Is Satan a freedom fighter?

[blazeofglory]

Satan, the word sounds rather disgusting to those whose minds are preoccupied with some ideas they have through others or reading the Bible.

Satan is in point of fact a freedom seeker and does not want to submit to the tyranny of God.

In fact God wants that all submit to his command, Satan, uncommon and un-submissive launched a number of raids and did not want to coordinate with God. He therefore raised or inspired his legions seeking distinct space for them.

In today's world also if any freedom fighters set themselves against the tyranny of their rulers they will be exiled.

Satan is in everyone of us, inherently, and we do not become explicit dreading the unthinkable.

Do not take Satan differently. He is like all of us who want a self chosen government and he does not want any dictator to govern over us.

God is a traditional ruler. He had succeeded in programming the minds of his subjects that he is almighty and that he is the creator of everything.

Yes every religion has a god and devil too.

[Hypercrit Htd]

Torah say He God son but not accept all God say, want thing his own way, want humans to suffer. Koran say He only disloyal to humans not to God It seem He act nasty because He know he cursed til the Day of Judgement. That seem to be very human trait so he similar to humans but has very close relationship to God.

[Virgil]

I think of Satan as a deranged convict trying to break out of jail. :D I guess he's trying to get freedom, but more like avoid punishment.

[JBI]

Satan doesn't really come into play in the Jewish tradition, as lets say, Yahweh. In fact, he doesn't really factor in much at all in the Jewish canonical work.

As for Christians, one can think many things. It would depend what sect of Christianity, but I think everyone agrees he is Evil, evil, evil. I believe the rebellious sympathetic Satan is a Miltonic invention, one that would not fit with the mindset of the Jews around 0 BCE, who, after all, in a few short years, would embark on the Great Revolt would have thought so. They, as it seems, would have interpreted Satan as a sort of Titus, a form which seems to have actually been rooted in that period. Surely it is believable that the Jews at that point would not have considered someone who rebelled against God to be good, in that sense, but would rather have just attributed him to his enemys (as seems the likely source of the foundation of Satan, and the fallen angel).

[Virgil]

Well, JBI, Satan isn't exactly prominant in the New Testament. In fact I would think he's most prominant in The Book of Job.

[patrickbeverley]

I do rather like that view of Satan. It certainly makes works like Paradise Lost (and even the Book of Genesis) more interesting to have a morally ambiguous conflict at the heart of the narrative.

[JBI]

I know, but remember the New Books are, traditionally, supposed to be just as 'true' as the Old Books. Jesus is supposed to be the prophesied Messiah as hinted at in Jeremiah. The rabbinic tradition holds nothing about such "heroic fighters" as, lets say, the Greek tradition, and in fact, the concept of Satan as a "freedom fighter" goes against the Early Christian, and Judaic mindset of the foundation of Christianity. Satan is not sympathetic at all, I have found by scholarship and sources, until really Milton. I can't find that sort of sympathy, which I believe borrowed from Shakespeare, and his hero-villains, until Milton created him.

[kasie]

Blaze - these are the ideas Philip Pullman uses in the His Dark Materials trilogy. Pullman is regarded as a wicked atheist by some critics!

[NickAdams]

What do you think about Satan's role in Paradise Regained, as the tempter of Christ?

Is he the man in the van luring children with candy, or a politician asking, "Do you want lower taxes and free health care?"

He is certainly not the Pied Piper. He offers and this is an option. God demanded and Satan suggested. God says don't and not. One thing is clear: Satan is a master of customer service.:lol:

[JBI]

That's Miltonic Satan. Biblical Satan has no redeeming qualities.

[blazeofglory]

I am often confused. We read in the New Testament Love your enemy. But then why should we hate Satan? Everyone of us is a bit of Satan. No matter how high are we elevated spiritually, religiously, we are still a bit of satanic proportions.

In point of fact, logically speaking what we call satanic is something heightened by saintliness. If we are unaware of or apathetic towards saintliness we become totally unconcerned about devilishness. In essence both compliment each other or they are not mutually exclusive.

I do not see any point in hating Satan, for both, Satan and saint were created by God alone. If we do not preoccupy our minds with godliness or to put it totally differently if we do not smear our minds with biblical canons we become not very malicious towards Satan.

For Satan is among us and part of us in substance. Revisit the domain of Satan you will find your home there.

[Pendragon]

For Satan is among us and part of us in substance. Revisit the domain of Satan you will find your home there.
This world is enough of Hell to not want to actually go there, Blaze... I would agree that Satan seems to be the god of this world, worshiped more than God is...

[Shurtugal]

i'm going to throw my two cents in... but i don't ever remember the Old Testement saying, "Hate Satan." but rather "hate sin."

[JBI]

i'm going to throw my two cents in... but i don't ever remember the Old Testement saying, "Hate Satan." but rather "hate sin."

Satan doesn't really have much of a connotation in the Old Testament. The older books, in a sense, work as scholarship on the Old book, and replace the Snake for instance, with the Devil, and therefore the fall of man from Eden as they call it, and the Original Sin, and so forth, are derivative from the Devil. By the Jewish tradition, Satan does not really play much of a part (except in perhaps Job, though not really in the Christian sense) in the Old Books, and in fact, is not a significant player, or even a memorable one. The concept of Heaven and Hell in itself is a Christian one.

[Dark Muse]

Blaze, I agree with your view of Satan. I have always loved the Satan of Milton's Paradise Lost. I feel that he is a freedom fighter, as well as I always felt he was misunderstood. He was banished from heaven for being an individual and having an opinion that was opposing to the view of God.

He represents individuality. He also stands for are animal natures which God would have us repress, but I do not think we should deny this part of ourselves, I think we should accept and embrace it.

Satan does not want man to kneel to the dogma of another. But to stay standing upon our own feet. He rebelled against the tyranny rule, as you have pointed out and was punished for it.

But I find many of the things God have done and the things done in the name of God far more reprehensible than Satan.

[Hypercrit Htd]

Satan doesn't really come into play in the Jewish tradition, as lets say, Yahweh. In fact, he doesn't really factor in much at all in the Jewish canonical work.

As for Christians, one can think many things. It would depend what sect of Christianity, but I think everyone agrees he is Evil, evil, evil. I believe the rebellious sympathetic Satan is a Miltonic invention, one that would not fit with the mindset of the Jews around 0 BCE, who, after all, in a few short years, would embark on the Great Revolt would have thought so. They, as it seems, would have interpreted Satan as a sort of Titus, a form which seems to have actually been rooted in that period. Surely it is believable that the Jews at that point would not have considered someone who rebelled against God to be good, in that sense, but would rather have just attributed him to his enemys (as seems the likely source of the foundation of Satan, and the fallen angel).

Good point about why Milton need to soften Evil. Maybe he was gay man?

[Virgil]

Good point about why Milton need to soften Evil. Maybe he was gay man?

No he was not. :lol:

[JBI]

Wow, border line bigotry.

Either way, a) his sexual persuasion has nothing to do with this discussion, b) what does that have to do with Milton being sympathetic to the devil.

Milton didn't soften evil, he just mixed Shakespeare's sympathies in there. The same way Shakespeare makes Macbeth sympathetic, Milton tried to make Satan sympathetic, as to, I guess, sell more copies, or go down as a literary genius.

[Virgil]

Wow, border line bigotry.

Either way, a) his sexual persuasion has nothing to do with this discussion, b) what does that have to do with Milton being sympathetic to the devil.

Milton didn't soften evil, he just mixed Shakespeare's sympathies in there. The same way Shakespeare makes Macbeth sympathetic, Milton tried to make Satan sympathetic, as to, I guess, sell more copies, or go down as a literary genius.

MacBeth is sympathetic? Where? And what bigotry are you talking about. If anyone knows anything about Milton's life he was in no way gay.

[JBI]

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about Hypercrit. By associated the softening of evil with homosexuality, one is essentially correlating evil sympathies (in this case talking about the devil, who is an icon of evil in the world) with homosexuality.

[Virgil]

I wasn't talking about you, I was talking about Hypercrit. By associated the softening of evil with homosexuality, one is essentially correlating evil sympathies (in this case talking about the devil, who is an icon of evil in the world) with homosexuality.

Ok, it seemed you were responding to me. ;) You should quote the person you're responding to.

[catavenger]

Would Satan DIE for you?
Jesus died for you. Satan is nothing but a liar and the father of lies. To "rebel" against God is like a child "rebelling" against his father by playing in traffic.

[JBI]

Would Satan DIE for you?
Jesus died for you. Satan is nothing but a liar and the father of lies. To "rebel" against God is like a child "rebelling" against his father by playing in traffic.

... Or a partisan standing up to a Nazi, or perhaps an American standing up to British forces? Was not the American revolution a satanic overthrowing of the Mother Country. But of course, when its politics we can act, but when it is religion we cannot act.

Milton essentially took a reoccuring myth, that of the overthrowing of the old by the new, as seen in many diverse forms of mythology, though he seems to have got it from the Greek creation cycle, and then later heroic cycles, and adapted it to an interpretation of the Bible. The story itself is as old as literature, though it is not really rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition until Milton. In truth, the classical Jewish literary tradition doesn't have much of a heroic background. The closest thing to a hero is Samson, and he really isn't much of a hero, as compared to Achilles. King David versus Goliath isn't representing David's strength, but merely God's favor.

The heroic tradition enters later, brought in from the surrounding areas, especially Rome, who was constantly at war with the nation of Judea, culminating in the Bar Kockbah Revolt, which essentially ended the classical period of Judaism, and set off the exile of both the Christians and the Jews from Judea, then renamed Palestine.

The actual traditional makeup of Satan is believed by some to come from Zarathustrian sources, from Persia, and to have clashed with Judaic prophetic thought, predominantly Jeremiah, and then mixed in with the Roman religious traditions.

That being said, it is fine to believe Jesus died for your sins, and the devil is evil, but it is also possible to believe the devil sympathetic. In truth, many distinguish between the God in the Old Testament and the God in the New Testament. The new God can be seen as a rebellion against the old God, as he was (according to many scholars and theologians) an authoritative crazy, selfish, egomaniac, whereas Christian morality seems to go against those notions.

[Dark Muse]

Would Satan DIE for you?
Jesus died for you. Satan is nothing but a liar and the father of lies. To "rebel" against God is like a child "rebelling" against his father by playing in traffic.

Well according to the story of Eden, it was ultimately Satan that gave man knowledge and wisdom. If Satan had not tempted Eve, than within the Bible man would have simply lived like nothing but children, in complete ignorance, being completely subservient, not knowing they had a choice, or free-will.

To me personally that sort of "Utopia" is not in the least appealing.

[catavenger]

Genesis said that Satan gave man the knowledge of good and evil, since man was made in a perfect state he naturally had knowledge of good therefore Satan only gave man the knowledge of evil.
If the concept of Satan (as distinct from various spirits and "devils" found in some Eastern religions,) comes from books such as the Bible, Torah and Koran where he is depicted as evil; it only makes sense to believe he is evil. If you think all those books are wrong and disbelieve in the concept of an evil Satan those books depict, would it not make sense that you disbelieve in the existence of Satan?
Because if the books lie about Satan's evil state they may just be lies/fairy tales? Or are you going to just pick and choose the parts of the Bible etc. you wish to believe in?

[Dark Muse]

Actually I do not believe in any of it. I was just speaking in hypothetical terms. And answering your question based on a story within the bible and my own personal interpretation of it. But I do not believe in Satan or God or the bible. I have my own chosen beliefs.

[catavenger]

DearDark Muse even though I do not agree with you,:yawnb: your views do seem (to me) to make more sense than those of some others here.

[Dark Muse]

Thank you

[alexsears]

Who am I to put God and the devil this way but its kinda like when you and your little brother are fighting over the remote and you beat you brother then you trap your little brother in a cage so its kinda like Satan was an angel the tried to take power and god trapped him in hell for it and the devil gets a choice go to god or die but in the end got will bring back all of us Christians and the devil will die and we spent eternal life in heaven.:)


Actually I do not believe in any of it. I was just speaking in hypothetical terms. And answering your question based on a story within the bible and my own personal interpretation of it. But I do not believe in Satan or God or the bible. I have my own chosen beliefs.God would consider you a lost lost child.

[JBI]

God would consider you a lost lost child.

Whose/who's god. The God of the old Testament has nothing to do with Satan, as he doesn't take form until the new Testament, and every mention of him in the Old book is a interpretation, and not actually there (he didn't seduce Eve in the Garden of Eden, that is an interpretation from Christian theologians and writers). I am rather, embarrassingly unfamiliar with the Koran, so I cannot comment there, but one must ask which bible you are reading first, and second, whose theology you are believing.

Even the concepting of the existence of god can lead to problems. For instance, if one takes a Miomodesian approach to god, and says he is everything, than naturally he is the devil, and sin, as well as the good things in the world. If one takes a Spinozian interpretation, than we hit dead ends. If one takes an Old Testament interpretation, it differs from a new Testament interpretation, if one believes in the Filioque Clause than god is different than if one doesn't.

Likewise, a Gnostic Christian will have a different interpretation, as will a follower of Milton, or a Baptist Christian. One must probe from more than one angle, instead of randomly yelling out offenses at anything that disagree, in order to continue this discussion. As Roger Bacon petitioned, one should approach the Bible with a doubt, and with Science and philosophy in mind, rather than approaching from a pre-determined bias, or from a pre-acceptance which leads to nothing.

[Dark Muse]

God would consider you a lost lost child.

Since I worship the Goddess I am not too worried about what the Jedu-Christain God thinks of me. I am faithful to that which I do believe.

[catavenger]

"the Goddess"? Ok now we can blame everything thats messed up in the world on a WOMAN!!!

Just Kidding! ROTFLMAO

[Dark Muse]

Well Christains already do blame everything on Women.

I am a Polythest with an empahsis on the "Mother Figure" or the Goddess. I see Mother Nature as personified in an acutal deity. Though I also belive in the Sky God, among other dieties.

[El Viejo]

Satan, the word sounds rather disgusting to those whose minds are preoccupied with some ideas they have through others or reading the Bible.

Satan is in point of fact a freedom seeker and does not want to submit to the tyranny of God.

In fact God wants that all submit to his command, Satan, uncommon and un-submissive launched a number of raids and did not want to coordinate with God. He therefore raised or inspired his legions seeking distinct space for them.

In today's world also if any freedom fighters set themselves against the tyranny of their rulers they will be exiled.

Satan is in everyone of us, inherently, and we do not become explicit dreading the unthinkable.

Do not take Satan differently. He is like all of us who want a self chosen government and he does not want any dictator to govern over us.

God is a traditional ruler. He had succeeded in programming the minds of his subjects that he is almighty and that he is the creator of everything.

Yes every religion has a god and devil too.

Yup, 'freedom fighter' conjures up a picture of a sweaty guy with a gun and an axe to grind--a Satanic image to be sure. Vanquish his enemies so that he stands unchallenged, and you have God.

Sort of a yin/yang thing.

So to a limited extent I agree with you, Satan is a 'freedom fighter.' I also agree that he lurks within all of us.

We like to imagine the joys of a self-governing society, but in our imaginings we fail to include those who think differently from us. Self-government requires involvement, personal investment, and concession. Too often we're like God/Satan, dissatisfied with the state of things, the direction of society, or the pace of change, and feel that we have the answer. We feel that if only we could change the hearts of others things would be better. If we are in a position of power, the God side of the coin, we exercise that. If we're relatively powerless, the Satan side of the coin, we stop shaving, washing, and pick up our gun to fight for 'freedom.'

At bottom, we're grubby little primates, and will remain so until we learn forbearance and tolerance and cooperation, and embrace them as core values.

[DapperDrake]

Well according to the story of Eden, it was ultimately Satan that gave man knowledge and wisdom. If Satan had not tempted Eve, than within the Bible man would have simply lived like nothing but children, in complete ignorance, being completely subservient, not knowing they had a choice, or free-will.

To me personally that sort of "Utopia" is not in the least appealing.

Really? not even a little? Ignorance is bliss you know :) especially if God is there pulling the strings and making sure that its bliss. Thinking about it our world of knowledge and wisdom is full of dark and pain, wouldn't it be better to surrender it all to God for a little bliss ;)

I could sure use some bliss.

[Dark Muse]

Nope, I much rather be an individual with all the bad that comes with it, than to be a slave of any kind.

I rather die upon my feet than live on my knees

[DapperDrake]

Well I wasn't being entirely serious :) its just a nice thought, doing away with all the dread, guilt, pain, depression etc.. A fantasy of course, these things are the meat and bread of life.

Aren't we all slaves in some sense or another anyway? We don't have the freedom our pride would have us believe.

[Redzeppelin]

Well according to the story of Eden, it was ultimately Satan that gave man knowledge and wisdom. If Satan had not tempted Eve, than within the Bible man would have simply lived like nothing but children, in complete ignorance, being completely subservient, not knowing they had a choice, or free-will.

To me personally that sort of "Utopia" is not in the least appealing.

This post makes the assumption that knowledge in and of itself is a positive thing. That is debatable. Some knowledge is dangerous; we acknowledge such things with children - that there are certain things children should not know - at least until they possess the maturity to "handle" such knowledge. If we follow that logic, and take as a given that God is like an "adult" to our very childish existence (no matter how impressive we think we are, we merely squeak when placed next to the Being who can call the universe into existence with His voice), then it makes sense that some things He chooses to withold from us are far more dangerous than the things we choose to withold from children.

Second, wisdom comes from experience - Satan did not offer that. He offered knowledge that benefitted us in no way whatsoever.

As well, you make spectacular assumptions about the nature of existence without the "fall" perpetrated by Adam and Eve. How can you even begin to assess what such a life would be like? To do so would be to assume that God cannot offer us greater pleasures and excitement than those of the world He created - and I find that hard to believe. As if life requires pain, suffering, hardship and heartache to possess profound meaning...

Subservience to one who is worthy is not slavery - children who obey a strict but loving father are not in "slavery." Do not confuse "subservience" to sinful human beings (capable of cruelty and unfairness) with obedience to the Being who created all - including us.

Adam and Eve knew they had free will because they got told to not do something - the "not" implies a choice.

Living in personal contact with God is not "Utopia" - that is a term we have for human beings trying to create a "perfect world." Our attempts at Utopia fail miserably because we - and the Earth we are using as that Utopia's foundation - are sinful and fallen. With God, things are very different.

[Judas130]

Satan can be described as the natural force within all of us to be human, to doubt, to live fullfilling lives, to enjoy ourselves, to LIVE!

Yet Christians are told this is 'temptation'.

so from that angle, you could say Satan is a personified natural, animalistic behavior within us all that is trying to break free of our guilt and dogma brought on us by faith.

[Redzeppelin]

Satan can be described as the natural force within all of us to be human, to doubt, to live fullfilling lives, to enjoy ourselves, to LIVE!

Yet Christians are told this is 'temptation'.

so from that angle, you could say Satan is a personified natural, animalistic behavior within us all that is trying to break free of our guilt and dogma brought on us by faith.

Which part of the human desire to rape, kill, steal and destroy would you classify as life affirming and enjoyable?

Satan is not a "temptation" but he is responsible (to an extent) for the experience Christians call "temptation."

Your interpretation of Satan is mind-boggling; if he is the source of "natural" freedom, then what is the source of suffering, mayhem, brutality and cruelty?

[Big Al]

Your interpretation of Satan is mind-boggling; if he is the source of "natural" freedom, then what is the source of suffering, mayhem, brutality and cruelty?

God, perhaps?

By the way, what things do we acknowledge that children "should not know?"

[RichardHresko]

In looking at the posts I am struck by what is surely a misperception, and that misperception is about the nature of freedom. It seems as though freedom is being (incorrectly) defined as the act without condemnation or without rules.

A superior definition of freedom is the ability to do one's will. This is not the same thing, as anyone who has attempted to break a bad habit or push oneself beyond one's ability has already discovered.

On reflection, one realizes that a rational creature would will to do that which brings her/him the greatest benefit. Often this greatest benefit is called 'happiness.'

A very old definition of sin (Augustine's) is doing that which leads us from happiness. In his [I]Confessions[I], there is a wonderful passage on how he forged his own chains through being unable to do what he really wanted because he was attracted to things that could not make him happy.

Given this understanding it is impossible to consider a figure such as Satan to be anything other than an enslaver.

[Redzeppelin]

God, perhaps?

By the way, what things do we acknowledge that children "should not know?"

You've got to be kidding; Satan the freedom fighter and God the tyrant? What does this complete reversal accomplish besides showing clear hostility towards God?

Most people acknowledge that the innocence of children ought to be protected - that exposing them to certain knowledge is neither helpful nor appropriate. Do I really have to explain that children shouldn't see explicit sexual acts or graphic demonstrations of violence? That telling kids certain things would only harm them emotionally rather than be of any benefit? You have to have those things spelled out?

[Petronius]

Most people acknowledge that the innocence of children ought to be protected - that exposing them to certain knowledge is neither helpful nor appropriate. Do I really have to explain that children shouldn't see explicit sexual acts or graphic demonstrations of violence? That telling kids certain things would only harm them emotionally rather than be of any benefit? You have to have those things spelled out?

And when and how do you suppose children should learn about sexuality? Their reproductive system becomes functional around age 11, and by 13 they will have naturally experienced their first sex-related urges. Not expecting these changes may affect them, and either way they will start seeking information on their own. And I'm only mentioning the imperatives of the child's own sexuality - knowing nothing of the darker aspects of human nature makes a younger child both more vulnerable to lures from sexual predators and more likely to remain scarred by such an encounter.

Hiding sensible subjects instead of trying to deal with them in just the right way makes things easier for the teacher, not the pupil, and is awfully irresponsible. I believe failiure to adress sexual education early on is one of the reasons for the lack of comunication between children and their parents at future, more critical ages - the latter having already lost their credibility as valid sources of information - and subsequently the often life-ruining clumbsyness of the former's first steps into sexuality.
I belive there was at least one nation in medieval Indochina who introduced children directly to sexuality in school-like establishments where they were brought at ages we would consider quite green. I am not sure their public preparation for a life of consumate and responsible sensuality can be deemed worse than the pell-mell principles and information offered to children today.

As for the suffering, mayhem and cruelty you mentioned earlier, it's in the nature of existance. For something new to be born, another must die to make way for it. Without the primordial sin, we wouldn't have existed - there would have been only Adam and Eve, for all eternity. If you belive in the Bible, you should honour their supreme sacrifice, and acknowledge Satan's gesture to make this choice possible as a magnanimous one.

[Big Al]

You've got to be kidding; Satan the freedom fighter and God the tyrant? What does this complete reversal accomplish besides showing clear hostility towards God?

From what I've read, God is a tyrant, a proud, wrathful and vicious ruler who looks down on humans and blames them for their flaws despite the fact that he created them so. Satan, on the other hand, rebelled against God's tyranny with full knowledge of the extent of his crimes and the harshness of his punishment -- he is the essence of those who rebel against a powerful and unjust authority, no matter the cost.


Most people acknowledge that the innocence of children ought to be protected - that exposing them to certain knowledge is neither helpful nor appropriate. Do I really have to explain that children shouldn't see explicit sexual acts or graphic demonstrations of violence? That telling kids certain things would only harm them emotionally rather than be of any benefit? You have to have those things spelled out?

How very condescending, but do you remember what you originally wrote? It was something along the lines of "certain information should be withheld from children because they don't have the capacity to understand it." Do I really have to ask what difference it makes for a child to see sexual material or violence if they lack the ability to grasp such concepts? Do I really have to ask what difference it makes for an adult to explain sexual matters to a child when the child's lack of experience and higher brain function will render such explanations moot? Do you really have to have these things spelled out?

[Redzeppelin]

And when and how do you suppose children should learn about sexuality? Their reproductive system becomes functional around age 11, and by 13 they will have naturally experienced their first sex-related urges. Not expecting these changes may affect them, and either way they will start seeking information on their own. And I'm only mentioning the imperatives of the child's own sexuality - knowing nothing of the darker aspects of human nature makes a younger child both more vulnerable to lures from sexual predators and more likely to remain scarred by such an encounter.

You'll note my use of the word "children" - not "teen" or "young adult." I said nothing about witholding information forever; I spoke of appropriate limits on what is shared with children. Psychology verifies this and I don't need to elaborate. Either you're not a parent, or you just wish to fight. I said nothing about keeping kids in the dark permanently.


Hiding sensible subjects instead of trying to deal with them in just the right way makes things easier for the teacher, not the pupil, and is awfully irresponsible. I believe failiure to adress sexual education early on is one of the reasons for the lack of comunication between children and their parents at future, more critical ages - the latter having already lost their credibility as valid sources of information - and subsequently the often life-ruining clumbsyness of the former's first steps into sexuality.
I belive there was at least one nation in medieval Indochina who introduced children directly to sexuality in school-like establishments where they were brought at ages we would consider quite green. I am not sure their public preparation for a life of consumate and responsible sensuality can be deemed worse than the pell-mell principles and information offered to children today.

Once again, spoken as if you simply wish to oppose my post instead of try to understand the simple logic that not everything that can be known by children should be known while they are still children. And please don't lecture me on the duties of a teacher; I am one, and I have also had extensive experience as a counselor working with teenagers convicted of child molestation. I'm quite aware of the dynamics concerned with sexuality and children. Just as certain foods are inappropriate to feed to infants because their physiology cannot handle them, the minds of children are also not adequately prepared for certain kinds and certain levels of knowledge. That was my point, if I didn't make it clear earlier.


As for the suffering, mayhem and cruelty you mentioned earlier, it's in the nature of existance. For something new to be born, another must die to make way for it. Without the primordial sin, we wouldn't have existed - there would have been only Adam and Eve, for all eternity. If you belive in the Bible, you should honour their supreme sacrifice, and acknowledge Satan's gesture to make this choice possible as a magnanimous one.

No; God provided the freedom to choose, as well as the options; it was He who created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, not Satan. Satan manipulated the couple into making the wrong choice, but he did not create that choice. God created the choice so that His creations had the freedom to not choose Him if they wished.

Second, God designed Adam and Eve with sexual organs; where do you get the idea that procreation is a consequence of sin? Got a source for your belief that God only intended two people to inhabit the earth "for eternity"?


From what I've read, God is a tyrant, a proud, wrathful and vicious ruler who looks down on humans and blames them for their flaws despite the fact that he created them so. Satan, on the other hand, rebelled against God's tyranny with full knowledge of the extent of his crimes and the harshness of his punishment -- he is the essence of those who rebel against a powerful and unjust authority, no matter the cost.


Well, when I was an undergrad/grad student in literature, I learned that there were a number of ways to interpret something - some better (and more reasonable) than others. You'll need to articulate a better argument about the "tyranny" of God - especially since it's not clear what Satan was "rebelling" against? Care to clarify?



How very condescending, but do you remember what you originally wrote? It was something along the lines of "certain information should be withheld from children because they don't have the capacity to understand it." Do I really have to ask what difference it makes for a child to see sexual material or violence if they lack the ability to grasp such concepts? Do I really have to ask what difference it makes for an adult to explain sexual matters to a child when the child's lack of experience and higher brain function will render such explanations moot? Do you really have to have these things spelled out?

Excuse my post if it came across as condescending; I made the mistake of thinking that what I was pointing out was obvious. My bad. (Though you returning the favor kind of cuts the "higher moral ground" right out from under you).

It does matter what we see, hear, experience in this life. Not all things that can be seen, heard, experienced are beneficial. We know that war has profound effects on grown men/women trained to experience it; if we extrapolate that downwards (and psychology will verify this) we generally accept that there are appropriate times for children to learn certain things, and certain things ought to be witheld until the child attains sufficient maturity to process these things; nonetheless, I would argue that there is plenty of "knowledge" or "information" that I can find that I don't think is beneficial at any age to view. How am I enriched by watching a "snuff film," a simulated rape, people having sex with children, or harmless animals being dismembered while still alive?

Not everything that there is to be known is worth knowing, or helpful to experience. We are changed by what we behold.

[Big Al]

Well, when I was an undergrad/grad student in literature, I learned that there were a number of ways to interpret something - some better (and more reasonable) than others. You'll need to articulate a better argument about the "tyranny" of God - especially since it's not clear what Satan was "rebelling" against? Care to clarify?

I need to articulate a better argument about the tyranny of God? You jumped into this conversation attacking somebody for expressing the view that Satan is representative of freedom without really giving any reasons why (and acting quite hostile in the process), and now you're demanding that I reinforce my argument? Ugh...Very well. If I may quote from an outside source, here is a passage from Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger" which sums up my views in something of a broad outline:


...a God who could make good children as easily a bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave is angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell--mouths mercy, and invented hell--mouths Golden Rules and foregiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!

And you're right, it isn't completely clear what Satan was rebelling against, which leads us back to your point that there are a number of ways to interpret something.


Excuse my post if it came across as condescending; I made the mistake of thinking that what I was pointing out was obvious. My bad. (Though you returning the favor kind of cuts the "higher moral ground" right out from under you).

I was attempting to show you how annoying it is. I never said that I wasn't petty.


It does matter what we see, hear, experience in this life. Not all things that can be seen, heard, experienced are beneficial. We know that war has profound effects on grown men/women trained to experience it; if we extrapolate that downwards (and psychology will verify this) we generally accept that there are appropriate times for children to learn certain things, and certain things ought to be witheld until the child attains sufficient maturity to process these things; nonetheless, I would argue that there is plenty of "knowledge" or "information" that I can find that I don't think is beneficial at any age to view. How am I enriched by watching a "snuff film," a simulated rape, people having sex with children, or harmless animals being dismembered while still alive?

Not everything that there is to be known is worth knowing, or helpful to experience. We are changed by what we behold.

I think you missed my point. Perhaps I overstated it, in which case I'll accept the blame, but my argument is simply this: if children lack the ability to understand concepts such as sex and war, what difference does it make if they are exposed to sexual or graphically violent images since they won't understand what they are seeing? What is the point of witholding something if a child lacks the capacity to understand it? It all seems completely unnecessary to me.

As long as we are on the subject, how would you respond to those who say that it is harmful for parents to expose children to religious beliefs?

[wikibine1exostu]

Does it mean for "Others" there that it is better to be satanic rather than Godliness? Think about it. Yes, we are just mere mortals from a mud yet there's the point that God still should not make us suffer too much but... don't blame Him, He got His Mercy to pour unto mankind.

Satan did more worse than Him if he would be the god after all. That creature hates us.

[Petronius]

You'll note my use of the word "children" - not "teen" or "young adult." I said nothing about witholding information forever; I spoke of appropriate limits on what is shared with children. Psychology verifies this and I don't need to elaborate. Either you're not a parent, or you just wish to fight. I said nothing about keeping kids in the dark permanently.

Once again, spoken as if you simply wish to oppose my post instead of try to understand the simple logic that not everything that can be known by children should be known while they are still children. And please don't lecture me on the duties of a teacher; I am one, and I have also had extensive experience as a counselor working with teenagers convicted of child molestation. I'm quite aware of the dynamics concerned with sexuality and children. Just as certain foods are inappropriate to feed to infants because their physiology cannot handle them, the minds of children are also not adequately prepared for certain kinds and certain levels of knowledge. That was my point, if I didn't make it clear earlier.

I may not be a parent yet, but I have been a child, I knew plenty and I can observe their interactions with society, the way most of them come in contact with "awkward knowledge" and how tardy and ridiculous "official teachings" are.
I don't wish to fight, but I don't see what's wrong with opposing your post as long as I disagree with what was stated in it. Sure, the idea can be interpreted in a dozen ways so that it seems acceptable to everyone, but the way in which you formulated your posts reflected a strong reluctancy to even concieve the notion of mixing children with sexual knowledge. That, to me, also said a lot about what you would consider a proper age for recieving said education, what is the extent of it and how you would portray sex to your pupils. I took all the nuances in consideration when voicing my opposition.

I agree children are not prepared for certain knowledge. But that is precisely the point of teaching: to prepare them. Thus, there is no right age for educating them, only right ways to do it depending on the age.

You think it is a good thing that human beings live their first years in "innocence", blissfuly ignorant and misinformed under the vigilant but imperfect protection of their parents and society, only to subsequently have their fantasies broken apart and replaced with cruel truths, responsibilities and desilusion? Sheding out the "great lie of childhood" leaves many individuals psychologicaly scarred, but the problem is so common that we fail to see it. Even belief in God may be born of our need to entertain the illusion that we are still children.


No; God provided the freedom to choose, as well as the options; it was He who created the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, not Satan. Satan manipulated the couple into making the wrong choice, but he did not create that choice. God created the choice so that His creations had the freedom to not choose Him if they wished.

God offered two options, banned one, and explained neither. This does not make possible a choice based on free will. Satan opened the path for that by voicing consequence (false as it may have been) to the choices.


Second, God designed Adam and Eve with sexual organs; where do you get the idea that procreation is a consequence of sin? Got a source for your belief that God only intended two people to inhabit the earth "for eternity"?

My source is common sense. You can't populate a limited space (which the Garden of Eden was, since it had a defined position and borders) with an infinite number of individuals. Since death came through sin, we can assume that Adam and Eve were immortal, and their descendants would have shared this trait. It's either that reproduction was out of the question before the "original sin", or the Gardens of Eden would have become a pretty crowded and hellish place given time.

[RichardHresko]

God, not Satan, is responsible for our free will. This is so because:
1) God, not Satan, created us.
2) Satan, being evil, can not create anything, only destroy.
3) Free will, being good, certainly can not be the creation of evil.
4) Humankind had the choice to disobey, and hence something to exercise free will upon, before the temptation.

[Big Al]

God, not Satan, is responsible for our free will. This is so because:
1) God, not Satan, created us.
2) Satan, being evil, can not create anything, only destroy.
3) Free will, being good, certainly can not be the creation of evil.
4) Humankind had the choice to disobey, and hence something to exercise free will upon, before the temptation.

I have two problems with this post. First, the idea that free will is inherently "good," or even that such a thing exists, is completely debatable. Second, why can't an evil being create? I think the idea that "creation" is inherently good and "destruction" is inherently bad, and thus those actions can only be performed by "good" and "bad" beings, respectively, is very simple-minded, especially when one poses the question, "Is mankind inherently good or inherently evil?"

[Redzeppelin]

I need to articulate a better argument about the tyranny of God? You jumped into this conversation attacking somebody for expressing the view that Satan is representative of freedom without really giving any reasons why (and acting quite hostile in the process), and now you're demanding that I reinforce my argument? Ugh...Very well. If I may quote from an outside source, here is a passage from Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger" which sums up my views in something of a broad outline:

*Sigh* All positions are argued from a foundational philosophy; nobody is 100% objective; all people begin from a presuppositional position. Mine is that the Bible is true, and that it is the only basis we may use to understand the character of God (as well as the character of Christ, and Satan as well). That said, the Bible clearly identifies Satan as the author of sorrow, pain, and suffering in the universe. There is no question as to Satan's identity as the perpetrator of sin and death. The only way his position becomes anything but what the Bible states it to be is when people decide the Bible is lying. Once that happens, now everything becomes a free-for-all in terms of interpretation.

I think Twain is a genius - but he's hardly unbiased, and certainly not a theologian of any sort. I'd rather you quoted something a bit less fictional - since it's no news flash to anybody who's read Twain that he's fairly hostile to religion.



And you're right, it isn't completely clear what Satan was rebelling against, which leads us back to your point that there are a number of ways to interpret something.

But the Bible does make clear what Satan was rebelling against. From Isaiah 14:11-13 (King James Version)

11Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

Satan (formerly Lucifer) - a created being - desired equality with God (the only uncreated being). His desire to be master on par with God prompted him to challenge God as unfair (like the child who wants the power and privilege of an adult but hasn't the skills, responsibility, maturity, etc) - the first chapter of Job makes it clear that Satan is the author of pain and suffering - and that he often does so because he desires to argue that God is unfair - that people only serve Him because of fear or desire for reward.



I was attempting to show you how annoying it is. I never said that I wasn't petty.

Pointing it out is sufficient for me to understand; I don't need a demonstration.




I think you missed my point. Perhaps I overstated it, in which case I'll accept the blame, but my argument is simply this: if children lack the ability to understand concepts such as sex and war, what difference does it make if they are exposed to sexual or graphically violent images since they won't understand what they are seeing? What is the point of witholding something if a child lacks the capacity to understand it? It all seems completely unnecessary to me.

It does make a difference because children will try to process what they see. Children who have inadvertently walked in our their parents having sex often get frightened because the nudity, the sounds and the bodily positions are unfamiliar - and the noises and faces during sex often are indistinguishable from those experienced by someone in pain. Infants instinctively react to loud noises and "scary" faces. They may not understand, but at some level, they do understand something and it's not helpful.


As long as we are on the subject, how would you respond to those who say that it is harmful for parents to expose children to religious beliefs?

This comes from the radical atheist fringe - Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens - men whose arguments are little more than misinformed ad hominem attacks at that which they barely understand. Parents can harm kids in any number of ways by extreme visions of what they think life is; I've seen over-achieving valedictorian candidates damaged quite sufficiently from parents who wanted "perfect" children; athletes who hated their sports because of their driven dads - etc. Yes, there are some fringe elements out there that teach their kids scary beliefs - but there are far more who teach their children about religion in a way that makes the child a better person. You don't get to pick the exception and make it the rule. Sorry.


I may not be a parent yet, but I have been a child, I knew plenty and I can observe their interactions with society, the way most of them come in contact with "awkward knowledge" and how tardy and ridiculous "official teachings" are.

Well, at the risk of offending you, societal observations come nothing near what it means to raise kids. Having raised a few myself and working with teens every day, I will tell you that they do not benefit by premature exposure to the unpleasant realities of this life. Children exposed to pornography at a young age develop warped ideas of sexuality; children exposed to violent video games at a young age develope a callous view of the suffering of others. Their minds/hearts are not ready for simply whatever info and adult decides s/he'd like to share. Does the 4-year old really need to know that his dad (who he's never met) is in jail for murdering someone? Does the 12-year-old benefit by being told by his single mom that he is the product of a sperm donor? Does the child benefit by being told about drugs at age 5?



I don't wish to fight, but I don't see what's wrong with opposing your post as long as I disagree with what was stated in it. Sure, the idea can be interpreted in a dozen ways so that it seems acceptable to everyone, but the way in which you formulated your posts reflected a strong reluctancy to even concieve the notion of mixing children with sexual knowledge. That, to me, also said a lot about what you would consider a proper age for recieving said education, what is the extent of it and how you would portray sex to your pupils. I took all the nuances in consideration when voicing my opposition.

This is not a conversation about sexual education; sex just happens to be (along with violence) one of the main areas of life that most adults understand require a certain maturity to be exposed to. I work with teenagers, and it's abundantly clear that they have hardly any knowledge whatsoever about the intense emotional consequences about having sex with someone else; as far as their concerned, it's all just "plumbing"; but, it that were truly all it was, then I don't think you'd see all the relational anguish going on in the world like we do. Sex carries tremendous ramifications on the heart - but it requires a certain maturity to understand that; but, since we think kids can handle it, we let them loose, they screw each other throughout high-school and college and then when it comes time to marry, we have a culture of emotionally wary people - people who won't be vulnerable, who won't open up their hearts, who are manipulative and selfish in their romances because they were hurt by playing around at a young age with something way more powerful than they realized.


I agree children are not prepared for certain knowledge. But that is precisely the point of teaching: to prepare them. Thus, there is no right age for educating them, only right ways to do it depending on the age.

Right; but as a teacher, there are certain things that can only be taught when the student has reached a certain maturity. My AP classes are pretty smart, but if I try and lay on them some grad school level interpretive skills, they just won't get it.


You think it is a good thing that human beings live their first years in "innocence", blissfuly ignorant and misinformed under the vigilant but imperfect protection of their parents and society, only to subsequently have their fantasies broken apart and replaced with cruel truths, responsibilities and desilusion? Sheding out the "great lie of childhood" leaves many individuals psychologicaly scarred, but the problem is so common that we fail to see it. Even belief in God may be born of our need to entertain the illusion that we are still children.

Nice spin on what I said. I do not advocate "ignorance," "misinformation," or the encouragement of "fantasies." That would be you trying to make a straw man out of my position. I simply asserted that there is an appropriate time to share certain types of knowledge with children. Our society has decided that all information that can be known should be known and that age is hardly a barrier. I think it should be. Just as a runner should train and stretch before a marathon,children should be prepared for what is to come - and part of that preparation means witholding things that would harm more than help their emotional development.




God offered two options, banned one, and explained neither. This does not make possible a choice based on free will. Satan opened the path for that by voicing consequence (false as it may have been) to the choices.

Wrong. God told Adam and Eve that they were allowed to eat from all trees in the garden but one. They were told the consequences of eating of the tree. God cannot explain sin to people who live in sinless universe. As well, (back to children), it is not always necessary to be told why. I tell my 5-year old to neve touch the burner on the stove; he needs to take my word on it as an authority because - at 5 - he doesn't have the processing skills to get "burn" "death" etc. When he gets older, he'll understand.

Satan didn't voice consequences; he lied about them. Free will only requires the existence of two equally valid alternatives.




My source is common sense. You can't populate a limited space (which the Garden of Eden was, since it had a defined position and borders) with an infinite number of individuals. Since death came through sin, we can assume that Adam and Eve were immortal, and their descendants would have shared this trait. It's either that reproduction was out of the question before the "original sin", or the Gardens of Eden would have become a pretty crowded and hellish place given time.

"Common sense" doesn't exist in a vacuum: it is shaped by our world-view/philosophic outlook.

You assume that humanity would have been limited to this planet only. Who is to say that God didn't have other plans? I understand your logic, but just because you can't forsee how to solve an apparent problem doesn't mean that God is as equally limited in His options.

[RichardHresko]

I have two problems with this post. First, the idea that free will is inherently "good," or even that such a thing exists, is completely debatable. Second, why can't an evil being create? I think the idea that "creation" is inherently good and "destruction" is inherently bad, and thus those actions can only be performed by "good" and "bad" beings, respectively, is very simple-minded, especially when one poses the question, "Is mankind inherently good or inherently evil?"

Whether free will actually exists or not is a separate issue. We have to assume for the sake of the argument that free will exists in order to consider the question of Satan's role as a freedom fighter.

That free will is good is reasonably straightfoward. One way to frame the argument is the following:
1) Something functioning in accordance with its capabilities is 'good'. (We may or may not like its functioning at all, but that is a separate issue. For example, a good virus is one that performs its function of reproduction well.)
2) Human beings possess the ability to use their intellect to conceive of actions that they foresee will have an influence on the future.
3) Free will would consist of their ability to put into action what their intellect can conceive.

We can see from this that:
1) There is no finite being that has complete free will.
2) That the free will of human beings is further hampered since we do not always do what we wish to do (give up smoking, be faithful, act bravely) even when not compelled by physical laws. This further hampering is ultimately due to our choosing the lesser good (cigarettes, an affair, temporary easing of tension) over a superior good (health, a healthy relationship, self-respect). Choosing a lesser good over a greater one is what Augustine in libero arbitrio refers to as 'sin.'

The question of the impossibility of evil to create depends on an understanding of what evil truly is. If goodness is the ability to realize potentiality, as we saw before, then evil is the loss of reality, ultimately. Thus evil can not create, since it would involve a contradiction. Another way to look at this is to consider that existence is good, and that therefore evil is that which reduces existence.

[Petronius]

Well, at the risk of offending you, societal observations come nothing near what it means to raise kids. Having raised a few myself and working with teens every day, I will tell you that they do not benefit by premature exposure to the unpleasant realities of this life. Children exposed to pornography at a young age develop warped ideas of sexuality; children exposed to violent video games at a young age develope a callous view of the suffering of others. Their minds/hearts are not ready for simply whatever info and adult decides s/he'd like to share. Does the 4-year old really need to know that his dad (who he's never met) is in jail for murdering someone? Does the 12-year-old benefit by being told by his single mom that he is the product of a sperm donor? Does the child benefit by being told about drugs at age 5?

This is not a conversation about sexual education; sex just happens to be (along with violence) one of the main areas of life that most adults understand require a certain maturity to be exposed to. I work with teenagers, and it's abundantly clear that they have hardly any knowledge whatsoever about the intense emotional consequences about having sex with someone else; as far as their concerned, it's all just "plumbing"; but, it that were truly all it was, then I don't think you'd see all the relational anguish going on in the world like we do. Sex carries tremendous ramifications on the heart - but it requires a certain maturity to understand that; but, since we think kids can handle it, we let them loose, they screw each other throughout high-school and college and then when it comes time to marry, we have a culture of emotionally wary people - people who won't be vulnerable, who won't open up their hearts, who are manipulative and selfish in their romances because they were hurt by playing around at a young age with something way more powerful than they realized.

Nice spin on what I said. I do not advocate "ignorance," "misinformation," or the encouragement of "fantasies." That would be you trying to make a straw man out of my position. I simply asserted that there is an appropriate time to share certain types of knowledge with children. Our society has decided that all information that can be known should be known and that age is hardly a barrier. I think it should be. Just as a runner should train and stretch before a marathon,children should be prepared for what is to come - and part of that preparation means witholding things that would harm more than help their emotional development.


You seem to belive that playing a certain role makes you an authority in that field. I was more concerned with the experience of growing and learning from the perspective of the child, not that of his guide.
I have no doubt you have plenty of experience and do a great job parenting and teaching in the light of your world view. What I mean to challenge are certain aspects of that world view, in light of the belief that they would be universally valid.

I'm not saying you should rush to introduce a child to sex and violence. As Big Al said before, if the subject is too complex for them they will most likely ignore it. But you may underestimate a young human's inquisitive nature, as well as his ability to process rationally the information given to him. What if a 5 year old asks you how he came into being? Will you lie to him? Give a fantastical story about a stork bringing him in? (Vulgar analogy, that is). That's just a fake view of reality that he will have to come out of eventually - and I do find it a bit worrying, because once you've decided you can give a child false answers as long as it helps bringing him up the way you think he should be, it's hard to set limits (out of your examples, I only found the former a bit delicate, and even then the parent's lies risk to backfire in the future - but then it's the child's responsibility, isn't it?). I'd rather explain the truth in increments matching his own curiosity.

As for the impact sexual experiences have on a young person, I think we shouldn't judge the action alone, but the reaction as well. Simple emotional attachment, going on a date, holding hands, a kiss, or even friendship, could have deep inpact on a person, especially when betrayed. On the other hand, sex can be practiced without emotional consequences other than the relieving of stress, as long as all involved are responsible and try to be aware of the others' feelings and intentions. If it is more than "plumbing", or a means to recieve pleasure, or the way to procreate, it's because we make it so. The problem with sex is not inherent. Today's society tends to associate it with commitment, embarassment, guilt, dangers that are sometimes irrational, responsibilities that are sometimes misunderstood, conflicts of values and interests - all these pressure and scare youngsters, especially since they are opposed by ancestral sexual urges (I would dare say polygamous, but I doubt I'll convince you it's a natural instinct), and an affinity for sensuality, pleasure and exploration born of intellectual refinment. I think many of the problems in this field would be resolved by a culture-wide opening of the mind towards sexuality, removal of the taboo status, as well as early and extensive teachings so that the youngsters' desires and knowledge can come to work in unison. Once they have a solid base, they will understand better concepts of health and emotional responsibility, and they would be better put to use.


"Common sense" doesn't exist in a vacuum: it is shaped by our world-view/philosophic outlook.

You assume that humanity would have been limited to this planet only. Who is to say that God didn't have other plans? I understand your logic, but just because you can't forsee how to solve an apparent problem doesn't mean that God is as equally limited in His options.

I've seen a lot of such responses on these boards to arguments based on reason. Frankly, I find them amusing. "We have no fixed point of refference and no possibility to ever understand the Universe, and subsequently to grasp the notion of God." I agree to the first points, in that the rules of The Universe are centered on system of interacting matter and forces which find some center-points of balance. Earth is such a system, the Solar system a larger one, and of course many of their particular laws are not stable at all in (cosmic) time. No one knows for certain if the Universe is expanding or if it even has limits, and none of us can picture exactly how it came in existance. Scientists can't really account for the base particles that compose molecules of matter, and the Bible loses some credibility by proposing an earth-centered creation process. Tracing the path of the Universe beyond nothingness and wondering about transcendental matters implies a mind-boggling train of thought... few of us can claim being able to even comprehend the task at hand.
Yet so many believers extend the invitation to such a jorney... for what? To claim a magical truth so simple that it's two dimensional and cartoonish. There is no way you can use reason, no way you can see to the edges of time and the Universe... therefore God must be there! Why God? Because God is absurd? The same God you belive to be best described through the Bible, a book created by human minds within the confines of eartly laws, translated again and again, interpreted through culture, and finally processed by you through earthly senses. Even if everything in existence was created, have you ever wonder if it was really God who did it, the biblical God? What if it's something else out there? To relinquish common sense completley means to also relinquish God, and the very notion that you ever knew of him. I don't think we are entitled to claim that we can leave the realm that defines us, nor am I sure that doing so would be the end of belief. After all, God was the creator of the Earth and Sky before we aknowledged the Universe. If the latter will also prove to be a piece of a larger puzzle God will be sent ever away, towards the edges of the unexplorable abyss.


I hope nothing in my post offends you. All the pathos is there for the sake of the discussion, and I have no quarrel with your or anyone's world-views at individual level.

[Big Al]

*Sigh* All positions are argued from a foundational philosophy; nobody is 100% objective; all people begin from a presuppositional position. Mine is that the Bible is true, and that it is the only basis we may use to understand the character of God (as well as the character of Christ, and Satan as well). That said, the Bible clearly identifies Satan as the author of sorrow, pain, and suffering in the universe. There is no question as to Satan's identity as the perpetrator of sin and death. The only way his position becomes anything but what the Bible states it to be is when people decide the Bible is lying. Once that happens, now everything becomes a free-for-all in terms of interpretation.

I think Twain is a genius - but he's hardly unbiased, and certainly not a theologian of any sort. I'd rather you quoted something a bit less fictional - since it's no news flash to anybody who's read Twain that he's fairly hostile to religion.

I am an atheist. I operate under the presuppositional position that there is no god, the bible is a book written by people, and that this is a discussion about fictional characters. However, about the Twain quote, I'm not going to find another simply because you don't agree with his views on religion; I've read the Old Testament and come to the same conclusions as he did about God.



But the Bible does make clear what Satan was rebelling against. From Isaiah 14:11-13 (King James Version)

11Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.

12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

Satan (formerly Lucifer) - a created being - desired equality with God (the only uncreated being). His desire to be master on par with God prompted him to challenge God as unfair (like the child who wants the power and privilege of an adult but hasn't the skills, responsibility, maturity, etc) - the first chapter of Job makes it clear that Satan is the author of pain and suffering - and that he often does so because he desires to argue that God is unfair - that people only serve Him because of fear or desire for reward.

As I said before, I consider the bible just one of many literary works which explore the nature of Satan, and not necessarily the definitive one. That being said, as far as the book of Job is concerned, God turns over Job to Satan and sits back and allows him to be tortured, which makes God as responsible as Satan in his suffering. As John Stuart Mill once wrote, "A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury."


It does make a difference because children will try to process what they see. Children who have inadvertently walked in our their parents having sex often get frightened because the nudity, the sounds and the bodily positions are unfamiliar - and the noises and faces during sex often are indistinguishable from those experienced by someone in pain. Infants instinctively react to loud noises and "scary" faces. They may not understand, but at some level, they do understand something and it's not helpful.

You list sex as something which should be kept from children, and yet you compare it with somebody making loud noises and scary faces, which are not only not traumatic, but which are things which children stop being afraid of after only a few years. And for the record, I have a hard time believing that nudity would be unfamiliar to children.

So basically, children shouldn't be exposed to certain things because it might scare them a little bit (might being the key word there -- I've been watching violent films with nudity since I was five or six years old and it never had any impact on me, mostly because I didn't understad what "violence" was and my parents never instilled in me the idea that nudity is somehow "wrong"), and because it's not inherently helpful in the child's development -- although many things parents naturally do with their children are not necessarily helpful in any way.


This comes from the radical atheist fringe - Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens - men whose arguments are little more than misinformed ad hominem attacks at that which they barely understand. Parents can harm kids in any number of ways by extreme visions of what they think life is; I've seen over-achieving valedictorian candidates damaged quite sufficiently from parents who wanted "perfect" children; athletes who hated their sports because of their driven dads - etc. Yes, there are some fringe elements out there that teach their kids scary beliefs - but there are far more who teach their children about religion in a way that makes the child a better person. You don't get to pick the exception and make it the rule. Sorry.

Hm...You tell me that I don't get to "pick the exception and make it the rule," and yet you also asserted that fear of parents instilling religious beliefs into children comes only comes from the "radical atheist fringe" people. That seems hypocritical to me. Besides, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that we have different definitions of things that make somebody a "better person." You can teach children good moral values without religion, and that way you can bypass much of the fear and intolerance that inherently comes with it.

But I was actually also thinking of the argument that you used about sex and violence, that children don't have the experience to understand such concepts, and as such parents should wait to inform them until they are older. I have a very hard time believing that any young child truly understands religion and its implications, and that they only accept it because their parents tell them that it is the truth.


Whether free will actually exists or not is a separate issue. We have to assume for the sake of the argument that free will exists in order to consider the question of Satan's role as a freedom fighter.

That's fair enough.


That free will is good is reasonably straightfoward. One way to frame the argument is the following:
1) Something functioning in accordance with its capabilities is 'good'. (We may or may not like its functioning at all, but that is a separate issue. For example, a good virus is one that performs its function of reproduction well.)
2) Human beings possess the ability to use their intellect to conceive of actions that they foresee will have an influence on the future.
3) Free will would consist of their ability to put into action what their intellect can conceive.

We can see from this that:
1) There is no finite being that has complete free will.
2) That the free will of human beings is further hampered since we do not always do what we wish to do (give up smoking, be faithful, act bravely) even when not compelled by physical laws. This further hampering is ultimately due to our choosing the lesser good (cigarettes, an affair, temporary easing of tension) over a superior good (health, a healthy relationship, self-respect). Choosing a lesser good over a greater one is what Augustine in libero arbitrio refers to as 'sin.'

The question of the impossibility of evil to create depends on an understanding of what evil truly is. If goodness is the ability to realize potentiality, as we saw before, then evil is the loss of reality, ultimately. Thus evil can not create, since it would involve a contradiction. Another way to look at this is to consider that existence is good, and that therefore evil is that which reduces existence.

I'm having trouble with your definitions of "good" and "evil." If something is "good" simply by working correctly and having the ability to work to its full potential, then something one might consider to be "evil," such as, say, a plot to murder an innocent person, is inherently "good" if the plan goes off without a hitch. You also say that our existence is "good," but wouldn't that only be true if we each lived up to the fullest potential of existence, and if so, what is its fullest potential?

[Redzeppelin]

You seem to belive that playing a certain role makes you an authority in that field. I was more concerned with the experience of growing and learning from the perspective of the child, not that of his guide.
I have no doubt you have plenty of experience and do a great job parenting and teaching in the light of your world view. What I mean to challenge are certain aspects of that world view, in light of the belief that they would be universally valid.

It doesn't make me an "authority" so much as it gives my views more credibility than those who have zero experience.


I'm not saying you should rush to introduce a child to sex and violence. As Big Al said before, if the subject is too complex for them they will most likely ignore it. But you may underestimate a young human's inquisitive nature, as well as his ability to process rationally the information given to him. What if a 5 year old asks you how he came into being? Will you lie to him? Give a fantastical story about a stork bringing him in? (Vulgar analogy, that is). That's just a fake view of reality that he will have to come out of eventually - and I do find it a bit worrying, because once you've decided you can give a child false answers as long as it helps bringing him up the way you think he should be, it's hard to set limits (out of your examples, I only found the former a bit delicate, and even then the parent's lies risk to backfire in the future - but then it's the child's responsibility, isn't it?). I'd rather explain the truth in increments matching his own curiosity.

Your example of the "where did I come from?" question is good; I would tell the child that he came from inside his mother, that both mommy and I "made" him, and that when he was older, I would explain the exact mechanics (which I did tell my son when he was 12 years old, using all the correct names of the body parts in question). What I advocate against is giving the technical answer (penis, vagina, semen, etc) to a 5-year old, who would then go share his newfound words/ideas in kindergarten - which I don't think is a good idea (nor is it respectful of other parents who have chosen to wait to share such information). That, in a nutshell, is what I'm talking about. That "stork" stuff is stupid and fully unhelpful.


As for the impact sexual experiences have on a young person, I think we shouldn't judge the action alone, but the reaction as well. Simple emotional attachment, going on a date, holding hands, a kiss, or even friendship, could have deep inpact on a person, especially when betrayed.

True.



On the other hand, sex can be practiced without emotional consequences other than the relieving of stress, as long as all involved are responsible and try to be aware of the others' feelings and intentions.

False. Physiologically, sex causes the release of "bonding chemicals" in the male and female systems; there is no such thing as emotionally consequence-free sex. I'm telling you, if it were only plumbing, I don't think you would see the kind of relational disasters we see in the world - jealousies, the "baggage" we carry from one relationship into the next, etc. Sex affects our hearts.




If it is more than "plumbing", or a means to recieve pleasure, or the way to procreate, it's because we make it so.

I do not believe that we have the power to make sex meaningless except at our peril; in other words, people for whom sex has no emotional consequences generally suffer for doing so.



The problem with sex is not inherent. Today's society tends to associate it with commitment, embarassment, guilt, dangers that are sometimes irrational, responsibilities that are sometimes misunderstood, conflicts of values and interests - all these pressure and scare youngsters, especially since they are opposed by ancestral sexual urges (I would dare say polygamous, but I doubt I'll convince you it's a natural instinct), and an affinity for sensuality, pleasure and exploration born of intellectual refinment. I think many of the problems in this field would be resolved by a culture-wide opening of the mind towards sexuality, removal of the taboo status, as well as early and extensive teachings so that the youngsters' desires and knowledge can come to work in unison. Once they have a solid base, they will understand better concepts of health and emotional responsibility, and they would be better put to use.

Sorry - I can't agree with this; and the problem with this train of thought is that the chaos that is relationships in our modern world argues against a purely physiological "effect" of sexual interaction. I really think you'd see less divorce, spousal abuse/murder, jealousy, and people carrying immense emotional baggage if sex were simply plumbing. If it were, then people wouldn't be so hung up as they are in relationships. There's plenty of research out there that suggests that our permissive attitude towards sex has hurt, not helped, the stability of our relationships.




I've seen a lot of such responses on these boards to arguments based on reason. Frankly, I find them amusing. "We have no fixed point of refference and no possibility to ever understand the Universe, and subsequently to grasp the notion of God." I agree to the first points, in that the rules of The Universe are centered on system of interacting matter and forces which find some center-points of balance. Earth is such a system, the Solar system a larger one, and of course many of their particular laws are not stable at all in (cosmic) time. No one knows for certain if the Universe is expanding or if it even has limits, and none of us can picture exactly how it came in existance. Scientists can't really account for the base particles that compose molecules of matter, and the Bible loses some credibility by proposing an earth-centered creation process. Tracing the path of the Universe beyond nothingness and wondering about transcendental matters implies a mind-boggling train of thought... few of us can claim being able to even comprehend the task at hand.
Yet so many believers extend the invitation to such a jorney... for what? To claim a magical truth so simple that it's two dimensional and cartoonish. There is no way you can use reason, no way you can see to the edges of time and the Universe... therefore God must be there! Why God? Because God is absurd? The same God you belive to be best described through the Bible, a book created by human minds within the confines of eartly laws, translated again and again, interpreted through culture, and finally processed by you through earthly senses. Even if everything in existence was created, have you ever wonder if it was really God who did it, the biblical God? What if it's something else out there? To relinquish common sense completley means to also relinquish God, and the very notion that you ever knew of him. I don't think we are entitled to claim that we can leave the realm that defines us, nor am I sure that doing so would be the end of belief. After all, God was the creator of the Earth and Sky before we aknowledged the Universe. If the latter will also prove to be a piece of a larger puzzle God will be sent ever away, towards the edges of the unexplorable abyss.

Look, I'm not here to try and argue that God should make sense to you; He reveals Himself to those who seek Him, and through that revelation, we come to understand Him from the characterization the Bible gives us of Him. I find God to be the default answer to the questions of existence and the universe because, frankly, the atheistic alternatives are wildly unbelievable. To expect me to believe that life began accidentally (with the odds of abiogenesis calculated by bio-chemists as 1 in 10 to the 31,133 power) involves a leap in faith to accept a number that is so huge as to approach the "unbelievability" of God Himself. The fine-tuning of the universe, the complexity of our existence, and the presence of a transcendant moral code cannot be produced in a universe composed solely of matter. Atheists like to pretend that their world view is more grounded in reason and such, but the theories I have to swallow to explain the universe without God are nothing short of absurd - but they seem more acceptable to the human mind because we came up with it (no matter how impossible/implausible it may be).



I hope nothing in my post offends you. All the pathos is there for the sake of the discussion, and I have no quarrel with your or anyone's world-views at individual level.

No offense taken.


I am an atheist. I operate under the presuppositional position that there is no god, the bible is a book written by people, and that this is a discussion about fictional characters. However, about the Twain quote, I'm not going to find another simply because you don't agree with his views on religion; I've read the Old Testament and come to the same conclusions as he did about God.

As I assumed. Your position is like mine: you've made a choice to see the universe in a particular way. Your way is no more objective than mine - it is simply the one that makes the most sense to you.

You're not required to find another excerpt - but the one you used carries no authority. You simply presented someone who possessed a view similar to yours, but you didn't offer any real challenge to the authority of the Bible.



As I said before, I consider the bible just one of many literary works which explore the nature of Satan, and not necessarily the definitive one. That being said, as far as the book of Job is concerned, God turns over Job to Satan and sits back and allows him to be tortured, which makes God as responsible as Satan in his suffering. As John Stuart Mill once wrote, "A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury."

Job has been discussed in depth elsewhere here, so I'm going to pass on correcting the narrow vision of the book you're presenting.

The problem is this: you cannot argue against God using a book that you assert has no authority. Don't you see the trap? The only way to argue that God is or isn't something is to assume the book tells the truth about Him and everything else in it; once you say the book is merely a fabrication made by humans, you have effectively neutralized it as a source for your position because it's all fiction and cannot be used to convict God of being anything. What I often find is that nonbelievers will say that God is this or that based on what the Bible says (generally picking out the negative things); but they will ignore the positives by claiming that the book is a farce - a human creation of fairy tales. You can't have it both ways.



You list sex as something which should be kept from children, and yet you compare it with somebody making loud noises and scary faces, which are not only not traumatic, but which are things which children stop being afraid of after only a few years. And for the record, I have a hard time believing that nudity would be unfamiliar to children.

Have you got any children? Look, I'm posting in a forum, not writing a research paper, so some of my examples may not be air-tight. The point is that not everything that can be known by a child should be known by the child; there is an appropriate time to share certain types and levels of knowledge. Total disclosure at an inappropriate age is not healthy for children. Knowledge is not always neutral. It's why we don't teach junior-high students how to make pipe-bombs.


So basically, children shouldn't be exposed to certain things because it might scare them a little bit (might being the key word there -- I've been watching violent films with nudity since I was five or six years old and it never had any impact on me, mostly because I didn't understad what "violence" was and my parents never instilled in me the idea that nudity is somehow "wrong"), and because it's not inherently helpful in the child's development -- although many things parents naturally do with their children are not necessarily helpful in any way.

Look - you are free to believe as you wish. There's plenty of literature out in the world of psychology that will validate the idea that children should not necessarily be exposed to everything that adults are exposed to. I don't know you, so I can't comment on your own experience, but I will say this: the "I did it and it didn't affect me at all" holds no water with me: humans have a tremendous capacity for denial. The effects may not be catastrophic - they may be subtle, and they may have influenced you in more ways than you realize - ways that may not have been positive.



Hm...You tell me that I don't get to "pick the exception and make it the rule," and yet you also asserted that fear of parents instilling religious beliefs into children comes only comes from the "radical atheist fringe" people. That seems hypocritical to me. Besides, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that we have different definitions of things that make somebody a "better person." You can teach children good moral values without religion, and that way you can bypass much of the fear and intolerance that inherently comes with it.

Spare me. You have broadly generalized that religion involves "fear" and "intolerance." Please. The most vehement intolerance I've come into contact with is inside Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchen's books. Christians don't say that atheism is some sort of dangerous mental illness and that atheists should not exist. Christian writers don't attack atheists with the sheer venom that atheist writers like those mentioned attack Christians. You're way off base with the "intolerance" comment.

You can teach morals without God, but the morals have no transcendant basis, and are therefore non-binding; why should I be a good person if there is no final accounting of my behavior? Why shouldn't I look out for #1?


But I was actually also thinking of the argument that you used about sex and violence, that children don't have the experience to understand such concepts, and as such parents should wait to inform them until they are older. I have a very hard time believing that any young child truly understands religion and its implications, and that they only accept it because their parents tell them that it is the truth.

It may begin that way, but it will not stay if that is all that is holding it in place. Parents teach young children about God so that they may more readily seek Him when they get older. Plenty of young people leave religion because they do not believe it carries meaning. There is nothing wrong with passing onto children a belief system which the parents have found to be life-enhancing. Parents pass on all kinds of other things that are worth far less.

[Judas130]

Which part of the human desire to rape, kill, steal and destroy would you classify as life affirming and enjoyable?

Satan is not a "temptation" but he is responsible (to an extent) for the experience Christians call "temptation."

Your interpretation of Satan is mind-boggling; if he is the source of "natural" freedom, then what is the source of suffering, mayhem, brutality and cruelty?

this is not my interpretation, i said 'can' be described. I've read LaVey's views, assuming he is the 'main man' when it comes to the devil. LaVey actually believes in the promotion of mankind, that we should stop waging war against each other and build temples of man instead.

Personally, i believe that we all are, quite evidently, the causes for suffering, mayhem, brutality and cruelty. Its fairly evident is it not that when one man kills another in the name of God that, literally, it is the the man, not the God, that committed the act? We all have the ability to cause pain as we do the ability to enjoy a full life of happiness.

In this thread, the argument is that a metaphorical devil is within all of us, our symbol of rebellion against any, suppressing, higher authority. That 'No matter how high are we elevated spiritually, religiously, we are still a bit of satanic proportions.'

Satan to this day is Church propaganda. All these youngsters that believe worshipping Lucifer or practising with ouija boards or some form of pentagram are benefitting the Devil in rebellion against the Church are only tools of Church propaganda themselves. Why do people hate Satan? Because of what we have been told by the Church. The Christian Church originally came up with these rituals and heretical acts to frighten the Pagans, the idea of worshiping any other deity would lead you to Hell. A true satanist is one who worships himself above all, or creates his own God...though this is a more modern idea. I once heard a theory that Lucifer was worshipped by humans and 'got full of himself' and fell from grace, along with his regiment of angels. lol...we all have our ideas... He's kept the Christians in business all these years, he is seen as the accuser, when really the Church accuses him and we never hear his side to the story, assuming he is an entity. He is their enemy, yet also their greatest friend. I agree that if Christians must love their enemies, then why not Satan? after all, he's the main fear factor the Church plays when you've been naughty and need to go to church more. Yet apparently he has no redeeming qualities, as to be forgiven by God you must be truly sorry. Satan shows no signs of any redemption in this modern age. Most don't believe in him, which is - according to the Christians!!! - his greatest trickery. Those who do, see him as the bad guy.

Bear in mind Lucifer's history. He was the personification of the morning star, he was the 'Bearer of Light'. He's pre-christian CV ain't too bad. He wasn't a bad guy.

Satan can be anything you want him to be. I dont have an opinion of him as an entity or anything as of yet, im just pondering...theres the idea that, if you believe something, I mean completely believe something, then of course it is real. If you believe Satan is some Dark Master then thats fine, if you think he's subject to injustice then fair dues. Satan is a freedom fighter in blazeofglory's ideals as that is how he sees the Devil, and hes right to think so if he wants to. I wouldnt completely agree, you could name any slightly rebellious deity and claim they are the personified nature of something or other within us...

thank you for letting me waste your time :D :thumbs_up

[Petronius]

Your example of the "where did I come from?" question is good; I would tell the child that he came from inside his mother, that both mommy and I "made" him, and that when he was older, I would explain the exact mechanics (which I did tell my son when he was 12 years old, using all the correct names of the body parts in question). What I advocate against is giving the technical answer (penis, vagina, semen, etc) to a 5-year old, who would then go share his newfound words/ideas in kindergarten - which I don't think is a good idea (nor is it respectful of other parents who have chosen to wait to share such information). That, in a nutshell, is what I'm talking about. That "stork" stuff is stupid and fully unhelpful.

That's fine, unless the child is not happy with the extent of the answers and starts off seeking more information on his own, from less reliable sources. That being said, I know someone who by the age of 11 not only knew how reproduction works, but had already seen his first porn. Today he's quite a responsible and succesful adult who values family and career, teaches at an University and is even moderately christian - and no, he did not go through any process of enlightenment and major change through his life. Also, I could add that there are cultures where people get married between the ages of 11 and 14. Not that I agree with that, but it shows that early sexual education is quite possible and not traumatising.


False. Physiologically, sex causes the release of "bonding chemicals" in the male and female systems; there is no such thing as emotionally consequence-free sex. I'm telling you, if it were only plumbing, I don't think you would see the kind of relational disasters we see in the world - jealousies, the "baggage" we carry from one relationship into the next, etc. Sex affects our hearts.

Now this is just a fantastical view of how the human body functions. I'd be surprised if there were any medical experts at all claiming such a thing as "bonding chemicals" exists (Edit: Well, this seems to be yet another of the funny nicknames Americans give to scientific terms, but the only role of these neurochemicals are to temporarily enhance the body for sexual activity, at the command of the brain. They are just as present in animals who don't mate for life, and don't really have long-term or even person-linked effects, unless the brain decides so. They don't really account for what you claim them to do, but in any case sorry for questioning the name's existance). Long term emotional effects linked to sexuality are psychological, there is no chemical marking two people who had sex as future mates.
Jealousy comes from desire of possession and fear of abandonment, as well as from an ancestral instinct of passing over one's genes in detriment of other individuals. These are things a strong, educated individual should be able to deal with.
Relational distasters allways existed, but up until recently people, especially women, were more hard-pressed by society to "swallow" all the bad things life threw at them and put out a big smile for facade.


Sorry - I can't agree with this; and the problem with this train of thought is that the chaos that is relationships in our modern world argues against a purely physiological "effect" of sexual interaction. I really think you'd see less divorce, spousal abuse/murder, jealousy, and people carrying immense emotional baggage if sex were simply plumbing. If it were, then people wouldn't be so hung up as they are in relationships. There's plenty of research out there that suggests that our permissive attitude towards sex has hurt, not helped, the stability of our relationships.

As I said above, what made things seem easier in the past was the acceptance of a certain lack of freedom. We shouldn't try to build other kinds of fences so that things stay the same. People should just learn to think responsably on a wider level.
What I can't agree with is using sex as a big fat excuse for relational trouble when human stupidity, selfishness and pettyness are the true culprits.


You can teach morals without God, but the morals have no transcendant basis, and are therefore non-binding; why should I be a good person if there is no final accounting of my behavior? Why shouldn't I look out for #1?

This was not adressed to me, but I feel the need to comment. This is one of the things I find... unpalatable about religion. I strongly belive that we should strive to be better as individuals and as cultures, and to flesh out and uphold some morals inherent to our nature of social beings, simply because we exist, and we can, and because the act, in making our own lives and the world better, is in itself transcendental. There shouldn't be any need for an all-powerful pimp of social norms and judge who can't be judged. Claiming that the word of God is necessary for people to be moral leads me to think that christians accept humans as inherently evil beings, who will only make a good choice in response to the reward & punishment system of Heaven and Hell. It scares me because it's like dealing with criminals encased in the appearences of saints. It makes me wonder, "if God was evil, would these people be monsters in turn?"
Not to mention that, if morals are subordinated to religion and one loses his faith, you would expect him to also be imoral. I need no supreme arbiter and no reward to try and be a better person and to exercise whatever positive influence I can into the world. Nor do I fear eternal, magical punishment for not doing things I consider to be wrong or pointless.
Such things are inherent, and I don't really belive all christians would be evil without God - we all seek to transcend, it's in the nature of evolution - but I still think their world-views are culturally enforced and just as flawed as anyone else's. Perhaps it would all be better if christianity would become a philosophy, instead of claiming to hold absolute answers.

[RichardHresko]

I


I'm having trouble with your definitions of "good" and "evil." If something is "good" simply by working correctly and having the ability to work to its full potential, then something one might consider to be "evil," such as, say, a plot to murder an innocent person, is inherently "good" if the plan goes off without a hitch. You also say that our existence is "good," but wouldn't that only be true if we each lived up to the fullest potential of existence, and if so, what is its fullest potential?

No contradiction. Someone would be a good murderer if he murdered effectively. However he would not be a good human being. The word 'inherently' is inappropriate here, since 'inherently' refers to the essence of a thing and not to an individual. Murderers are not inherently good, but murderers can be good murderers.

You are close on the second part. We are at our highest level of good when we have realized our fullest potential, since that would be the point at which we have the greatest level of existence possible. However there are lower levels of good. This is not a strange notion at all. How often, in terms of health, have we confessed not being 100%?


We have achieved converting our highest potential to reality when we have achieved our greatest possible happiness. This would have to be a happiness in which there is no anxiety of possible loss (since that would mar the happiness). One philosophical tradition suggests that this is found by a life of reflection and thought. One religious tradition identifies this movement towards the highest good as the search for God. There are no doubt other contenders. Take your pick.

[Big Al]

As I assumed. Your position is like mine: you've made a choice to see the universe in a particular way. Your way is no more objective than mine - it is simply the one that makes the most sense to you.

Yeah, but it changes things a little bit, doesn't it? I thought we were having a literary argument.


You're not required to find another excerpt - but the one you used carries no authority. You simply presented someone who possessed a view similar to yours, but you didn't offer any real challenge to the authority of the Bible.

...What? Let's look at this again:

...a God who could make good children as easily a bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave is angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell--mouths mercy, and invented hell--mouths Golden Rules and foregiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!
I would be very curious to see your response to any of these arguments.


Job has been discussed in depth elsewhere here, so I'm going to pass on correcting the narrow vision of the book you're presenting.

Ugh, I can see where this is going...


The problem is this: you cannot argue against God using a book that you assert has no authority. Don't you see the trap? The only way to argue that God is or isn't something is to assume the book tells the truth about Him and everything else in it; once you say the book is merely a fabrication made by humans, you have effectively neutralized it as a source for your position because it's all fiction and cannot be used to convict God of being anything. What I often find is that nonbelievers will say that God is this or that based on what the Bible says (generally picking out the negative things); but they will ignore the positives by claiming that the book is a farce - a human creation of fairy tales. You can't have it both ways.

You're missing the point entirely, and I believe this is called special pleading. For example: in English class last year, after reading "The Great Gatsby" I wrote a paper about it; the subject of my paper was, "In your opinion, is Gatsby a hero or a villain?" But, as you argue, since it's all fiction, I can't use the book to form any interpretations about any of the characters, right? God is a literary character in a fictional book, and thus, despite that fact that you believe in him, is subject to the same rules as any other character, and the bible is subject to the same kind of literary analysis as any other work. I don't have to accept that the bible is true -- just as I don't have to accept that "The Great Gatsby" is true -- to criticize the actions of the characters within the book.



Have you got any children?

No; I was a child once, though, and I remember it pretty well.


Look, I'm posting in a forum, not writing a research paper, so some of my examples may not be air-tight. The point is that not everything that can be known by a child should be known by the child; there is an appropriate time to share certain types and levels of knowledge. Total disclosure at an inappropriate age is not healthy for children. Knowledge is not always neutral. It's why we don't teach junior-high students how to make pipe-bombs.

And I'm saying that children lack the ability to understand complex ideas that you think should be withheld from them, and that it would make absolutely no difference even if you did try to inform them. I once accessed a porn site when I was 8-years-old, mostly because I knew that it was something I wasn't supposed to do, which made me curious. Do you know what my reaction was? I thought it was boring -- it didn't warp me or my views of sexuality.


Look - you are free to believe as you wish. There's plenty of literature out in the world of psychology that will validate the idea that children should not necessarily be exposed to everything that adults are exposed to. I don't know you, so I can't comment on your own experience, but I will say this: the "I did it and it didn't affect me at all" holds no water with me: humans have a tremendous capacity for denial. The effects may not be catastrophic - they may be subtle, and they may have influenced you in more ways than you realize - ways that may not have been positive.

I find this condescending and presumptuous.



Spare me. You have broadly generalized that religion involves "fear" and "intolerance." Please. The most vehement intolerance I've come into contact with is inside Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchen's books. Christians don't say that atheism is some sort of dangerous mental illness and that atheists should not exist.

I've heard those exact arguments from people, except substitute "dangerous mental illness" with "blinded by the devil and bound for hell." For the record, I think both Dawkins and Hitchens go overboard, so you're not exactly going to encounter much argument from me as far as they are concerned.


Christian writers don't attack atheists with the sheer venom that atheist writers like those mentioned attack Christians. You're way off base with the "intolerance" comment.

There's absolutely no basis for this assertion (and it's certainly not one that I would agree with), and besides that, I encounter intolerance and insults every day from Christians at my school -- I'm not sure why you're focusing only on writers.


You can teach morals without God, but the morals have no transcendant basis, and are therefore non-binding; why should I be a good person if there is no final accounting of my behavior? Why shouldn't I look out for #1?

This, quite frankly, is 100% what I was referring to when I first brought up the point about teaching children religion -- this sends chills down my spine, and to be honest, every time I hear it the idea that atheists are more moral than believers seems a little stronger to me. The only reason you try to be a good person is because you want a reward, and because you're afraid of punishment? That seems very selfish, not to mention that it brings up another major problem I've always had with religion -- it teaches people how to die rather than how to live.
Edit: It appears that Petronius argued this last point much better than I. Needless to say, I completely agree with his post.

[Redzeppelin]

this is not my interpretation, i said 'can' be described. I've read LaVey's views, assuming he is the 'main man' when it comes to the devil. LaVey actually believes in the promotion of mankind, that we should stop waging war against each other and build temples of man instead.

LeVey is an "employee"; he is not the "boss" - he has no authority in terms of our understanding of the Devil. Of course he "believes in the promotion of mankind" - who'd come out and say "I serve the Dark Lord, whose goal in this world is to kill and destroy all of God's creation"? And, the "promotion of mankind" is not as benign as it sounds: the rejection of God (and corollary acceptance of Satan) is the love of self, the exaltation of humanity. So, in a sense he is telling the truth - but the fall in the garden of Eden was the epitome of "promoting humanity": "You shall not die," says Satan, "you shall become like God."


Personally, i believe that we all are, quite evidently, the causes for suffering, mayhem, brutality and cruelty. Its fairly evident is it not that when one man kills another in the name of God that, literally, it is the the man, not the God, that committed the act? We all have the ability to cause pain as we do the ability to enjoy a full life of happiness.

Our choices do lead to pain, suffering, etc - you're right. The devil doesn't "make me do it" but neither is he a neutral being; we are tempted by him, but we are also tempted by our own fleshly desires (see James 1:13-15). Humanity "fell" through the manipulation/lies of Satan. Once we sinned, we placed ourselves under Satan's power - because he is (as said in the Book of John, Ch. 11 and 14) the "prince of this world." We come under Satan's "jurisdiction" when we sin - and because of Adam and Eve, we all inherit a sinful nature.


In this thread, the argument is that a metaphorical devil is within all of us, our symbol of rebellion against any, suppressing, higher authority. That 'No matter how high are we elevated spiritually, religiously, we are still a bit of satanic proportions.'

Satan to this day is Church propaganda. All these youngsters that believe worshipping Lucifer or practising with ouija boards or some form of pentagram are benefitting the Devil in rebellion against the Church are only tools of Church propaganda themselves. Why do people hate Satan? Because of what we have been told by the Church. The Christian Church originally came up with these rituals and heretical acts to frighten the Pagans, the idea of worshiping any other deity would lead you to Hell.


And what exactly is the source you are consulting for this particular argument? The church bases its opinion on the Bible - and the Bible establishes that Satan is the author of evil in the universe. The church refers to hell the same way a doctor tells a smoker about lung disease and death: if you continue in the direction you are heading, this is what will happen. You are free to accuse the doctor of trying to "scare" you if you wish.



A true satanist is one who worships himself above all, or creates his own God...though this is a more modern idea. I once heard a theory that Lucifer was worshipped by humans and 'got full of himself' and fell from grace, along with his regiment of angels. lol...we all have our ideas... He's kept the Christians in business all these years, he is seen as the accuser, when really the Church accuses him and we never hear his side to the story, assuming he is an entity. He is their enemy, yet also their greatest friend. I agree that if Christians must love their enemies, then why not Satan? after all, he's the main fear factor the Church plays when you've been naughty and need to go to church more. Yet apparently he has no redeeming qualities, as to be forgiven by God you must be truly sorry. Satan shows no signs of any redemption in this modern age. Most don't believe in him, which is - according to the Christians!!! - his greatest trickery. Those who do, see him as the bad guy.

1. Satan IS the accuser (that's what his name means); his primary position is this: God is unfair. From this position he created his manipulation of Adam and Eve ("eat the fruit and you'll be like God" - meaning, God is witholding something from you you should have); the same is true in the first chapter of Job: "Job only serves you because you reward him" - which the book disproves. What is happening on earth isn't about us: it's about the character of God; Satan has challenged the goodness of God's character, and much of what occures here is the playing out of these charges.

2. Satan is beyond redemption; to "love" someone does not mean excusing their horrific behavior; it means doing what is best for the other person. Sometimes, what's "best" for someone else may be extreme - like going to jail, or being executed. I'm sure God loves Satan - but Satan has so thoroughly rejected God, that he has sealed his fate; Satan won't ask for foriveness - and God will not force any being to live with Him in eternity. Eternity with God would be torutre for Satan because he wants to be equal with God. God's eventual destruction of Satan will be a mercy to him.



Bear in mind Lucifer's history. He was the personification of the morning star, he was the 'Bearer of Light'. He's pre-christian CV ain't too bad. He wasn't a bad guy.

Why are "pre-Christian" sources more authoritative than the Bible?


Satan can be anything you want him to be. I dont have an opinion of him as an entity or anything as of yet, im just pondering...theres the idea that, if you believe something, I mean completely believe something, then of course it is real. If you believe Satan is some Dark Master then thats fine, if you think he's subject to injustice then fair dues. Satan is a freedom fighter in blazeofglory's ideals as that is how he sees the Devil, and hes right to think so if he wants to. I wouldnt completely agree, you could name any slightly rebellious deity and claim they are the personified nature of something or other within us...

thank you for letting me waste your time :D :thumbs_up

CS Lewis said that there were two dangers in dealing with the devil: 1) taking him more seriously than we should, or 2) not taking him seriously enough. In the Screwtape Letters Lewis puts forth the idea that the greatest deception that Satan has perpetuated is the belief that he's not real at all. This idea is playing out in this century - we think Satan doesn't exist - and that makes him all the more dangerous.

Thank you for sharing.



That's fine, unless the child is not happy with the extent of the answers and starts off seeking more information on his own, from less reliable sources. That being said, I know someone who by the age of 11 not only knew how reproduction works, but had already seen his first porn. Today he's quite a responsible and succesful adult who values family and career, teaches at an University and is even moderately christian - and no, he did not go through any process of enlightenment and major change through his life. Also, I could add that there are cultures where people get married between the ages of 11 and 14. Not that I agree with that, but it shows that early sexual education is quite possible and not traumatising.

1. The child's dissatisfaction with my answer doesn't mean that I'm held "hostage" and must then divulge more than the child can handle. I'm not going to go round and round with you on this: you are free to parent in whatever fashion you wish as am I. My kids know the truth about the world, and our relationship is such that they trust me when I say that I shall give them all the pieces as time goes on.

2. Don't bother with examples of people you know who are "just fine" after having early experience with sexuality (and even worse, porn). You do not know this individual's inner life or heart; you only know them from the outside, and most people from the outside look like they have everything together.




Now this is just a fantastical view of how the human body functions. I'd be surprised if there were any medical experts at all claiming such a thing as "bonding chemicals" exists. Long term emotional effects linked to sexuality are psychological, there is no chemical marking two people who had sex as future mates.
Jealousy comes from desire of possession and fear of abandonment, as well as from an ancestral instinct of passing over one's genes in detriment of other individuals. These are things a strong, educated individual should be able to deal with.
Relational distasters allways existed, but up until recently people, especially women, were more hard-pressed by society to "swallow" all the bad things life threw at them and put out a big smile for facade.

From an article published in 2008:

"At this stage, oxytocin,, the same chemical involved in childbirth and bonding to the infant, shows up in the blood of both men and women . This stage is often referred to as the attachment stage. Oxytocin is released during orgasm in both men and women. It has been postulated that the more sex the couple has, the more bonded they will become."

Sex "bonds" people in profound ways; as a Christian, I believe that what Genesis says about a man and woman "becoming one" is literal - in the spiritual sense. If science tells us that we carry the DNA of all the partners we've ever had, I don't see why it's unreasonable to believe that the human heart is profoundly influenced by sexual interaction.

Despite relational disasters always existing, I will simply point out that freeing ourselves up to screw whomever we wish has not improved anything; as such, that suggests to me that perhaps some of the "repressive" ideas of the past (only have sex inside the confines of marriage) weren't necessarily the problem with our relations in the past.



As I said above, what made things seem easier in the past was the acceptance of a certain lack of freedom. We shouldn't try to build other kinds of fences so that things stay the same. People should just learn to think responsably on a wider level.
What I can't agree with is using sex as a big fat excuse for relational trouble when human stupidity, selfishness and pettyness are the true culprits.

"People should just learn to think responsibly on a wider level." Yeah, and people should also "do what's right because it's the right thing to do - not because of a consequence," and "students should read their assigned book because they'll benefit from its profound truths - rather than the points they'll get on the quiz." Have I made my point?

I didn't say sex was the problem - but pretending that it doesn't profoundly affect our relationships with others is foolish.



This was not adressed to me, but I feel the need to comment. This is one of the things I find... unpalatable about religion. I strongly belive that we should strive to be better as individuals and as cultures, and to flesh out and uphold some morals inherent to our nature of social beings, simply because we exist, and we can, and because the act, in making our own lives and the world better, is in itself transcendental. There shouldn't be any need for an all-powerful pimp of social norms and judge who can't be judged. Claiming that the word of God is necessary for people to be moral leads me to think that christians accept humans as inherently evil beings, who will only make a good choice in response to the reward & punishment system of Heaven and Hell. It scares me because it's like dealing with criminals encased in the appearences of saints. It makes me wonder, "if God was evil, would these people be monsters in turn?"
Not to mention that, if morals are subordinated to religion and one loses his faith, you would expect him to also be imoral. I need no supreme arbiter and no reward to try and be a better person and to exercise whatever positive influence I can into the world. Nor do I fear eternal, magical punishment for not doing things I consider to be wrong or pointless.
Such things are inherent, and I don't really belive all christians would be evil without God - we all seek to transcend, it's in the nature of evolution - but I still think their world-views are culturally enforced and just as flawed as anyone else's. Perhaps it would all be better if christianity would become a philosophy, instead of claiming to hold absolute answers.

1. Because of the fall, Christians accept as a given that all human beings are inherently sinful - that we are selfish and self-driven; that, in absence of moral training, we will develop into egotistical, narcissistic, entitled monsters.

2. I did not say the "word of God" was "necessary" for morality. What I suggested is that morality must come from God; if morality comes from God, then it comes from a source beyond humanity, which makes the moral code transcendant: i.e. - it exists beyond human whim and preference. Once we say that morality is human based, it can now be whatever culture decides it wishes it to be. Look around the world and you will find cultures that believe things that we find abhorrent. If morality is only man-made, then we have no ground, no authority to condemn things like female genital mutilation, genocide, cannibalism.

3. I don't get how humanity - if we came from pond scum and monkeys - should possess any desire to "transcend" - within which cell, chemical or synapse is the "transcend" desire to be found? Can this desire be measured scientifically? Where in my brain does it exist?


Yeah, but it changes things a little bit, doesn't it? I thought we were having a literary argument.

We were, but it's possible to have a "literary argument" and find that it does certain things based upon the underlying world-views of the disputants. If I'm debating the meaning of Hamlet with a feminist, s/he and I are going to run into certain areas of the play that we will never agree upon in terms of interpretation because of our differing interpretive "tools."




...What? Let's look at this again:

I would be very curious to see your response to any of these arguments.

Twain has read the Bible and these are his interpretations based upon the things he read. This is standard for those who don't like (and/or don't understand) the character of God as presented in the Bible. How am I supposed to respond? Refute all these? Even if I did, it's highly unlikely that you'd conceed anything. But, I will do what I can:

1. God who could make good children as easily a bad, yet preferred to make bad ones;

No: God made Adam and Eve pure and good; they chose to sin, and as our first parents, they passed sin down to all follwing generations. God will not go against the human will. He cannot make me "good" if I do not wish to be good. Provide a proof text from the Bible (the only authoritative record of God's character) to substantiate Twain's charge.

2. who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one;

I repeat: God will not go against the human will. He cannot "make" us be happy. Our happiness is a byproduct of other things that happen in this life. Christians suffer as much as non-believers - but their confidence in God and their faith often helps them face trials with more hope than those who don't believe. Again, where's Twains proof that God doesn't "make" happy people?

3. who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short;

Christians prize life as a gift of God; this does not mean we always enjoy it. If God chooses to shorten a life, who are we to argue? He CREATED us; it is His prerogative (as an all-knowing, wise, just and loving God) to decide how long He wants us here on earth. You don't have to like it.

4.who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it;

Adam and Eve were given happiness "unearned": they chose to squander it and we (unfortunately) have inherited that condition. If angels chose the same, they too would have to "earn" happiness - but again, I think Twain's focus on "happiness" is misguided: happiness cannot be the goal of existence: that is a fruitless pursuit: happiness must come as a byproduct of something else we do or experience.

5. who gave is angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body;

See above.

6. who mouths justice, and invented hell--mouths mercy, and invented hell--mouths Golden Rules and foregiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell;

Hell is justice. It is God's acknowledgement of the human choice to be rule oneself instead of submitting to the Creator. God will not force anybody to live in eternity with Him because to do so would be to make these individuals absolutely miserable. God allows the individuals who choose to reject Him to exist without Him - but what they may not realize is that existence without God is not worth living. I don't believe in a Dantean hell, but I do believe that life without God is not worth having. Nobody on earth right now experiences that; all of us still have access to God (whether we believe it or not).

Ditto with "mercy": it is unjust to extend mercy to the unrepentant; it is unloving to extend mercy to those who do not want it. In the end, those who are not with God, will not desire mercy - and if they did, it would not be for the right reason.

God will extend forgiveness to anybody who sincerely calls out to Him with a willingness to repent, surrender, and invite God into his heart. Hell is a chosen destination.

7. who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself;

Without Twain (or you) providing some sort of substantiation or examples for me to deal with, I cannot take this seriously. As well, it is illogical: if God has no morals, then He has no reason to extend mercy to anybody who rejects Him, mocks Him, disobeys Him. The fact that we are free to sin attests to God's fairness in honoring our freewill, as well as His justice.

8. who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all

Ditto - see above.

9. who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself;

Arrogant beyond belief. As detestable as the child who - angry at his parents - says "I didn't ask to be born" - as if Life is something they would have chosen to reject if offered it; as if whatever is bothering them compares to being alive. Childish to the extreme.

Creations don't have to ask or like that they were created. Here is where Twain loses my respect. I contributed to the "creation" of my children; I am not responsible for their choices in this life. You cannot blame God for what His creations have freely chosen to do.

10. with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!

God invites His creatures to worship Him 1) because - as the sustainer and creator of all life - He is worthy of our praise. Yes life is full of bad things that aren't His fault - but don't dismiss the many blessings that do exist.

2) God designed us: we were designed to need God - as such, praising/worshiping Him benefits us. Just as in sincere praise given to one who deserves it here on earth benefits both the praised and the praiser, the same is true of God: I believe that the human spirit benefits from giving praise to God.


All in all, Twain's list is nothing more than a rant of complaints based on misinterpretations and misunderstandings as to who God is; honestly, it is not the list I'd expect from a thinking man of Twain's caliber; it strikes me more as an angry teenager complaining about his parents.



You're missing the point entirely, and I believe this is called special pleading. For example: in English class last year, after reading "The Great Gatsby" I wrote a paper about it; the subject of my paper was, "In your opinion, is Gatsby a hero or a villain?" But, as you argue, since it's all fiction, I can't use the book to form any interpretations about any of the characters, right? God is a literary character in a fictional book, and thus, despite that fact that you believe in him, is subject to the same rules as any other character, and the bible is subject to the same kind of literary analysis as any other work. I don't have to accept that the bible is true -- just as I don't have to accept that "The Great Gatsby" is true -- to criticize the actions of the characters within the book.

But there is no debate about the actuality of Gatsby; it is a given that this is a fictional character in a fictional world - a unified creation of the author. Not so with the Bible: we do not agree that God is a fictional character; as well, in Fitzgerald's book, we don't say "well, this incident is true, but this one is not." People who attack God, generally discount the parts of the Bible that argue against their interpretations. There is a significant difference in discussing a literary character and the God of the Bible. Just because you think he's fictional doesn't mean that your argument holds any weight with those of us who know Him to be absolutely REAL.

You are free to criticize God; I only ask that you consider all the evidence - not just that which fits your argument.





No; I was a child once, though, and I remember it pretty well.

As we all were; that doesn't make you any type of credible authority on raising children. I've been a teacher for 14 years; that doesn't mean that I know how to be a principal (part of the job which is to evaluate teachers).




And I'm saying that children lack the ability to understand complex ideas that you think should be withheld from them, and that it would make absolutely no difference even if you did try to inform them. I once accessed a porn site when I was 8-years-old, mostly because I knew that it was something I wasn't supposed to do, which made me curious. Do you know what my reaction was? I thought it was boring -- it didn't warp me or my views of sexuality.

Your response to the porn site proves nothing; first, because who'd actually admit that such a thing affected them? Second, the effects of premature exposure do not always manifest themselves in catastrophic ways; they may show up in very subtle attitdues or expectations that are not healthy in relationships. As well, who's going to actually claim that "yes - my views on sexuality are now totally warped through my viewing pornography"? I respect your statement, but it really cannot carry much weight. I'd have to have access to all your relationships as well as your spiritual being to truly know if you haven't been affected at all - and I can't do that (but God can).




I find this condescending and presumptuous.
My apologies; are you suggesting that there's no truth in what I said? Your repsonse simply says you didn't like the content - but it didn't say if I was wrong or not.



I've heard those exact arguments from people, except substitute "dangerous mental illness" with "blinded by the devil and bound for hell." For the record, I think both Dawkins and Hitchens go overboard, so you're not exactly going to encounter much argument from me as far as they are concerned.

Hearing the same arguments from elsewhere doesn't validate the ones you're presenting (the two wrongs don't make a right fallacy).


There's absolutely no basis for this assertion (and it's certainly not one that I would agree with), and besides that, I encounter intolerance and insults every day from Christians at my school -- I'm not sure why you're focusing only on writers.

1. In general, Christian writers do not attack atheists with the kind of venom that Hitchens and Dawkins do. Period.

2. Could you give me an example of the "intolerance" you experience at the hands of Christians "every day"?


This, quite frankly, is 100% what I was referring to when I first brought up the point about teaching children religion -- this sends chills down my spine, and to be honest, every time I hear it the idea that atheists are more moral than believers seems a little stronger to me. The only reason you try to be a good person is because you want a reward, and because you're afraid of punishment? That seems very selfish, not to mention that it brings up another major problem I've always had with religion -- it teaches people how to die rather than how to live.
Edit: It appears that Petronius argued this last point much better than I. Needless to say, I completely agree with his post.

1. You misunderstand. Christians who only do the right thing for the reward,or the fear of punishment, will not do so for long (as our earthly crime rates attest to); the only way to truly be good is to do so because you love God and wish to please Him.

2. There is no substantiative proof that atheists are any more moral than believers. As well, I have never suggested that Christians are inherently better than atheists; what I do suggest is that the knowledge of a final accounting does place our behaviour in a different context than the idea that there is nothing beyond. Seriously, atheists can be moral too; but what I'm pointing to is that the Christian's morality is more binding because it comes from God; the nonbeliever can take it or leave it - why sacrifice and be selfless when it doesn't benefit me? Why do anything kind, or generous, or sacrifical? And, why not do what pleases me if the only thing I have to fear is earthly punishment? Human beings very much function under the knowledge of accountability; you don't like that Christianity says that "you'll get into trouble for doing that" but I'm certain you acknowledge that without a similar system on earth (police, laws, courts, consequences) that our society would fall into total anarachy.

Christian moraltiy has a more stable basis, because our adherance to do what is right is not founded on our moods, or our whims about what is right. The atheist has no such stable foundation; he may dismiss morality as worthless if he so chooses because it has no basis beyond human whim or preference.

[Big Al]

Did you notice that you start referring to me as "Petronius" after the first quote? For a moment I thought you had only responded to me once.

Oh, and damn this took a long time to type -- I've been sitting at the computer for two hours. I think we need to limit our responses somehow.


Twain has read the Bible and these are his interpretations based upon the things he read. This is standard for those who don't like (and/or don't understand) the character of God as presented in the Bible. How am I supposed to respond? Refute all these? Even if I did, it's highly unlikely that you'd conceed anything.

Oh, the irony.


But, I will do what I can:

1. God who could make good children as easily a bad, yet preferred to make bad ones;

No: God made Adam and Eve pure and good; they chose to sin, and as our first parents, they passed sin down to all follwing generations. God will not go against the human will. He cannot make me "good" if I do not wish to be good. Provide a proof text from the Bible (the only authoritative record of God's character) to substantiate Twain's charge.

Now this discussion gets interesting. If they are "pure and good," why would they sin? The point isn't that God should infringe on anybody's free will, the point is that he has the ability to create people with a genuine abhorrence of sinning. Why would he create us so that we are instinctively drawn toward behavior that is considered sinful? You say that he "cannot make you good if you do not want to be," but he could have created mankind with the natural urge to do good and never evil. What possible sense does it make, except to exalt the strongest and punish the weak?


2. who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one;

I repeat: God will not go against the human will. He cannot "make" us be happy. Our happiness is a byproduct of other things that happen in this life. Christians suffer as much as non-believers - but their confidence in God and their faith often helps them face trials with more hope than those who don't believe. Again, where's Twains proof that God doesn't "make" happy people?

Once again, good could have instilled happiness as an inherent quality in humanity. He could have created humans so that they never felt bad or unpleasant feelings. Why didn't he?


3. who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short;

Christians prize life as a gift of God; this does not mean we always enjoy it. If God chooses to shorten a life, who are we to argue? He CREATED us; it is His prerogative (as an all-knowing, wise, just and loving God) to decide how long He wants us here on earth. You don't have to like it.

My parents created me; should I accept that it is their perogative to decide how long I should remain on the earth?


4.who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it;

Adam and Eve were given happiness "unearned": they chose to squander it and we (unfortunately) have inherited that condition. If angels chose the same, they too would have to "earn" happiness - but again, I think Twain's focus on "happiness" is misguided: happiness cannot be the goal of existence: that is a fruitless pursuit: happiness must come as a byproduct of something else we do or experience.

First and foremost I take tremendous issue with a god who punishes generations and generations of human beings for the actions of the first, but that's a slightly different matter. Is God omniscient? Does God see all that will ever happen? If so, he would have known from the beginning of creation that man would sin, and would then be forced to earn eternal paradise. If he knows how it will turn out from the start, I don't really think it makes any difference how he puts it into play.


5. who gave is angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body;

See above.

Ditto.


6. who mouths justice, and invented hell--mouths mercy, and invented hell--mouths Golden Rules and foregiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell;

Hell is justice. It is God's acknowledgement of the human choice to be rule oneself instead of submitting to the Creator. God will not force anybody to live in eternity with Him because to do so would be to make these individuals absolutely miserable.

So you are asserting that God's presence in the lives of certain people is equal to misery? I've never heard a Christian actually admit that before.


God allows the individuals who choose to reject Him to exist without Him - but what they may not realize is that existence without God is not worth living.

But you just said that they would be miserable with God's presence.


Ditto with "mercy": it is unjust to extend mercy to the unrepentant; it is unloving to extend mercy to those who do not want it. In the end, those who are not with God, will not desire mercy - and if they did, it would not be for the right reason.

God will extend forgiveness to anybody who sincerely calls out to Him with a willingness to repent, surrender, and invite God into his heart. Hell is a chosen destination.

I find these ideas of "mercy" and "forgiveness" to be cruel examples of taking the path of least resistance. It is not "unjust" to refuse to forgive or show mercy to the unrepentant any more than it is "unjust" to show love to one's enemies. Besides that, if he really wanted to save people, God could actually show himself to every skeptic and unbeliever on the face of the earth; I don't want to speak for anybody else, but I reject the idea of a god because I have never seen any evidence for one, or have ever seen any reason to believe in one (for the record, I'm a life-long atheist -- I was an atheist before I even knew what an atheist was, because ideas of religion were never instilled in me), not because I shun mercy and forgiveness. If God would actually appear before me, rather than forcing me to rely on faith (once again, I'm forced to ask: why? Why should humans have to take everything on faith?), I would become a believer. He could save everybody (without infringing on free will), but he chooses not to.


7. who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself;

Without Twain (or you) providing some sort of substantiation or examples for me to deal with, I cannot take this seriously. As well, it is illogical: if God has no morals, then He has no reason to extend mercy to anybody who rejects Him, mocks Him, disobeys Him. The fact that we are free to sin attests to God's fairness in honoring our freewill, as well as His justice.

You just said in your last point that he, in fact, does not extend mercy to those people, and that it would be unjust of him to do so. But as far as God being immoral, there are countless examples in the Old Testament, like getting angry and drowning just about every person and living creature on the face of the earth. God murders a lot of people, and commands a lot of people to be murdered, and sends plagues to torture people. He is described as being "proud," "wrathful," and "jealous." Besides any specific examples, I think that the very existence of evil is evidence of God's immorality. If God has free will, and never chooses evil, then he could have created man with the same quality. There is no need for the existence of evil. Therefore, God either created evil for other reasons, and is immoral for causing suffering, or he does, in fact, choose evil, and is thus immoral by implication.


8. who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all

Ditto - see above.

Murder, pride, jealousy...


9. who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself;

Arrogant beyond belief. As detestable as the child who - angry at his parents - says "I didn't ask to be born" - as if Life is something they would have chosen to reject if offered it; as if whatever is bothering them compares to being alive. Childish to the extreme.

It's not the same thing, because God created man a certain way, and then blames man for acting as he created him. As I've stated before, God could have created man so that he is always happy, so that he never chooses sin, but he did not. It isn't childishness on Twain's part, it's cruelty on God's part. Besides, I'd say that it is pretty reasonable to assume that there are people out there who would not have chosen life, people who live in misery, poverty and squalor. Certainly people who commit suicide probably don't value the gift of life, and they are condemned to hell for it -- where is the justice?


Creations don't have to ask or like that they were created. Here is where Twain loses my respect. I contributed to the "creation" of my children; I am not responsible for their choices in this life. You cannot blame God for what His creations have freely chosen to do.

I've said this many times, but I'll say it again for emphasis: God could have imbued mankind with any quality that he wanted, but he chose mostly bad ones instead of good ones.


10. with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!

God invites His creatures to worship Him 1) because - as the sustainer and creator of all life - He is worthy of our praise. Yes life is full of bad things that aren't His fault - but don't dismiss the many blessings that do exist.

Wait, you mention blessings that exist. Does that mean that you are asserting that good things are the result of God, but bad things are not his fault? If he is the creator of all, then he is responsible for all the good AND bad things that happen. And why does creating us inherently entitle him to praise? If he created us -- for lack of a better word -- poorly, then he is surely NOT worthy of praise, and is in fact worthy of scorn.


2) God designed us: we were designed to need God - as such, praising/worshiping Him benefits us.

I have never felt any need for your god.


Just as in sincere praise given to one who deserves it here on earth benefits both the praised and the praiser, the same is true of God: I believe that the human spirit benefits from giving praise to God.

I don't think that the human spirit benefits from praising a cruel tyrant, though.


All in all, Twain's list is nothing more than a rant of complaints based on misinterpretations and misunderstandings as to who God is; honestly, it is not the list I'd expect from a thinking man of Twain's caliber; it strikes me more as an angry teenager complaining about his parents.

I would say that your defense of God is the product of misunderstandings and lack of thought on the issue, and is akin to a person being coerced into thinking that the cruel tyrant who rules over him is in fact a kind and generous leader.


But there is no debate about the actuality of Gatsby; it is a given that this is a fictional character in a fictional world - a unified creation of the author. Not so with the Bible: we do not agree that God is a fictional character; as well, in Fitzgerald's book, we don't say "well, this incident is true, but this one is not." People who attack God, generally discount the parts of the Bible that argue against their interpretations. There is a significant difference in discussing a literary character and the God of the Bible. Just because you think he's fictional doesn't mean that your argument holds any weight with those of us who know Him to be absolutely REAL.

This is really your problem, not mine. You're essentially saying that I should treat the bible and God differently because YOU treat the bible and God differently.


You are free to criticize God; I only ask that you consider all the evidence - not just that which fits your argument.

I have seen almost no good morals from God. Jesus, on the other hand, is a wonderful character (and yes, I said character), but even in the New Testament God still comes off as evil; I don't think that ritualistically sacrificing his son was the only way for an omnipotent god to solve the problem of sin.


As we all were; that doesn't make you any type of credible authority on raising children. I've been a teacher for 14 years; that doesn't mean that I know how to be a principal (part of the job which is to evaluate teachers).

It also doesn't make you an authority on the psychological development of children.


Your response to the porn site proves nothing; first, because who'd actually admit that such a thing affected them?

And who would say that it did affect them if it did not? I hate this kind of "logic."


Second, the effects of premature exposure do not always manifest themselves in catastrophic ways; they may show up in very subtle attitdues or expectations that are not healthy in relationships.

This is pure speculation on your part.


As well, who's going to actually claim that "yes - my views on sexuality are now totally warped through my viewing pornography"?

Woody Allen.


I respect your statement, but it really cannot carry much weight.

And yours do? You're just contradicting me.


I'd have to have access to all your relationships as well as your spiritual being to truly know if you haven't been affected at all - and I can't do that (but God can).

This line of thinking seems a little precarious, don't you think? After all, since you can't really know if knowledge or some event has affected a child, then surely anything could theoretically warp a child's mind. I mean, how would you ever know?


My apologies; are you suggesting that there's no truth in what I said? Your repsonse simply says you didn't like the content - but it didn't say if I was wrong or not.

Your argument was that you wouldn't accept what I wrote because I could be in denial. If I say you are wrong, then it follow to reason that you would simply say, "Well, you could be in denial, so how will you prove it?", thus effectively rendering yourself cut off from anything I have to say. I could do the same thing: I could assume that you're actually an bourgeoning atheist in denial who deals with his crisis of faith by arguing about Christianity with others, and that all of your arguments are an extension of that denial.


Hearing the same arguments from elsewhere doesn't validate the ones you're presenting (the two wrongs don't make a right fallacy).

That's hypocrisy. You did the same thing with atheist writers.


1. In general, Christian writers do not attack atheists with the kind of venom that Hitchens and Dawkins do. Period.

Well, this is an unsupported assertion, but I think it's probably true. Do you know why? Because you're comparing "general Christian writers" with "extreme atheist writers." It would be like if I wrote, "In general, atheist writers do not attack Christians with the kind of venom that Ann Coulter does."


2. Could you give me an example of the "intolerance" you experience at the hands of Christians "every day"?

An example? Sure. In study hall last year, there was a group of Christians who sat behind me and taunted and mocked me every day, probably to try to get a rise out of me. Instead of calling me by name, they call me "the atheist" and "the devil," and talk about all the bad things that are going to happen to me in hell when I die (one of which was being sodomized by Hitler). Most people aren't that bad to me, obviously, though I thank my lucky stars that I'm not a homosexual. I can't imagine what a gay person would have to go through from the Christians in my school (most of whom openly admit to not just "disliking," but outright "hating" homosexuals).


1. You misunderstand. Christians who only do the right thing for the reward,or the fear of punishment, will not do so for long (as our earthly crime rates attest to); the only way to truly be good is to do so because you love God and wish to please Him.

I disagree, for one because there are fewer atheists in prisons than any other group (even accounting of the statistical minority of atheists). I do good things because I derive a genuine and sincere satisfaction from the realization that I've made a beneficial difference in somebody else's life experience.


2. There is no substantiative proof that atheists are any more moral than believers.

My point was that atheists do good even without believing in the promise of an eternal reward.


As well, I have never suggested that Christians are inherently better than atheists; what I do suggest is that the knowledge of a final accounting does place our behaviour in a different context than the idea that there is nothing beyond. Seriously, atheists can be moral too; but what I'm pointing to is that the Christian's morality is more binding because it comes from God; the nonbeliever can take it or leave it - why sacrifice and be selfless when it doesn't benefit me?

'Why sacrifice and be selfless when it doesn't benefit me?' Do you actually think that way, because I find that reprehensible. Besides, it does benefit the individual because it benefits society as a whole, and better enables human beings to live in peace with one another.


Why do anything kind, or generous, or sacrifical? And, why not do what pleases me if the only thing I have to fear is earthly punishment?

Do all Christians have this, "Do good for the benefit of myself" mindset, or is it just you? I mean...Wow.


Human beings very much function under the knowledge of accountability; you don't like that Christianity says that "you'll get into trouble for doing that" but I'm certain you acknowledge that without a similar system on earth (police, laws, courts, consequences) that our society would fall into total anarachy.

Not necessarily -- it depends largely on the culture. Besides, you seem to be functioning under the impression that most people are immoral, reprehensible scum, and as soon as they can get away with it, they'll start robbing, stealing, murdering and raping others. I happen to think that most people are good and decent, and will usually do the right things.


Christian moraltiy has a more stable basis, because our adherance to do what is right is not founded on our moods, or our whims about what is right. The atheist has no such stable foundation; he may dismiss morality as worthless if he so chooses because it has no basis beyond human whim or preference.

You keep saying things about the immoral things that atheists COULD do, but what does the fact that the overwhelming majority does not do such things say about your worldview? Most of the violence and cruelty throughout history is a product of religion. How do you explain that?

Besides, I have a tremendous fear of anybody whose morals are static and unchanging in the face of an intellectually progressive culture. For example: the bible says that it is wrong to lie, steal and murder. But if somebody approaches you wanting to beat up your best friend, is it wrong to lie about his location? Is it wrong for a starving man to steal food to feed his family? Is it wrong to execute a brutal serial killer who shows no remorse for what he has done? That fact that most people would seriously think about the morality of each individual situation says a few things to me: morality comes from our ability to reason, not God; morality progresses as society progresses; and morals are not absolute.

[Petronius]

From an article published in 2008:

"At this stage, oxytocin,, the same chemical involved in childbirth and bonding to the infant, shows up in the blood of both men and women . This stage is often referred to as the attachment stage. Oxytocin is released during orgasm in both men and women. It has been postulated that the more sex the couple has, the more bonded they will become."

Sex "bonds" people in profound ways; as a Christian, I believe that what Genesis says about a man and woman "becoming one" is literal - in the spiritual sense. If science tells us that we carry the DNA of all the partners we've ever had, I don't see why it's unreasonable to believe that the human heart is profoundly influenced by sexual interaction.

Despite relational disasters always existing, I will simply point out that freeing ourselves up to screw whomever we wish has not improved anything; as such, that suggests to me that perhaps some of the "repressive" ideas of the past (only have sex inside the confines of marriage) weren't necessarily the problem with our relations in the past.

I already accounted for my mistake about what you meant by "bonding chemicals". However, I belive you misused it (well, the nickname isn't quite appropriate either) because, as it refers to hormones released during social interaction, and not chemicals that would condition long-term emotional relationing on their own, as derived from the context, it doesn't help your point too much.

What you refer to is associative learning that links these released chemicals (and the sensations involved) to a certain person, especially after multiple interactions of similar nature. However, man is a somewhat more complex animal. We can understand pavlovian effects and should be able to counter some of them if necessary. In fact, we are often required to do it in order to keep up with the requirements of society. From simple things, like timetables, our diet, nasty little habits we may develop, to things regarding relationships - and for the most time it's all up to decisions in the brain. The first lesson many youngsters learn (sometimes the hard way) while interacting with the opposite sex is that friendship doesn't translate to love. I believe the same thing is possible with sex, but you are right that we are going nowhere, especially when both our personal views and outside examples are considered invalid arguments. It's not likely that we will change each other's opinions.


1. Because of the fall, Christians accept as a given that all human beings are inherently sinful - that we are selfish and self-driven; that, in absence of moral training, we will develop into egotistical, narcissistic, entitled monsters.

2. I did not say the "word of God" was "necessary" for morality. What I suggested is that morality must come from God; if morality comes from God, then it comes from a source beyond humanity, which makes the moral code transcendant: i.e. - it exists beyond human whim and preference. Once we say that morality is human based, it can now be whatever culture decides it wishes it to be. Look around the world and you will find cultures that believe things that we find abhorrent. If morality is only man-made, then we have no ground, no authority to condemn things like female genital mutilation, genocide, cannibalism.

3. I don't get how humanity - if we came from pond scum and monkeys - should possess any desire to "transcend" - within which cell, chemical or synapse is the "transcend" desire to be found? Can this desire be measured scientifically? Where in my brain does it exist?

The Universe is composed of tiny particles and forces that interract based on ineffable rules (which I personally can't attribute to the biblical God because they are not life-aspected and are beyond the concepts of good, evil and choice). Based on these rules, larger systems are formed: molecules of matter, which in turn have specific propreties and converge in chemicals and celestial bodies. We are talking here about systems within systems that at some point may become independant enough to sustain relatively constant laws, thought they will never be completley free of outside influence.
Such a system is Earth: it went (and is still going) through a very slow transition which from multiple short-term perspectives can be seen as a series of constant equilibriums, such as the one we define existence by today. The Earth has certain propreties inherent to a period of equilibrium, and is constantly bombarded with energy from another system, the Sun.
This may not be completely accurate, as I am not an expert in the field, but should help set in the idea of evolution.

Your disregard of "pond scum" and "monkeys" is a bit disheartening, and equally amusing. It is pretty certain today, even for many christians, that life started as monocelular entities. I can't explain "who" "made" those - perhaps they originated as a cyclical interaction of dead chemicals that managed to reproduce its form and gain autonomy - but then again you can't explain the origin of God so we'd best leave it to the future generations to sort these things out.
These monocelular entities eventually grouped up into simple organisms. Why did they evolve? Simple. They may have been indifferent whether they died or continued their existance, but in this case only the latter managed to multiply, therefore, generation after generation of selection, living organisms became defined by prefference for survival. The ones associating in groups (multicelular) could divide function, gain better self-control and mobility, and prey on the others. Thus the process started. Further down the path, as organisms became more complex, rather than divide they turned to sexual reproduction, meaning the parent would create a single cell holding the descendant's code, and the latter would have to, for the most part, get his own resources to reach adult stage. The continuation of this process culminated with the development of man.
Transcendency is really a particularity of life... we wouldn't be here if it wasn't so. Living things, given that they have a tendency to want to prolongue and improve their existance through their interaction with the environment and other lifeforms (simply put it, they are selfish), will most often than not take that one tiny little step to the better, and therefore evolve as new posibilities are unlocked. All that is living is modified by interaction - I don't see how you can bring up the pavlovian effect (well, sort of, indirectly), and not understand evolution. Evolution is the child learning from his parents, the prehistoric man who, watching another burn his hand with fire, decides not to touch it, the same one realising that, having killed the former, has lost someone he could have learned from, and therefore killing another is bad.
So many threads lead to the truth of evolution, from archeological and biological evidence, mutations proving the variability of the genetic code, to the simple, obvious fact that so many of the complex creatures, being so different from eachother, have so many common traits. The transcendant caracter of life is just as natural as a river flowing downstream or grass bending under the wind. I don't know how anyone, upholder of christian values or not, can not understand the logic of it.
Sorry about the rant, but you mentioned pond scum and monkeys and asked.

Regarding the other points, I don't want to argue about the flawed logic in the story of the original sin. Surely, all the suffering in the world started because our primordial ancestors ate an apple without permission (ironically, even that hints of evolution, that of our sinful tendencies). The nature of one being, especially one as complex as us, cannot be significantly altered by a simple choice.

As for the nature of morality, I belive we have developed it to help us deal with social cooperation, which in time proved an extraordinary boost to our development as a species. Therefore, it is inherently human, whether you find that reassuring or scary. I have no "authority" to condemn what I consider to be atrocities, but I can ackowledge that I disaprove of them, that I don't want them spreading and that I am compassionate towards those who suffer them. Because I wouldn't want to be in their place, because they have the potential to make the lives of others better, and their suffering is a waste.
That is not to say I couldn't be wrong. Others may enjoy being mutilated or killed, or could already be monsters beyond my ability to redeem. Being wrong is a possibility we all have to live with. But, ultimately, "good" remains a very selfish term.


Did you notice that you start referring to me as "Petronius" after the first quote? For a moment I thought you had only responded to me once.

Oh, and damn this took a long time to type -- I've been sitting at the computer for two hours. I think we need to limit our responses somehow.

For me it probably took longer, given my tendency to get distracted while writing. Your post wasn't here when I started.

And I can only thank Red for being attributed some of your ideas. :lol:

[Redzeppelin]

Did you notice that you start referring to me as "Petronius" after the first quote? For a moment I thought you had only responded to me once.

Sorry. Answering multiple posters sometimes gets sloppy. My apologies.


Oh, and damn this took a long time to type -- I've been sitting at the computer for two hours. I think we need to limit our responses somehow.

Right - so you'll pardon me if I only address the key sentences from your posts.



If they are "pure and good," why would they sin?

Because they were given a free will to chose between two alternatives. Being pure does not mean being beyond temptation.


The point isn't that God should infringe on anybody's free will, the point is that he has the ability to create people with a genuine abhorrence of sinning.

I think humanity as originally designed had such "programming" - but that doesn't mean that sin always appears as some sort of obviously abhorrent thing - just like the devil isn't a red guy with a pitchfork; sometimes he comes in more innocent guises (to use Twain: I think Tom Sawyer is an excellent example of how evil often looks "harmless" and is just out to "have some fun" - cf. the deplorable last 10 chapters of Huck Finn). Satan didn't come right out and admit to what he was doing - he manipulated Eve.


Why would he create us so that we are instinctively drawn toward behavior that is considered sinful? You say that he "cannot make you good if you do not want to be," but he could have created mankind with the natural urge to do good and never evil. What possible sense does it make, except to exalt the strongest and punish the weak?

God did not make us to be "drawn" towards sinful behavior; He created us to be like Him - but as fleshly creatures, we have inherent weaknesses that could be exploited; the very fact that we are created beings means that we are subject to things that God is not. Again - I cannot over-stress the fact that Adam and Eve fell because they were lied to and tricked. The embraced sin, but under false pretences.



Once again, good could have instilled happiness as an inherent quality in humanity. He could have created humans so that they never felt bad or unpleasant feelings. Why didn't he?

You're making me repeat myself. Programming "happiness" into us denies us the spontaneous and unpredictable enjoyment of life; what good is happiness if it is a pre-programmed default? God created us to interact with our environment - programming us to be happy all the time makes us into drones. Rather than create as that way, God sought to give us a world that would offer us consistent happiness; Adam and Eve lost that for us.



My parents created me; should I accept that it is their perogative to decide how long I should remain on the earth?

Technically, they begat you; only God can actually create human life. As such, your parents do not possess the prerogative to decide how long you should live; God may do so because all life comes into existence through Him. Your parents simply utilized the "tools" and "systems" God created and provided them with to "create" you.



First and foremost I take tremendous issue with a god who punishes generations and generations of human beings for the actions of the first, but that's a slightly different matter.

The nature of sin can best be compared to an infectious disease or radiation - once it "enters" into the human system, it is passed down because it contaminates whatever it "touches." Hypothetically, had Adam not eaten the fruit, he would have remained sinless and connected to God. God did not "punish" all following generations - the entrance of sin was something He had no say in. What happened to following generations was a natural consequence of becoming contaminated with sin.



Is God omniscient? Does God see all that will ever happen? If so, he would have known from the beginning of creation that man would sin, and would then be forced to earn eternal paradise. If he knows how it will turn out from the start, I don't really think it makes any difference how he puts it into play.

An entirely separate discussion that takes a long time to articulate (but has been addressed elsewhere in this forum). I will try to be quick: let's not assume that God interacts with time as we do; as well, there is a possibility that God's experience to time allows Him to only know what exists to be known; our decisions do not exist to be known until we actually make them. That's the short form. Read Richard Rice's The Openness of God to get the full run-down.


So you are asserting that God's presence in the lives of certain people is equal to misery? I've never heard a Christian actually admit that before.

Here's how Paul puts it in 2 Corinthians 2:15-16: "For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life."

To those who reject God, His presence would be sheer hell. That's why I say hell is a chosen destination - not a sentence from God.



But you just said that they would be miserable with God's presence.

OK - I'll try and untangle what I said. People who reject God generally dislike being in the presence of those who accept and love God (generally). When God finally reveals Himself, even those who rejected Him will realize the mistake they have made - though at that point it will be too late to change anything. Nonbelievers will be in a double bind: they will be miserable out of God's presence, but they'd be unhappy in His presence as well - the first suffering coming from the realization of the eternal happiness lost, the second from their refusal to make God their master instead of theirselves.



Besides that, if he really wanted to save people, God could actually show himself to every skeptic and unbeliever on the face of the earth; I don't want to speak for anybody else, but I reject the idea of a god because I have never seen any evidence for one, or have ever seen any reason to believe in one (for the record, I'm a life-long atheist -- I was an atheist before I even knew what an atheist was, because ideas of religion were never instilled in me), not because I shun mercy and forgiveness. If God would actually appear before me, rather than forcing me to rely on faith (once again, I'm forced to ask: why? Why should humans have to take everything on faith?), I would become a believer. He could save everybody (without infringing on free will), but he chooses not to.

God's presence in anything but the faintest manifestation would overwhelm the human being into servitude through sheer fear and awe at His power; that would end scepticism, but the end would be undesireable. Bill Gates wants to be loved because of who he is - not his impressive bank account; God is the same: He desires His creatures to chose Him and love Him based on faith alone - kind of like the story where the millionaire pretends to be penniless in order to find the spouse who loves him, not his wealth. To paraphrase CS Lewis in The Screwtape Letters: "God cannot ravish; He can only woo."

"Saving everybody" violates the free will of those who don't wish to serve Him and also makes a joke out of justice. For those who refuse to accept the pardon that Christ's atoning death on the cross offers us, there must be a final accounting. You would never agree to the sort of wholesale amnesty you are advocating for earthly criminals commiting earthly crimes - why would you do so for people who have committed the highest crimes of all - mocking, rejecting, refusing the call of God?



But as far as God being immoral, there are countless examples in the Old Testament, like getting angry and drowning just about every person and living creature on the face of the earth.

First, being angry is not a sin; it is our actions taken under anger that come under judgment. Ephesians 4:6 - "In your anger do not sin."

God destroyed humanity for their own good. Sin is like a deadly cancer - if we assume God to be all-knowing, loving and just, then we may assume that His action was the right one to take; people who disagree with those actions are doing so based on their belief that they know better than God - that God is not all-knowing, loving and just - but what is the basis for such a belief? His actions? But actions occur within contexts - and we are not in command of all the "contexts" that God is.



God murders a lot of people, and commands a lot of people to be murdered, and sends plagues to torture people.

As the Creator of all life, it is God's prerogative to end life if His wisdom sees it as the best choice; we cannot see what God does - our limited perspective (like that of children) prompts us to question and condemn the actions of He who sees far more than we do - both externally and internally. God's justice is always a consequence. It is never a random act of violence.




He is described as being "proud," "wrathful," and "jealous."

There is such a thing as righteous indignation - when we observe terrible unjustices (the corruption of justice, the oppression of the poor and helpless, the manipulation and mistreatment of the elderly, etc) we feel righteous indignation - and that is an appropriate response. Those adjectives are descriptions of God's righteous indignation.




Besides any specific examples, I think that the very existence of evil is evidence of God's immorality. If God has free will, and never chooses evil, then he could have created man with the same quality.

No - because no matter how perfectly we are created, we are still created beings; God is the only uncreated being in the universe; we cannot become like Him in that fashion.

The potential consequence of giving humans free will was that they might choose to reject God; a big risk, but God felt it was worth it because free will is a prerequisite for love; love can ony exist in the presence of the legitimate choice to not love.




There is no need for the existence of evil.

God would fully agree with you.


Therefore, God either created evil for other reasons, and is immoral for causing suffering, or he does, in fact, choose evil, and is thus immoral by implication.

The existence of evil was the potential risk of giving us free will - but God apparently felt that having a bunch of mindless automatons was not worth having - that such an existence was no existance at all.



It's not the same thing, because God created man a certain way, and then blames man for acting as he created him. As I've stated before, God could have created man so that he is always happy, so that he never chooses sin, but he did not.

You are repeating yourself, and I'm weary of explaining the illogical basis of this argument.



Besides, I'd say that it is pretty reasonable to assume that there are people out there who would not have chosen life, people who live in misery, poverty and squalor. Certainly people who commit suicide probably don't value the gift of life, and they are condemned to hell for it -- where is the justice?

One reality contradicts all you've said: there are thousands upon thousands of people who live in squalor, fear, danger, suffering who choose to continue living despite their circumstances. Those who commit suicide generally do so for selfish reasons; for every person who leaves this life because the pain is overwhelming, a larger number continues to get up each day; our most stirring and inspiring stories are made up from such individuals.


I've said this many times, but I'll say it again for emphasis: God could have imbued mankind with any quality that he wanted, but he chose mostly bad ones instead of good ones.

Dead horse, beaten yet again.



Wait, you mention blessings that exist. Does that mean that you are asserting that good things are the result of God, but bad things are not his fault? If he is the creator of all, then he is responsible for all the good AND bad things that happen. And why does creating us inherently entitle him to praise? If he created us -- for lack of a better word -- poorly, then he is surely NOT worthy of praise, and is in fact worthy of scorn.

"Good" and "bad" may or may not be as easily interpreted by us as we'd like to think (and I speak here in terms of the circumstances of my life). Example - I may be a Christian who plays the lottery weekly, but I never win anything and live a life of "just getting by." I may discover in heaven, that God knew me well enough to know that wealth would have a terrible effect on my spirit and soul, and that He worked against my becoming wealthy; on the other hand, Joe Christian in the next town did win the lottery, because God knew that Joe would use the money wisely and that his soul would not be warped by it. Next: I may be wandering down the wrong path - away from God; since God cares more about my holiness - more about my being with Him in heaven - than my creature comforts, He might allow me to experience a trial of some sort - losing a job, an illness, or something that would bring me back to the reality of my need of Him; the Bible tells us that whatever we lose, God will eventually restore.


I have never felt any need for your god.

Ostensibly true; but the things you do feel a need for - have they ever truly satisfied you? Some would contend that our modern "addictions" are largely the result of trying to fill our need of God with a substitute - none of which ever works; money, sex, food, drugs, drink, shopping, gambling, relationships, career, fame - none of them work; none of them satisfy us at our deepest levels; only God can do that.


I don't think that the human spirit benefits from praising a cruel tyrant, though.

Many soldiers will tell you that one of the most important people in their lives and the development in their personal character was their drill sargeant - guys who are not known for being likeable, gentle, or "nurturing."




I would say that your defense of God is the product of misunderstandings and lack of thought on the issue, and is akin to a person being coerced into thinking that the cruel tyrant who rules over him is in fact a kind and generous leader.

Fascinating; why is it that nonbelievers always default to an argument that they can't possibly prove - one that I could easily turn around and lay upon you? You know NOTHING of my understanding of the Bible and God; you know NOTHING of how much time I have spent studying and praying over what I believe; you know NOTHING of the spiritual journey I've taken, the times where I walked away from God and pretended He wasn't real; you know NOTHING of the kind of upbringing I received - and yet you resort to the most innane of arguments because you don't want to believe that any of what I'm saying might actually have some merit; it's simply easier to discredit my intellect, my credulity and my upbringing. I would call that a veiled ad hominem attack. Surely you can do better.


This is really your problem, not mine. You're essentially saying that I should treat the bible and God differently because YOU treat the bible and God differently.

Nope - you are not required to see Him or the Bible as I do; I simply pointed out how your literary example doesn't work; one of the first and primary requirements of argumentation is that the boundaries of the playing field must be agreed upon; I pointed out that we cannot argue about God to a literary character unless both of us agree that He is one; He's real to me, so your analogy of Gatsby holds no water.


I have seen almost no good morals from God. Jesus, on the other hand, is a wonderful character (and yes, I said character), but even in the New Testament God still comes off as evil; I don't think that ritualistically sacrificing his son was the only way for an omnipotent god to solve the problem of sin.

But Jesus IS God - he was God come to earth in the flesh. They are not two different individuals; most Biblical scholars will tell you that the word "Lord" in the OT is actually a reference to Christ.

The only way to "pardon" our death sentence was for a perfect sacrifce to take our place; God is a God of justice - He will not "erase" the consequences of sin; to do so would play right into Satan's charge that God is unfair.


It also doesn't make you an authority on the psychological development of children.

No - but it gives me more credibility than those who have none.



And who would say that it did affect them if it did not? I hate this kind of "logic."

I would, based upon my beliefs about the spiritual component of our existence; the Bible says that by beholding we become changed; I believe that. Most people (you included) make assumptions and give interpretations based upon an underlying world view (they we may or may not acknowledge). Ted Bundy, before execution, told Focus on the Family founder James Dobson that his descent towards the monster he became began with pornography.



This is pure speculation on your part.

Or maybe this is pure speculation on your part - how would you know?


Woody Allen.

Big Al scores!


And yours do? You're just contradicting me.

I'm certain to you that little of what I say carries any weight. I simply question the veracity of your statement based upon some considerations of logic as well as my beliefs concerning the effects of sin on human emotional/spiritual health and our relationships.



This line of thinking seems a little precarious, don't you think? After all, since you can't really know if knowledge or some event has affected a child, then surely anything could theoretically warp a child's mind. I mean, how would you ever know?

Repeated exposure to violence or pornography has been documented in psychology to alter how an individual perceives other people; men who continually expose themselves to pornography develop warped ideas about female sexuality and relationships; people who routinely expose themselves to violent depictions find their sensitivity and empathy towards others compromised.


Your argument was that you wouldn't accept what I wrote because I could be in denial. If I say you are wrong, then it follow to reason that you would simply say, "Well, you could be in denial, so how will you prove it?", thus effectively rendering yourself cut off from anything I have to say. I could do the same thing: I could assume that you're actually an bourgeoning atheist in denial who deals with his crisis of faith by arguing about Christianity with others, and that all of your arguments are an extension of that denial.

You could say that. My assertion is based upon the idea that most people like to believe that they're essentially "fine" - and that the things we do aren't really that big of a deal. Society teaches us that part of being a guy is using pornography - so we've been trained to see it as "normal" and that it's "no big deal." From a spiritual standpoint, that is wrong - so my assertion has a philosophical basis - does yours?


Well, this is an unsupported assertion, but I think it's probably true. Do you know why? Because you're comparing "general Christian writers" with "extreme atheist writers." It would be like if I wrote, "In general, atheist writers do not attack Christians with the kind of venom that Ann Coulter does."

Name me an atheist writer who has written a book condemning Christiantiy/religion/God in the last 10 years who has done so in a fair, reasonable and measured way.



An example? Sure. In study hall last year, there was a group of Christians who sat behind me and taunted and mocked me every day, probably to try to get a rise out of me. Instead of calling me by name, they call me "the atheist" and "the devil," and talk about all the bad things that are going to happen to me in hell when I die (one of which was being sodomized by Hitler). Most people aren't that bad to me, obviously, though I thank my lucky stars that I'm not a homosexual. I can't imagine what a gay person would have to go through from the Christians in my school (most of whom openly admit to not just "disliking," but outright "hating" homosexuals).

At what age did this occur? I will apologize personally, because (without knowledge of any extenuating circumstances ) what was said/done to you was [I]wrong - period. No mature Christian who truly loves God would say such a thing. I am ashamed that such people carry the same title as I. Here's where the justice of God might appeal to you: the Bible makes it clear that "to whom much is given, much is expected." In other words, those who know about God and act like turds will be held to a higher standard of judgment than those who knew little. To speak plainly, unless these characters have mended their ways, they are in for one uncomfortable meeting with the Almighty. A good comparison is in the Gospels: Jesus warned the Pharisees (the supposed religious experts of his culture) that their judgment would be harsher because they knew more about God and still behaved badly.


I do good things because I derive a genuine and sincere satisfaction from the realization that I've made a beneficial difference in somebody else's life experience.

I'm certain you are. But there is no reason for you to always do so; you can decide some day that self-interest will now be your guiding principle and act accordingly; for the believer, no such choice exists.



My point was that atheists do good even without believing in the promise of an eternal reward.

The Bible would say that those actions are taken because of the presence of God in these people's hearts (very few people are actually fully cut off from God).

My point is that the foundation of "good behavior" is more binding for the believer. That's all I meant to say.



'Why sacrifice and be selfless when it doesn't benefit me?' Do you actually think that way, because I find that reprehensible. Besides, it does benefit the individual because it benefits society as a whole, and better enables human beings to live in peace with one another.

It's a rhetorical question, Al. Relax - of course I don't believe that way - I'm arguing against such beliefs.

Putting "me" first rarely if ever benefits the community.



Do all Christians have this, "Do good for the benefit of myself" mindset, or is it just you? I mean...Wow.

Already covered above.




Not necessarily -- it depends largely on the culture. Besides, you seem to be functioning under the impression that most people are immoral, reprehensible scum, and as soon as they can get away with it, they'll start robbing, stealing, murdering and raping others. I happen to think that most people are good and decent, and will usually do the right things.

You're overstating my position (creating a straw man) so that it looks different than what it is and is easier to attack. Please stop that. I only believe that humans are inherently sinful, and will generally do what is in their self-interest; this selfishness may manifest itself in small ways (taking more than what you deserve, parking in the handicap spot) all the way up to the more heinous examples you listed.



You keep saying things about the immoral things that atheists COULD do, but what does the fact that the overwhelming majority does not do such things say about your worldview? Most of the violence and cruelty throughout history is a product of religion. How do you explain that?

I have not spoken ill of atheist morality except to suggest that its basis is subject to human whim and feeling - because there in nothing to hold the practitioner of "morals" to his/her behavior; the Christian is held to a higher standard than his/her feelings.

The "Religion is the cause of most of the violence and cruelty in human history" is one of the most overused and absurd assertions in the atheist lexicon of arguments. First, most wars are about real estate (even when claimed to be about religion); second, the reality is that people - religious or not - are generally clannish and quarrelsome and tend to find all manner of things to fight about.

The number of victims of "atheistic slaughter" in the name of "religion-free utopias" in the 20th century alone (Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot) numbers well over 100 million. An estimated 61,000,000 were killed in the Soviet Gulag state, 35,000,000 in Communist China, 21,000,000 under Nazi-ism, and 2,000,000 by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. If you can provide substantiative numbers that compare, committed in religious wars (and let's stick to those who believe in God), then we can have a conversation.


Besides, I have a tremendous fear of anybody whose morals are static and unchanging in the face of an intellectually progressive culture.

And I fear living in a culture where morality is subject to human whim and self-serving desire.

"Intellectually progressive culture"? Really? And how would I observe this "intellectually progressive culture"? By turning on the TV (mostly violent, sexualized goo, with "reality" programming rampant showing us the worst of human behavior)? By looking at our illiteracy level (using the US as example) - which is currently heading towards 25%? By looking at the continually dropping high school graduation rate and progressively easier exit exams (which are essentially checking that high school graduates have a 10th grade level of ability)? By examing our universities (the University of Michigan in past years carried a course called "How to Be Gay" in its catalogue, or the case where a man a decade ago petitioned for and got permission to pursue a masters degree in Madonna)? Please point out where I can spot the "intellectual progression" in my culture.



For example: the bible says that it is wrong to lie, steal and murder. But if somebody approaches you wanting to beat up your best friend, is it wrong to lie about his location? Is it wrong for a starving man to steal food to feed his family? Is it wrong to execute a brutal serial killer who shows no remorse for what he has done? That fact that most people would seriously think about the morality of each individual situation says a few things to me: morality comes from our ability to reason, not God; morality progresses as society progresses; and morals are not absolute.

Morality means doing what is best for the other; to answer your examples: No, No, No.

And where did our ability to reason come from? Which chemical and electormagnitic impulse (things we have no control over, by the way) has given us reason and the ability to discern truth?

[stlukesguild]

Milton didn't soften evil, he just mixed Shakespeare's sympathies in there. The same way Shakespeare makes Macbeth sympathetic, Milton tried to make Satan sympathetic, as to, I guess, sell more copies, or go down as a literary genius.

JBI... I don't know when you're scheduled to return from your trip... and I should probably wait until then... but I won't.:D My question is just how sympathetic a character do you think Satan was intended to be by Milton? Certainly we read him as such... a rebel against an omnipotent authoritarian ruler... perhaps not unlike his position under the recently re-established monarchy... but I also wonder how intentional his seeming empathy with Satan is. I often suspect that this modern Romantic interpretation of Milton's Satan (filtered through Shelley and Blake) is somewhat misguided... or perhaps one-sided. Is there not also an equal probability that Milton portrays Satan as such a sympathetic character simply as a means of showing just how smooth and deceitful is this lord of lies? Of course... this would not be unlike Shakespeare's representation of characters who appear one way but act another. Blake, it might be noted, goes so far as to suggest that:

"The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels and God, and at liberty when of Devils and Hell, is because he was a true Poet and of the Devil's party without knowing it."
-from The Marriage of Heaven and Hell

[Big Al]

Damn Red, how much free time do you have? I can't do this -- I am not going to spend three hours in front of a computer typing out responses. If we could shorten this discussion to one or two broad issues and go from there, I would be all for it, but this is just ridiculous; this site is just something I do pass time, not to fill time.

[Redzeppelin]

Damn Red, how much free time do you have? I can't do this -- I am not going to spend three hours in front of a computer typing out responses. If we could shorten this discussion to one or two broad issues and go from there, I would be all for it, but this is just ridiculous; this site is just something I do pass time, not to fill time.

Fine with me. If I do recall, you said you wanted an answer to all of Twain's complaints, so I did my best to comply.

[Big Al]

Well I guess you made me eat my own words. Touché.

[Judas130]

No contradiction. Someone would be a good murderer if he murdered effectively. However he would not be a good human being. The word 'inherently' is inappropriate here, since 'inherently' refers to the essence of a thing and not to an individual. Murderers are not inherently good, but murderers can be good murderers.


a good murderer is a one who is flawless when it comes to the act of murder.
a morally good murderer, wouldn't exist...unless the murderer has since repented for his actions and was truly sorry. Good and Evil, are moral based aspects of 'how we should act'. Killing someone, is seen as bad, or evil...and helping an old lady across the street is good. But Good and Evil are only words...naturally, murder is needed to survive, yet does that make it good?

'' good ''
1. morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man.
2. satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; good health.
3. of high quality; excellent.
4. right; proper; fit: It is good that you are here. His credentials are good.
5. well-behaved: a good child.


''evil ''
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.
2. harmful; injurious: evil laws.
3. characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous: to be fallen on evil days.
4. due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character: an evil reputation.
5. marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc.: He is known for his evil disposition.


two words influenced by moral guidelines laid down my authority to suit this current age.

[RichardHresko]

a good murderer is a one who is flawless when it comes to the act of murder.
a morally good murderer, wouldn't exist...unless the murderer has since repented for his actions and was truly sorry. Good and Evil, are moral based aspects of 'how we should act'. Killing someone, is seen as bad, or evil...and helping an old lady across the street is good. But Good and Evil are only words...naturally, murder is needed to survive, yet does that make it good?


two words influenced by moral guidelines laid down my authority to suit this current age.

We are in agreement as to the ideas that a murderer can be a good murderer qua murderer, and also that a morally good murderer could not exist.

I agree that 'good' and 'evil' are words, but not 'only' words, since that implies at least to me that they do not signify anything.

[blazeofglory]

Satan is part of all, and we are freedom fighters and so is Satan.

God is a king, and Satan wants a republican, and he wants heaven to be republic.

[Redzeppelin]

Satan is part of all, and we are freedom fighters and so is Satan.

God is a king, and Satan wants a republican, and he wants heaven to be republic.


No No No.

Satan wants to be King. He - a created being - wishes to be equal to an uncreated Being. On earth we can have republics and democracies because all humans are created equal. Heaven doesn't function that way because we are not equal to God - Satan (like all angels) was created - therefore he has no foundation upon which to claim equality with God.

[blazeofglory]

No No No.

Satan wants to be King. He - a created being - wishes to be equal to an uncreated Being. On earth we can have republics and democracies because all humans are created equal. Heaven doesn't function that way because we are not equal to God - Satan (like all angels) was created - therefore he has no foundation upon which to claim equality with God.

You said something claimable, as if you have really witnessed what form of government is there in heaven. You may think there is a good king, and God may be such a case. In point of fact god, if he or she or it or something beyond gender must be above all these attributes. Oftentimes we know through scriptures that God is above praise or blame, or to put it somewhat differently, all he has is not mundane reality and he really rises above what we see or come across in day today business affairs, and he is not a worldly entity and that we see in routines.

If we liken him, I am afraid I have wrongly gendered God, to a particular attribute we see our own reflections in doing so and not God’s at all. Maybe what you thought could be right or provably true to yourself if that can not be true to others, for there are so many gods, and all make construals of their own gods shaped by their own images, and their gods are their images drawn by their mental depictions or drawings.

We know there are so many tales about gods, and some are angry gods and others are always cheerful ones, and there are amorous gods, war gods. In Hinduism there are so many gods in so many shapes, sizes, figures.

I can not understand which god rules in your heaven? Is it a Christian God or Buddhist God, in fact the Buddha said little about God, and Buddhists, most are wrong followers have woven a web of their own and placed there all stories of heaven, gods, demigods and the like.

[JBI]

Milton didn't soften evil, he just mixed Shakespeare's sympathies in there. The same way Shakespeare makes Macbeth sympathetic, Milton tried to make Satan sympathetic, as to, I guess, sell more copies, or go down as a literary genius.

JBI... I don't know when you're scheduled to return from your trip... and I should probably wait until then... but I won't.:D My question is just how sympathetic a character do you think Satan was intended to be by Milton? Certainly we read him as such... a rebel against an omnipotent authoritarian ruler... perhaps not unlike his position under the recently re-established monarchy... but I also wonder how intentional his seeming empathy with Satan is. I often suspect that this modern Romantic interpretation of Milton's Satan (filtered through Shelley and Blake) is somewhat misguided... or perhaps one-sided. Is there not also an equal probability that Milton portrays Satan as such a sympathetic character simply as a means of showing just how smooth and deceitful is this lord of lies? Of course... this would not be unlike Shakespeare's representation of characters who appear one way but act another. Blake, it might be noted, goes so far as to suggest that:

"The reason Milton wrote in fetters when he wrote of Angels and God, and at liberty when of Devils and Hell, is because he was a true Poet and of the Devil's party without knowing it."
-from The Marriage of Heaven and Hell
I think he was deliberately sympathetic. I personally believe that Milton was disillusioned with the playing out of historical events, and as a result, sort of rebelled himself against a fading image of god. By the end, Milton, to me at least, seemed to push away from God altogether, and became far more secular.

Either way though, the book is seductively written, making anyone who believes in God a stiff, by my books. I don't think anyone could really favor Milton's god over his Satan, simply because for god we get "Hail Holy Light" etc. etc, but for Satan we get the most beautiful rhetoric, the most beautiful expressiveness that ever glazed English verse. I think such key moments as Satan's fight with Michael at the gates of heaven are more tragic, and show the sad-failures of a hero against an unbeatable foe, rather than the triumph of justice and right in the world.

[Redzeppelin]

You said something claimable, as if you have really witnessed what form of government is there in heaven. You may think there is a good king, and God may be such a case. In point of fact god, if he or she or it or something beyond gender must be above all these attributes. Oftentimes we know through scriptures that God is above praise or blame, or to put it somewhat differently, all he has is not mundane reality and he really rises above what we see or come across in day today business affairs, and he is not a worldly entity and that we see in routines.

If we liken him, I am afraid I have wrongly gendered God, to a particular attribute we see our own reflections in doing so and not God’s at all. Maybe what you thought could be right or provably true to yourself if that can not be true to others, for there are so many gods, and all make construals of their own gods shaped by their own images, and their gods are their images drawn by their mental depictions or drawings.

We know there are so many tales about gods, and some are angry gods and others are always cheerful ones, and there are amorous gods, war gods. In Hinduism there are so many gods in so many shapes, sizes, figures.

I can not understand which god rules in your heaven? Is it a Christian God or Buddhist God, in fact the Buddha said little about God, and Buddhists, most are wrong followers have woven a web of their own and placed there all stories of heaven, gods, demigods and the like.

The God I'm discussing is the one portrayed in the Bible. Both Genesis and the Book of John establish that before anything existed, God existed; that all that is created came from God; that God is all-powerful, and all-knowing, and all-present. No created being can possess those attributes. Revelation tells us that God is the "alpha and omega" the beginning and the end. In Isaiah 14 this is said about Satan:

"How are you fallen from heaven! howl in the morning! for you have fallen down to the ground, O reviler of the nations. For you have said in your heart, I will ascend to heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will dwell also upon the high mountains in the outer regions of the north. I will ascend to the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

Scholars universally point to this as clearly identifying the sin of Satan that got him cast out of heaven: he wished to rule alongside God - but as a created being, that cannot be so: only uncreated beings can rule as God - God the Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit.

My claims, therefore, are based upon scripture; not, as you suggest, "eyewitness account."

[blazeofglory]

The God I'm discussing is the one portrayed in the Bible. Both Genesis and the Book of John establish that before anything existed, God existed; that all that is created came from God; that God is all-powerful, and all-knowing, and all-present. No created being can possess those attributes. Revelation tells us that God is the "alpha and omega" the beginning and the end. In Isaiah 14 this is said about Satan:

"How are you fallen from heaven! howl in the morning! for you have fallen down to the ground, O reviler of the nations. For you have said in your heart, I will ascend to heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will dwell also upon the high mountains in the outer regions of the north. I will ascend to the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High."

Scholars universally point to this as clearly identifying the sin of Satan that got him cast out of heaven: he wished to rule alongside God - but as a created being, that cannot be so: only uncreated beings can rule as God - God the Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit.

My claims, therefore, are based upon scripture; not, as you suggest, "eyewitness account."

I do not subscribe to your argument, and you have a Christian God, not a universal God with all the follies of popes and priests.

There are other faiths and if you present the biblical idea of creation there were Hindus' own, Buddhists have their own.

To say your God created and is the master of the universe and the rest of Gods are subordinated to your God is a baseless notion.

Rise above all these narrow sentiments and discover a universal God that can appeal to all.

[skasian]

Define freedom in this context. If it applies to have the power to act over good without any restrains, then yes, satan is a freedom fighter as it fights over human's intention to act good.

[blazeofglory]

Define freedom in this context. If it applies to have the power to act over good without any restrains, then yes, satan is a freedom fighter as it fights over human's intention to act good.

No, there it exists in every one. No saint is bereft of it. Saintliness is not totally empty of satanic propensity or devilishness in some amount.

If we dig into truth beyond layers you will arrive at the truth where both satan and saint play together the same game.

[skasian]

Saints and devils are significantly different therefore cannot be supporting in this discussion. Saints were human still capable of falling through sin by the influence of the devil. Devil is not human, and is a being that influences human to act evil. Saints in heaven do not influence human to act good. Therefore saints do not fight for the same freedom ie power to act over good without any restrains, whereas the devil does.

If you imply using the word freedom as power to act over whatever they are opposing, then yes, they both fight for freedom only if it implies the devil fighting over good and saints fighting over bad.

[KrakenRouge]

I think the religious angle some of you guys are taking this to is ridiculous. If anything the poster's statement is meant in a political sense, it makes sense to consider a counter-acting force as the natural political enemy to be reviled by the leader figure. The whole situation is a metaphor for dictatorships, the violent revolutionaries who overthrow them and probably seek nothing else except the same aim, and the morally ambigiuous idiots who actually bother to get all hot and bothered about their theological positions on a literature forum and a post based on fictional characters!! For all intents and purposes, God and Satan as defined in this novel are separate characters from the theological canon. And even in the situation of a Bible, its still a book, with what some consider fictional tropes and characters.

[soundofmusic]

I think the religious angle some of you guys are taking this to is ridiculous. If anything the poster's statement is meant in a political sense, it makes sense to consider a counter-acting force as the natural political enemy to be reviled by the leader figure. The whole situation is a metaphor for dictatorships, the violent revolutionaries who overthrow them and probably seek nothing else except the same aim, and the morally ambigiuous idiots who actually bother to get all hot and bothered about their theological positions on a literature forum and a post based on fictional characters!! For all intents and purposes, God and Satan as defined in this novel are separate characters from the theological canon. And even in the situation of a Bible, its still a book, with what some consider fictional tropes and characters.

:smash: I'm quite glad you revived this post; it's a very interesting concept if one thinks of it from all perspectives. I do believe that the poster was using a metaphor; but, perhaps you should ask him. Part of the reason why most of participate on this literature forum is that we have the opportunity to explore the literature, the authors, delve into their rational and our belief systems. Welcome to the forum:nod:

[JommiL]

Satan, the word sounds rather disgusting to those whose minds are preoccupied with some ideas they have through others or reading the Bible.

Satan is in point of fact a freedom seeker and does not want to submit to the tyranny of God.

In fact God wants that all submit to his command, Satan, uncommon and un-submissive launched a number of raids and did not want to coordinate with God. He therefore raised or inspired his legions seeking distinct space for them.

In today's world also if any freedom fighters set themselves against the tyranny of their rulers they will be exiled.

Satan is in everyone of us, inherently, and we do not become explicit dreading the unthinkable.

Do not take Satan differently. He is like all of us who want a self chosen government and he does not want any dictator to govern over us.

God is a traditional ruler. He had succeeded in programming the minds of his subjects that he is almighty and that he is the creator of everything.

Yes every religion has a god and devil too.

Well, here´s some story:

My newest satire is about Finland; Jesus Christ will come again into this hell - Finland - and Satan is the master - believe me! Satire is the name of the game. Now, Jesus has JUST the same style before, and most Finnish people blames him as a stupid one. In other case, Satan has a LOT of fun. He corrupts Finnish politics, religion, religion, arts, act by act, etc. He lives in parliamenthouse etc. Demons are stupid a ss hole s. Satan is nice, VERY handsome, look-a-like-wise gentleman with a huge coc.... no matter. (Do you ever think that when people say that Finland is nice country? It looks a like it....)
Finally Jesus will be burn in bonfire - we are so "intellectual".


Point is to show, that human nature is very corrupted one. I Don´t see any saviour from inside.

[soundofmusic]

Well, here´s some story:

My newest satire is about Finland; Jesus Christ will come again into this hell - Finland - and Satan is the master - believe me! Satire is the name of the game. Now, Jesus has JUST the same style before, and most Finnish people blames him as a stupid one. In other case, Satan has a LOT of fun. He corrupts Finnish politics, religion, religion, arts, act by act, etc. He lives in parliamenthouse etc. Demons are stupid a ss hole s. Satan is nice, VERY handsome, look-a-like-wise gentleman with a huge coc.... no matter. (Do you ever think that when people say that Finland is nice country? It looks a like it....)
Finally Jesus will be burn in bonfire - we are so "intellectual".


Point is to show, that human nature is very corrupted one. I Don´t see any saviour from inside.

:cool: I see you are also a freedom fighter, Jommil.:eek: A little off point, perhaps, but aren't they all:brow: Are you Finnish, by the way? :wave: Welcome to the forum:banana::banana:

[JommiL]

Well, i am a freedomfighter, but im also VERY plus or minus - guy. You either like me or not. What i try to say, is that we has t be morally strong backbone, but litarature etc. It is matter of taste.

If you want to change anything in this world, you need faith; If you will create some text to readers and you want that they will think again, you must be morally better first; If you want to change the the world, but your idea´s will not gettingyou any better, it is nonsense. All of your writings are stupid; How do you think that you could change world, it they cant even change you?

BTW; My newest book has it own name; Freedom. What freedom is? If you ask, i can tell short story about it...

[soundofmusic]

Well, i am a freedomfighter, but im also VERY plus or minus - guy. You either like me or not. What i try to say, is that we has t be morally strong backbone, but litarature etc. It is matter of taste.

If you want to change anything in this world, you need faith; If you will create some text to readers and you want that they will think again, you must be morally better first; If you want to change the the world, but your idea´s will not gettingyou any better, it is nonsense. All of your writings are stupid; How do you think that you could change world, it they cant even change you?

BTW; My newest book has it own name; Freedom. What freedom is? If you ask, i can tell short story about it...

I am a blunt person myself, so I appreciate honesty. Do you believe that morals are universal? Religion does not seem to use the same morals over time; but adapt to the needs of circumstance. What do you think?

[JommiL]

I am a blunt person myself, so I appreciate honesty. Do you believe that morals are universal? Religion does not seem to use the same morals over time; but adapt to the needs of circumstance. What do you think?


Well, moral IS universal. There´s a many points in itK; Bible says that you can´t steal, lie etc. It is hard so say otherwise.

My point of view is that we can be free, but there´s just one moral thing.

[soundofmusic]

[QUOTE=JommiL;795191]Well, moral IS universal. There´s a many points in itK; Bible says that you can´t steal, lie etc. It is hard so say otherwise.

My point of view is that we can be free, but there´s just one moral thing.[/QUOTE

I 've often been disturbed that God took sides in the wars in old times; that if one believes in the concept of creationism, then there was incest after that little disastorous affair in the garden; which was later considered wrong. I don't understand why God would ask for a blood sacrifice when he created all things which are made from flesh; I found it sadistic when he tested Abraham by asking him to kill Isaac...Had I have been near the cross when Jesus was being crucified; I would have been waiting for a last minute reprieve from the govenor. Do you ever ask yourself about these things?

Does anyone question this:confused:

[JommiL]

Good question. Ok. What do you think - before i answer - if catholics are in war, what do you think, which side God is? Both sides pray for God from sap, and both has same God.

[soundofmusic]

Good question. Ok. What do you think - before i answer - if catholics are in war, what do you think, which side God is? Both sides pray for God from sap, and both has same God.

:rolleyes: The above remarks were what made me originally question the fundamentalist doctorines. I believe in the supernatural; but not in a god that resembles man. I have suspected for many years that the most powerful people of the most powerful countries are bouncing us about like puppets and blaming God, the devil, and small secular groups for problems that we have created and forgotten as soon as the next CNN report, reality show or politician tells us a different version of a truth we should have remembered from a time, not even ten years earlier. Man is a fical creature, and has made his god in his image.

[DonovanTalbot]

Satan, the word sounds rather disgusting to those whose minds are preoccupied with some ideas they have through others or reading the Bible.

Satan is in point of fact a freedom seeker and does not want to submit to the tyranny of God.

In fact God wants that all submit to his command, Satan, uncommon and un-submissive launched a number of raids and did not want to coordinate with God. He therefore raised or inspired his legions seeking distinct space for them.

In today's world also if any freedom fighters set themselves against the tyranny of their rulers they will be exiled.

Satan is in everyone of us, inherently, and we do not become explicit dreading the unthinkable.

Do not take Satan differently. He is like all of us who want a self chosen government and he does not want any dictator to govern over us.

God is a traditional ruler. He had succeeded in programming the minds of his subjects that he is almighty and that he is the creator of everything.

Yes every religion has a god and devil too.

Let me readdress this with a question of my own, do you believe Earth is a paradise? Do you believe on Earth justice and righteousness and honesty always prevail? Are the poor, downtrodden, broken, oppressed, weak, disenfranchised, elderly, and powerless always lifted up? Are they loved and cared for?

What if God once gave this to mankind, but mankind had it's ears tickled into temptation of rebellion and disobedience.

Satan is called the Lord of this World, Father of Lies, Murderer from the Beginning, Prince of the Power of the Air, principalities and powers, and accuser of the brethren. Do you see the drawn parallels between Satan and mankind/the world?

Mankind followed Satan into Sin and it can't be more evident than in the whole world of around us. We witness it every minute of the day.

Jesus said fear not if the world hates you, for it hated me first. This principally "satanic" world with "satanic" values rejected Christ and crucified Him because he was too good and too incorruptible and too honest.

[Redzeppelin]

I do not subscribe to your argument, and you have a Christian God, not a universal God with all the follies of popes and priests.

There are other faiths and if you present the biblical idea of creation there were Hindus' own, Buddhists have their own.

To say your God created and is the master of the universe and the rest of Gods are subordinated to your God is a baseless notion.

Rise above all these narrow sentiments and discover a universal God that can appeal to all.

There is only one God, Blaze. The so-called "universal God" IS the Christian God as far as I'm concerned. Muslim's view Allah as the "universal God" and Jews view Yahweh as the "universal God."

Sure, I understand that other faiths have their vision. I don't understand how that's relevant to what I posted.

Only "baseless" depending upon what you choose for a foundation for your assertion; mine's based on the Bible. Do you have something more authoritative than that to challenge me with?

[Redzeppelin]

I think the religious angle some of you guys are taking this to is ridiculous.

Well, don't mince any words here, fella. Some of us aren't that impressed with your take on this topic either...


If anything the poster's statement is meant in a political sense, it makes sense to consider a counter-acting force as the natural political enemy to be reviled by the leader figure. The whole situation is a metaphor for dictatorships, the violent revolutionaries who overthrow them and probably seek nothing else except the same aim, and the morally ambigiuous idiots who actually bother to get all hot and bothered about their theological positions on a literature forum and a post based on fictional characters!!

Again, not sure who made you the arbiter of what is sensible or not - the characters are "fictional" to YOU; the issue is a metaphor to YOU. For some of us, it is reality and a topic worthy of discussion. Your boiling it all down to political philosophy is interesting, but the theology of the question can't simply be dismissed away, try as you might.


For all intents and purposes, God and Satan as defined in this novel are separate characters from the theological canon. And even in the situation of a Bible, its still a book, with what some consider fictional tropes and characters.

All you've really said in this post is "I don't believe in the Bible." Fine - but is that it? Or have you more?

[blazeofglory]

There is only one God, Blaze. The so-called "universal God" IS the Christian God as far as I'm concerned. Muslim's view Allah as the "universal God" and Jews view Yahweh as the "universal God."

Sure, I understand that other faiths have their vision. I don't understand how that's relevant to what I posted.

Only "baseless" depending upon what you choose for a foundation for your assertion; mine's based on the Bible. Do you have something more authoritative than that to challenge me with?

I have no authority as such and no scholastic disposition in point of fact. I glean these ideas from reading yours and the rest of other posters' and based on that I inferred my notion of it. This is argumentation and a classical and timeless issue and we never can satisfy each other. Religions and ideals are always militaristic things and religions have been always more detrimental than beneficial to humanity. History endorses this fact. Now the difference between your points and mine is I never assert my religion, that is Hinduism fanatically and you do it zealously to the extent of claiming that the Christian God is true and the Biblical scheme of the creation of the universe is valid and the like. This narrows down our understanding of human nature and our portrayal of the world we live in. Humanity at times becomes warring entities when such narrow dogmas rock us. While you put forth yours I did mine and there is nothing between us and the rest of other readers or posters judge us. We leave it to them.
However my plea is rather than becoming geo or religion centric let us be humane and cultivate humanitarian values. We will do something to keep the world clean of fanaticisms and fundamentalisms that is plaguing the universally relentlessly

[Redzeppelin]

I have no authority as such and no scholastic disposition in point of fact. I glean these ideas from reading yours and the rest of other posters' and based on that I inferred my notion of it. This is argumentation and a classical and timeless issue and we never can satisfy each other.

I appreciate your honesty here. This has less to do with "scholasticism" than it does the foundation of our claims as to the character of God. The different religions that exist do so largely through their disagreement upon the character of God. As such, most religions are mutually exclusive because their claims often involve contradictions. Your vision of God, then, is a puzzle created by pulling different pieces and assembling them into a whole. I find that problematic because that strikes me as creating God according to your vision. Doing so essentially allows you to create a being who doesn't really exist because how can you be sure the pieces you have chosen are the correct ones? Either all religions are wrong, or one of them is right; they can't all be right (because they contradict each other and the most basic rule of logic is that a thing cannot be true and false at the same time). While I respect your method, its results cannot be relied upon with any stability.



Religions and ideals are always militaristic things and religions have been always more detrimental than beneficial to humanity.

I find your use of universals interesting. "Always"? Really? I find that a difficult position to maintain. As well, people who attack religion conveniently side step the numerous social/charitable things religions do in this world. The idea that religion has been more harmful than beneficial is simply not defensible.



History endorses this fact. Now the difference between your points and mine is I never assert my religion, that is Hinduism fanatically and you do it zealously to the extent of claiming that the Christian God is true and the Biblical scheme of the creation of the universe is valid and the like.

I'm sorry - I'm hard-pressed to find the "zealous" nature of my posts. Would you mind pointing that out? I simply assert the vision of God I believe to be true - just as you do. And why shouldn't I assert that? Isn't that what you do? And why shouldn't I think my vision is correct? Why believe in Christianity (or Judaism or Islam, etc) if I don't fully believe in its truth? I do not understand why you write what sounds like criticism of my defense of my faith.



This narrows down our understanding of human nature and our portrayal of the world we live in. Humanity at times becomes warring entities when such narrow dogmas rock us. While you put forth yours I did mine and there is nothing between us and the rest of other readers or posters judge us. We leave it to them.
However my plea is rather than becoming geo or religion centric let us be humane and cultivate humanitarian values. We will do something to keep the world clean of fanaticisms and fundamentalisms that is plaguing the universally relentlessly

While your view may be "wider," that is largely because you have assembled a God who is not based upon any standard. Religions generally have a sacred text that is the basis of the faith - a document that establishes the parameters of the belief. If you subscribe to no real faith per se and rather have assembled your idea of God piece-meal, well I suppose you could believe that you have a "wider" view than me, but that width is largely a product of refusing to subscribe to a clear vision of God in favor for one you've created for yourself.

I respect your final plea, but the problem is this: there needs to be a stable "ground" as to the character of God. Without that, he becomes whatever you and I want, and at that point, we can (via our humanly-shaped diety) justify whatever we want - and then the terror begins.

[Sebas. Melmoth]

Satan is a vain liar and murderer.

[hoope]

Satan is a vain liar and murderer.

Agree.. and much more ..he's teh worst of all..and he drives people to do wrong as well..

I mean ..why do we even discuss this.. Every one knows Satan .. !!

[Redzeppelin]

Agree.. and much more ..he's teh worst of all..and he drives people to do wrong as well..

I mean ..why do we even discuss this.. Every one knows Satan .. !!

I wish this were true. CS Lewis argued in his book The Screwtape Letters that the two most dangerous things we can do is to a) take Satan lightly, or b) to cease to believe that he's real. Both actions result in our underestimation of his power. The modern era has largely made Satan into a mythical bogeyman.

[Heteronym]

Mikhail Bakunin, one of the intellectual founders of modern anarchism, considers, in his book God and the State, Satan the first freedom fighter and the emancipator of Mankind. From his act of rebellion and by convicing Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, Bakunin argues, Mankind moved from being mere field beasts to being individuals in control of their own lives.

[Sebas. Melmoth]

individuals in control of their own lives.

Question: ultimately how much control does one really have?

[Buh4Bee]

I thought of it more in terms of the ego whispering do that...do that...

What I am understanding from the flow of the conversation is that Satan gave us free will by his act of tricking Adam and Eve to eat the apple. But this is wrong, God gave us free will. If he had not, Adam and Eve would never have been to bite the apple.

[MANICHAEAN]

"The devil is a gentleman" used to be a common saying throughout Europe.
"Prince" was in fact Satan's rank.
He is called in the Gospel the "Prince of the World" (John 12:31). He is also known as Prince of Darkness, Prince of Death and Prince of Cherubim.

One of the more interesting viewpoints I've found on this topic is Hesse's "Damian", a modern version of the Christian morality play, a representation of the struggle between Good and Evil for the soul of man.Thus he writes "In each individual the spirit has become flesh, in each man the creation suffers, within each one a redeemer is nailed to the cross."

Is this feasible? Well Scripture states "He shall be his own God, knowing good and evil" and "He shall be as God" (Genesis 3:5). And the traditional means by which the Christian Devil or Antichrist is supposed to subvert souls is through cunning argument or false exposition of the Scriptures e.g.Eve.

At the heart of any continuous body of work there is always present a set of assumptions about the nature of man and, more particularly, about the limits of the human. Black & white polar opposites are the "hero" and the "villain", but thats too simplistic. The borderline figure who defines the limits of the human - customarily from the farther side - has been called alternately: the other, the alien, the outsider, the stranger, or if you wish the Devil. Take Shakespeare's Sonnet 144:

Two loves I have of comfort and dispair,
Which like two spirits do suggest me still.
The better angel is a man right fair,
The worser spirit a woman colored ill.
To win me soon to Hell, my female evil Tempteth my better angel from my side,
And would corrupt my saint to be a devil,
----
I guess one angel in another's Hell.
Yet this shall I ne'er know,
But live in doubt Till my bad angel fire my good one out.

Leaving aside, if possible, Shakespeare's attitude to women, another aspect of his work of course revolves around the aspects of witchcraft & magic, mainly the black magic with the witches being the practitioners of Satan. Historians seem to indicate that witches are the remnant of a pre-Christian cult of the Mother, too exclusive to be tolerated by Christianity.

Is the Devil a Freedom Fighter? Yes, he is fighting for his views though one must be circumspect regards his motivation. He is also not called "The Fallen Angel" for nothing. In Scripture again, only one man was able to stare down the Devil without fear in the desert beyond the Jordan.

For remaining earthly souls Christian morality lays more emphasis, not on the acts of man but on their attitudes. Or as Augustine put it "Love, and do what you will."

[Alexander III]

Honestly my take from a christian mytoglogical point of view is that there is no hero. God clearly is described with attitudes of a tyrant, which wished complete control and unquestioning subjects. However it seems clear that he does this out of good will. He is an entity to ar detached from humans and angels to understand their minds. I mean from a logical and practical point he understands them perfectly and that is his fault, he failed to see that they are not logical and rational creatures, he is simply to high in the starts to know of the gutter. Thus he acts as he knows that from a logical and rational point he is a tyrant but he does this for their own good and prosperity, which would be trough if it were not that the angels and people are not rational.

Satan is a freedom fighter, akin to the partisan fighting the nazi's, and the americans shrugging of monarchy. How ever he comes of not better in this story from a moral point of view. Like god his intentions are good, but he losses himself. I think he is the best demonstration of why freedom is the most dangerous concept known to man, he find untamed freedom and looses his reality in it. he unlike god cannot handle unlimited freedom and soon his original concepts are replaced by delusions, delusions to be a god, delusions that the evil he performs is necessary, delusions that nothing his his fault but it was the others that ruined him.

In conclusion is is a rather misanthropic tale, both parties have the aim to do good, yet due to their limitations or in god's case over limitations, they only understand the world from their perspective and loose focus of the concept of the soul of others, until both are slowly lead to the path of extremism, which makes them both relatively and unintentionally evil. the tale shows the danger of extreme freedom and of extreme repression, it is a tale which teaches to avoid the extremes and that bliss can only be found in the middle grounds.


My interpretation comes from the notion that I read the Bible not as holy scripture but just another work of literature from antiquity. If we look at history we can see that the metaphor of God appears in the church, having good intentions but loosing themselves in tyranny, and oddly enough satan also appears in the church, rebellion against the worldly and the tyranny of pagans and materialism,a and loose morals, which ends with being lost in freedom and having more vice than the finest libertine.

[Redzeppelin]

Honestly my take from a christian mytoglogical point of view is that there is no hero. God clearly is described with attitudes of a tyrant, which wished complete control and unquestioning subjects. However it seems clear that he does this out of good will. He is an entity to ar detached from humans and angels to understand their minds. I mean from a logical and practical point he understands them perfectly and that is his fault, he failed to see that they are not logical and rational creatures, he is simply to high in the starts to know of the gutter. Thus he acts as he knows that from a logical and rational point he is a tyrant but he does this for their own good and prosperity, which would be trough if it were not that the angels and people are not rational.

The being you describe as "God" here has nothing to do with the Being described by the Bible. You might wish to re-read the primary source of our understanding of Him a bit more closely because you've clearly missed much of what it had to say about the His character.


I read the Bible not as holy scripture but just another work of literature from antiquity. If we look at history we can see that the metaphor of God appears in the church, having good intentions but loosing themselves in tyranny, and oddly enough satan also appears in the church, rebellion against the worldly and the tyranny of pagans and materialism,a and loose morals, which ends with being lost in freedom and having more vice than the finest libertine.

Interesting view - though, again, if you had done your research you might have discovered that the Bible is far different from all other "mythologies" from ancient cultures.

[Heteronym]

What I am understanding from the flow of the conversation is that Satan gave us free will by his act of tricking Adam and Eve to eat the apple. But this is wrong, God gave us free will. If he had not, Adam and Eve would never have been to bite the apple.

If a father knows that matches are dangerous and that a child is liable to play with matches and get burned, a father will do everything to keep the matches away. But what does caring father God do? He puts the matches right in the middle of the garden. Isn't that what cops call entrapment?

The fact that God is omniscient and yet allowed Man to fall is one of those matters that Christians never managed to neatly explain or justify. Either God is not omniscient and so he can't be God, or he's uncaring because he allowed his children to fall, and so we shouldn't put much faith in such a figure. Because a father who stops a child from getting burned is not disrespecting her free will. He's just doing his role.

The figure of Satan is fascinating because, for whatever motives he had, he alloed us to realise our full potential as men, instead of letting us remain in bondage, cared for like farm animals by a totalitarian farmer.

[MANICHAEAN]

I agree Heteronym that the figure of Satan is fascinating. Once you go beyond the standard character simplistics.

He fell from "pride". But if he were originally a good angel, would he have pride?

I've got the kind of mind that when I hear that Humpty Dumpty fell, I ask myself "Did he fall, or was he pushed?" Alas we will never know.

Personally your remark about (Satan) "he allowed us to realise our full potential as men" is a bit rich. If anyone gave us the freedom it was God through the attribute of free choice. There is one Jesuit school of thought that of the opinion that it is not so much what God commands, as what he allows. Thus he is realistic enough to accept weakness in reality & yet still forgive.

[Heteronym]

And that act of free choice has been met with complete brutality. The message is clear: think for yourself, be damned! Submit, and you inherit Paradise. Salvation is only possible through bondage, submission, worship and a rejection of everything that makes us human. Can't you see the message of misanthropy inherent in it?

[Sebas. Melmoth]

Wait a minute.

Before his fall, Lucifer was the highest of all created intelligences.
In other words, after the Diety himself--(the pronoun is unfortunate because a spirit has no gender, and the pronoun 'itself' refers to an inanimate object, so in English we're stuck with the masculine pronoun because in a conjectural statement we normally don't use a feminine pronoun)--after the Diety himself, Lucifer was the greatest being in all Cosmos.

And he had free will. So he was decieved by his own vanity into thinking he could stage a 'palace coup' and rise above the Deity: this was his mistake and fall. Furthermore, a third of the other created intelligences (spirits or 'angels') followed Lucifer and fell with him. These we now call demons or 'unclean spirits'.

So, what's your question: because Lucifer tried to overthrow the Diety and lost his place for it, the Diety was wrong to put down the rebellion?

No king would survive unless he supresses a palace coup.

[Alexander III]

"Interesting view - though, again, if you had done your research you might have discovered that the Bible is far different from all other "mythologies" from ancient cultures."

Sorry up break it to you but the Bible uses many stories from other mythologies and integrates them as its own, the entire story of Jesus is pretty much a copy paste of the story of the egyptian God Rah, Im not sure about the spelling there.

Maybe it's you who needs to read closer ?

[Sebas. Melmoth]

"Interesting view - though, again, if you had done your research you might have discovered that the Bible is far different from all other "mythologies" from ancient cultures."

Sorry up break it to you but the Bible uses many stories from other mythologies and integrates them as its own, the entire story of Jesus is pretty much a copy paste of the story of the egyptian God Rah, Im not sure about the spelling there.

Maybe it's you who needs to read closer ?

Well, Satan is the arch-deciever and capable of making any truth look like an imitation of mythos.
The problem is that men with dark minds love to follow the deceptions because it justifies their own sinful ways--or so they think in the convoluted thinking of their own dark minds.

[Alexander III]

Well, Satan is the arch-deciever and capable of making any truth look like an imitation of mythos.
The problem is that men with dark minds love to follow the deceptions because it justifies their own sinful ways--or so they think in the convoluted thinking of their own dark minds.

Under that assumption would not Satan's most logical and powerful move be to deceive men into thinking that he is the one God, in which case how do we know that our religion and our god are not Satan's most elaborate and successful deception. There are so many places we can go with this road.

[Sebas. Melmoth]

Those who perversly seek Satan may be found by him and destroyed by him.

Satan is the destroyer.

[Neo_Sephiroth]

Satan, the word sounds rather disgusting to those whose minds are preoccupied with some ideas they have through others or reading the Bible.

Satan is in point of fact a freedom seeker and does not want to submit to the tyranny of God.

In fact God wants that all submit to his command, Satan, uncommon and un-submissive launched a number of raids and did not want to coordinate with God. He therefore raised or inspired his legions seeking distinct space for them.

In today's world also if any freedom fighters set themselves against the tyranny of their rulers they will be exiled.

Satan is in everyone of us, inherently, and we do not become explicit dreading the unthinkable.

Do not take Satan differently. He is like all of us who want a self chosen government and he does not want any dictator to govern over us.

God is a traditional ruler. He had succeeded in programming the minds of his subjects that he is almighty and that he is the creator of everything.

Yes every religion has a god and devil too.

In some ways, Satan is a freedom fighter.

However, I believe that freedom fighters have to choose fight "against" or "agree" on the kind of government that they have at the time rather then to "submit" and "surrender" oneself.

Remember, there have been many supposed "freedom fighters" that are now in the realm of "criminals". What did those "freedom fighters" fight for and what kind of government did they fight against?

Hopefully, I'm not going into the political area here but maybe Satan fought against a "government" that is already a well-rounded system? Maybe Satan thought that he could create a better system and he persuaded some of the people to go with him?

Who is to say that God had a system full of tyranny? We don't know. Perhaps Satan is just one of those psychopath that decided to ruin a perfectly good system just because he was tired of it?

[MANICHAEAN]

Heteronym

I can in fact see a lot more than you give me credit for. However you have your views & I have my faith and there is not much in the way of a middle ground.

Bear with me if I try it from a different perspective. Have you ever had any deep spiritial moments? I'm talking of something akin, (although fiction in this instance), to Chapter 4 of The Brothers Kaz, where Alyosha feels himself overwhelmed in the presence of his God.

[Heteronym]

Have you ever had any deep spiritial moments? I'm talking of something akin, (although fiction in this instance), to Chapter 4 of The Brothers Kaz, where Alyosha feels himself overwhelmed in the presence of his God.

You'd have to better define a deep spiritual moment.

[MANICHAEAN]

I will try.
Its a feeling of extreme emotion. Not quite fear but awe.
The whole of your existence feels in the presence of a power way beyond what you can imagine.
You feel shaken, tearful & vunerable.
Once finished, there is a tremendous feeling of relief and peace.

Excuse me if I'm not explaining it adequately. Its as emotional as blind rage & anger but at the alternate meridian.

[hoope]

I wish this were true. CS Lewis argued in his book The Screwtape Letters that the two most dangerous things we can do is to a) take Satan lightly, or b) to cease to believe that he's real. Both actions result in our underestimation of his power. The modern era has largely made Satan into a mythical bogeyman.

Well Satan is real and we can't deny that.. at the same point we can't make it an excuse for out wrong actions.... We know how evil he is and how he was kicked off Heaven .. and .. and and .. thatlong story that everyone knows..
But why are we even questioning such things...


Mikhail Bakunin, one of the intellectual founders of modern anarchism, considers, in his book God and the State, Satan the first freedom fighter and the emancipator of Mankind. From his act of rebellion and by convicing Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, Bakunin argues, Mankind moved from being mere field beasts to being individuals in control of their own lives.

Since when people who disobey are heroes ... I mean its only human thinking; we always see bad boys .. the best.. and we always se the one who raises his voice and beat others as a FREEDOM FIGHTER !!!! OR EVEN HERO.. !!

why is that.. !
Satan disobeyed the only God , the Creator.. and thought he was better than Adam .. who was created from sand .. while he was made of Fire.. ...
Why don't you look at the point a one who disobeyed God .. and was punished .. and he promised to distroy all the ancestor of Adam .. all the human beings..
Now the only part that i don't get is THE FREEDOM FIGHTER thing . !!!!
How is that possible ?

[Redzeppelin]

"Interesting view - though, again, if you had done your research you might have discovered that the Bible is far different from all other "mythologies" from ancient cultures."

Sorry up break it to you but the Bible uses many stories from other mythologies and integrates them as its own, the entire story of Jesus is pretty much a copy paste of the story of the egyptian God Rah, Im not sure about the spelling there.

Maybe it's you who needs to read closer ?

You're not "breaking" anything to me I've not already heard before, and you're certainly not informing me of any "facts," Alex - you're passing on assumptions and speculations about the origin of the Bible - none of which are provable, by the way. That there are echos of the Bible in other cultures doesn't necessarily mean they were borrowed. The difference between the Bible and mythology is that the people, locations, and events of the Bible continue to be verified by scholarship and archaeology (sp?). Try as you might, you're not finding any evidence of people and events from Greek/Roman/Norse/Celtic/etc mythology anywhere.

As far as the life of Christ, CS Lewis made the point in one of his essays that Christ was the "myth made real" - that Christ was the real life manifestation of the other "harbinger gods" - that other mythologies essentially "foretold" the coming of Christ throught their stories.

As well, since Christ was such a polarizing figure, if his story were false, then there would have been refutations published in response to the gospels because the Jewish leaders were very much invested in disproving his claims of being God. Those refutations do not exist. The problem is that historical documents written by non-Christians (Josephus, for one) mention Christ by name - so, the theory that his story is phony holds no water.

Thanks for the recommendation, but I'm pretty good with my reading, thanks.