Is Satan a freedom fighter?

[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

[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.