Is Satan a freedom fighter?

[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

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.

[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 [i.e. were they responding to prior antagonism from you?]) what was said/done to you was 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. 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. 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."