages of Genesis, where the lovely and desirable and good become twisted to misuse, when the weak sex is deceived to disobey God's command. Do we not see it when the Man listens to his wife--which is not a bad thing in itself, but in that which leads to disobedience--which is, and in so doing, ushering in sin and death not only over them, but upon all his posterity? Desire and the desirable, loveliness and love, good for and good use, all wrecked by ill use.

We hear this all the time: "Evangelicals" strike up conversations on sex and homosexuality, and point-out that sex is good, misuse--or use against its intent--is bad. Ancient Greeks understood this too, that is, that nature itself demonstrated an order to things, and deviation was a violation of the law.

But then we hear evil reified and entitied, rather than recognized as a potential qualification of any act, or synonyms such as bad, wicked, or ill, which is probably among the most appropriate due to the expression ill use, while evil perhaps remains viable for concordance, and ties to older, more obscure senses.

What gets lost is sight of why something is used well or to ill, and why that makes the use good or bad/evil/ill.