• The Problem of evil and creating evil sentient beings

    So Christians dismiss the Problem of Evil, at times, using spurious logic and dodgy grasps of causality. JohnM, regular Creationist commenter here, does this a lot.

    I don’t have a problem of evil.

    Evil and wickedness in the world, is no great mystery to me. It’s exactly what we should expect to see, based on what we read in the bible. And I don’t wonder about it’s origin. Because the bible explains that as well.

    We have been round the houses with him about this. It boils down to the logic of this analogy:

    The problem is that you don’t really understand the argument. What is the origin of the origin?

    You have a really bizarre (convenient) understanding of causality.

    Again we return to the analogy:

    I create a sentient lifeform in the lab. I design this from scratch. I could have done it otherwise but I choose to do it like this.

    I know this lifeform will escape from my lab and go and murder people in town. I know this utterly. They do this using the mechanisms which I have designed into them. Imagine one of these people they kill is your daughter. And yet, even knowing this destruction they will cause, I decide to create them anyway.

    The police knock at my door. They say it is my fault.

    But, using JohnM’s logic, I deny this, arguing they used their own mechanisms to murder.

    But the police say that I/ designed those mechanisms, knew what they would do, created them anyway, and then let them run amok.

    The police laugh off my defence. They lock me up.

    That’s the end of the mad scientist who created evil beings.

    I can’t really see how God does not have ultimate responsibility for this. If this happened in an organisation in the modern world, the CEO gets the chop.

    God seems to have immunity.

    Still, the retorts are funny:

    Asking what’s the origin of the origin, is like asking what was before the beginning.

    Keep in mind that creation was the beginning of time. Before that point, no future, no past.

    God has the ability to predict the future in time, like we can predict the path of a ball in motion.

    But how one predict the future, before time? That’s like predicting the path of a ball, that has not yet been set in motion.

    To wit, I said:

    Oh dear. You really don’t get it.

    So, you seem, and rightly so, given your position, that we need to posit a first mover.

    However, the first mover has ultimate responsibility. So, given a causal chain (of responsibility), the buck stops with the corporate boss.

    Then followed the mother (and father) of all false analogies:

    Well, my father and mother are the cause of me. So if I murder someone, we hold them responsible for my actions? Or we hold me responsible for my own actions?

    I did the work for him:

    This is about the worst false analogy ever.

    Your parents didn’t design you.
    Your parent’s didn’t ‘create’ you in the same omni way.
    Your parents didn’t have perfect foreknowledge of your future, and create you anyway even knowing how evil you would be.
    Your parents didn’t have omnipotence to be able to stop you at any point of doing that evil.

    etc

    Fail.

    Category: MoralityPhilosophical Argument Against GodProblem of Evil

    Tags:

    Article by: Jonathan MS Pearce

    • Daydreamer1

      I know!

      It always amazes me. However, the key point is that we are dealing with a psychology here and should approach it as such. A psychologist doesn’t fret about his patients, and nor is he surprised by their mentality. He categorises them, explains them and tries to understand what is happening in their brains to best help them, but we know very well that really they must first decide to help themselves.

      The question is: was there ever hope for JohnM? Raised in Saudi would he simply be an Islamic fundamentalist? Nature, or nurture? And from this what hope for humanities future? Many religious people have been liberalised or even deconverted by looking at the scientific evidence, or the philosophical argument. Some never are. If we can answer why not perhaps we can do the best we can for the children worst affected by the terrible dishonesty required to produce this mindset.

      • Andy_Schueler

        Very interesting point of view!

        Cognitive dissonance always gets in the way of realizing that you had been wrong about something – and with fundamentalist religion, the effect is extreme, because the more important a subject is to us, the stronger the effect of cognitive dissonance becomes. So deconversion from fundamentalist religion is always a very hard step.

        But fundamentalist christianity has also adopted very interesting strategies to immunize their views against all criticism. Most importantly – the demonization (literally) of everyone who disagrees with their views. AiG for example has dozens of articles about how “evolutionists” (which they use as a synonym for “scientists that don´t believe 100% that the Bible is literally true”) disagree with them because they “want to keep sinning” and “do not want to be held accountable by their creator for their wickedness”. So your opponents, are not merely wrong, they are evil to boot.
        This is very similar to what cults like Scientology do – if you oppose Scientology, you must be evil, if you wouldn´t be evil, you would see how awesome Scientology is. Although Scientology is admittedly more extreme than fundamentalist christianity in this respect, see for example:
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPol_m8wm8Y

        Then we have Bible passages like Romans 1:21-22

        For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

        => It is really incredible how often creationists use this verse whenever their views are refuted, as if “well, you have your science but my big book of fairy tales sez that you must be a fool if you don´t believe in my big book of fairy tales”
        Or 1 Corinthians 2:14

        The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

        => This is one that JohnM seems to particularly like.
        And again, the message in these Bible passages is similar to a strategy that Scientology also employs – if you are not “clear” you cannot understand the truth of Scientology (just replace “clear” by “saved” or “born again”).

        • Daydreamer1

          Due to religious desperation (i.e. not having reasonable evidence, or a reasonable framework) as well as the wide personalities of theologies we can expect, and see, every angle explored.

          Science has limiting factors, which are ultimately the factors that result in it landing on the correct answers. Religion has none of these and is instead an exercise in getting away with what you can while it still works. That being the case we should see a correlation between what will work in an individual and the shape of the individuals character, as well as correlations between age when indoctrinated, education etc etc. We see all of these – and it is understandable when recognized as little more that a ‘what we can get away with’ attitude of theologians affecting people differently.

          The demonisation of others is one of the more deplorable sides to theology. Logical fallacies should be a lesson in all school syllabuses if politicians really want to tackle intolerance and not just support partisan world views.

        • Those quotes are classic. I must do a post about anti-intellectualism and immunising itself from critical analysis in Christianity.

    • Andy_Schueler

      I create a sentient lifeform in the lab. I design this from scratch. I could have done it otherwise but I choose to do it like this.

      I know this lifeform will escape from my lab and go and murder people in town.

      I can’t really see how God does not have ultimate responsibility for this.

      For JohnM, it is the opposite, God created and “saw it was good” – the Bible says it, JohnM believes it, that settles it.

      It is completely pointless to talk to him about this subject because he will simply make stuff up out of thin air and he doesn´t care at all if it contradicts his other views. Just a tiny sample of his responses so far:

      1. If asked why there will be no evil in heaven – he will either claim that “evil will have been defeated by then” or “there will be no knowledge of evil in heaven” or will make up something completely novel.
      2. If asked why “knowledge of evil” was ever necessary in the first place – he will claim that Lucifer “aquired this knowledge by himself” because “every perfect creation can become corrupted”. If someone points out the contradiction in Lucifer being able to aquire this knowledge by himself / become corrupted by himself, while humans that go to heaven will be unable to do so – he doesn´t care at all and either simply quotes the Bible because quoting the Bible obviously magically removes all contradictions or he comes up with completely new “explanations” with new contradictions.
      3. If asked why God didn´t create a different world where evil would not have been possible – he will come up with either “not creating someone who will turn out evil would be “immoral pre-judgment”” or “God cannot predict the free will choices of the beings he created” or “evil was only possible because of the “Father of lies” (=Satan)”. Which of those he comes up with seems to be a random choice and depends on his mood – and for all the contradictions that arise (e.g. how could Satan become evil? how can God plan the outcome of any creation with beings that have free will, if he cannot predict their choices?) he will simply quote the Bible because that magically removes all contradictions.

      And this is only a tiny sample of the BS he comes up with for this topic – there is no consistency at all, every time a contradiction is pointed out, he simply comes up with a new “explanation” that involves new contradictions and quotes the Bible because he believes that quoting the Bible magically removes all contradictions.

      • Daydreamer1

        That would be my field then :)

        I personally try and pull them into geology if I can; they know so little and assume so much…

        • Andy_Schueler

          That would be my field then :)

          I personally try and pull them into geology if I can; they know so little and assume so much…

          I like that approach ;-).

          Many creationists seem to believe that if only they could refute evolution, geologists and physicists would obviously suddenly agree that the earth is young and Noah´s flood actually happened, and linguists would obviously suddenly agree that the tower of Babel story explains the origin and diversification of human languages, and anthropologists, archaeologists and historians would obviously suddenly agree that there were no humans and no human culture before 4004BC.
          The only reason why scientists from all those fields do not believe in young-earth creationists is the fact that they are “evolutionists”, obviously
          Talking to an actual geologist who could teach them some basic concepts and tell them that christian geologists refuted Noah´s flood decades before Darwin was even born should be a very educational experience for many YECs ;-).

          I´d also like to see more anthropologists getting involved – or even better, a new rule that requires that YECs have to read “Guns, Germs & Steel” :-D.

          • Daydreamer1

            The JWs were round the other day and left a leaflet entitled ‘The Origin of Life’. It is little more than an argument about probability, but the lesson is as you say. Evolution is were it all seems to be at.

            You are right though. They have decided what the tip of the sword is and like any sensible people are trying to dull the sharp pointy edge, but they miss the fact that the rest of the sword is still plenty lethal.

            YECs are out on a limb, but OEC is much more common. OEC’s give themselves a pat on the back for not being YECs, but they miss the sword as well. The JWs I had around were OECs and very happy to say that they were not YECs (they kept repeating it). We all just need to do much more to make people see that OEC is no more reputable than YEC.

            • The JWs came to mine with that, and I talked to them about endogenous retroviruses. They left with their tails between their legs.

            • Daydreamer1

              Out of interest what did you say?

            • I just, amongst other things, questioned them on how their creation account best explained all of the data. The data including endogenous retroviruses (fossilised virus remains in our genome), of which we have at least 7 in common with chimps. This means that, due to the statistical impossibility of it being random, we share genomic history with chimps. This means art some point a shared ancestor caught viruses which inserted themselves into the genome.

              This is perfectly explained by evolution, genetics and common descent.

              There is no explanation for it through creationism.

              Etc.

            • Daydreamer1

              OK. I am looking for examples to use when the JW return. They are nice women, or appear nice anyway. I am going to test how nice they actually are beneath the surface warmth. Nothing like asking who their eldars are saying they should ‘shun’ and whether that is very Christian. I intend to probe their ability to empathise with people taken out of context in their literature, and by way of example, whether they would want to be taken out of context in the same way. I thought I might read them some quotes about Jesus/religion and see if they can tell me who they are (they will be from Darwin and Hitler) to break their assumptions a little and then read them the full quotes of some of the people misquoted in their literature. I am going to approach the terrible problems in what they gave me from the human side before quickly addressing any science. Hopefully that will work better. Right at the start though I am going to ask them whether they are allowed to really talk to me, whether they are willing to listen to me. They asked me to read it and I did, now will they pay me the same respect and listen to me discuss it? That would only be fairness 101 after all.

              Regarding the endogenous retroviruses I was going to use the same argument, only using the mutation of the vitamin C ability as the example. I’ve yet to find the article, whether I read it online or it was in NS – I cannot remember. From it though I remember that VitC requires an 11 step process and we have all 11 steps, but the 11th is dysfunctional. Using genetics we can trace our common ancestor since chimps, orangutans etc have exactly the same copy of the dysfunctional gene – all 152 letters of it.

              Then there is the fact that we have 23 pairs of chromosomes and the apes have 24. The Chimpanzee Genome Project has confirmed the hypothesis that an end to end fusion occurred in our common ancestor identifying the exact location within C2.

              None of that is explainable in the JW hypothesis.

              Actually I once made the passing remark to a religious friend that his beliefs, expressed in scientific language are actually called hypothesis (I know they are not since they are typically not testable or formatted correctly, but my point wasn’t that bit). His eyes opened and I saw a light click. It passed of course, but for a second I think he realised that he had never made the connection, or that the language he used might change when transplanted into other ways of evaluating ideas.

        • Could you do a guest post on geology and YEC?

          • Daydreamer1

            I would be interested in doing so, but much has been written on the subject. It would be interesting to see if it could be addressed differently, perhaps looking at where YECs are currently at and what science might bare on them. I am interested in whether an argument that a YEC might accept exists. Often they simply seem to not understand and can drop individual arguments once they understand them. I wonder whether a less confrontational stance can help – whereby arguments are presented without ‘YEC is wrong because you are wrong on X’, but instead ‘X is wrong because you are wrong on X’ and then let that accumulate until they see that YEC is wrong. Then of course there is the primary reason – they are not YEC starting from the evidence, but assess the evidence as a YEC and cherry pick.

            I would be concerned/interested in conversion from YEC to OEC though. Perhaps thats actually a good thing – like how theists become more liberal, or de-convert through periods of agnosticism.

            None the less, I do feel that something must be done better. It may well be that geologists have now sat down after winning this argument long long ago, but the increase in Islamic YEC (and especially as an anti-colonial/imperialist stance) should be a real concern.

            OEC is now so much more common that most sciences can live with it. OEC is not usually about denying evidence, but just re-organising the narrative (something philosophers are better able to tackle on a lay-person level). Of course even OEC cannot survive the more advanced facts, but most people don’t know them or think about them – and nor can we expect them to put the effort into learning them to attain factual knowledge that is not needed in their lives (other than to work out how to dispel superstitions on their own).

            The geology is interesting on its own of course. A refresher lesson is always good – especially if people are interested by haven’t actually taken a course to refresh.

            Much could be written, but from what angle….?

            • Sure – but many here won’t know your argument. Just a simple spelling out of the geological argument for laymen would be awesome! You know, just a short one or whatever you can manage.

    • John Grove

      The problem is very clearly articulated by Johnny. He doesn’t understand the argument of evil and he fails to engage it. He merely makes up excuses and evades having to deal with it.

      • JohnM

        Is this some kind of group therapy? :)

        John Grove said : He merely makes up excuses and evades having to deal with it.

        I tend to think, that’s it’s more the other way around.. The standard “problem of evil” hinges on omnibenevolence, a concept which I challenges.. As I pointed out, there a things that God does not love, such as sin, and therefore God of the bible is not all-loving.

        Secondly, if one only reads the bible, one will find an explanation, that deals with the origin of evil, the continual existence of evil, and the future end of all evil. And in the light of that, there is no problem of evil, because everything is accounted for.

        Thirdly, there are several people around here, who constantly make the mistake of thinking, that something which is perfect, cannot be destroyed or corrupted. And this is nothing short of a logical fallacy. Every perfect vase can be destroyed. And every perfectly true statement, can be twisted and corrupted. Somethings ability to be destroyed, says nothing about it’s state at creation. Even a flawless diamond can be ruined, but that doesn’t mean, that there are no flawless diamonds.

        Furthermore, the question of why God decided to create the garden of Eden ( which is NOT the world that we now live in ), because of / despite of the ability to know the future in time, is a separate one. It’s something that I’m more than happy to discuss. But it takes nothing away from evil being perfectly accounted for in the bible. And therefore I don’t have a problem of evil.

        • Andy_Schueler

          Previously, you at least tried to make up new BS whenever the contradictions in your old BS were pointed out.
          Now you just repeat your BS verbatim (which is trolling by definition btw).

          • JohnM

            Oh please, I’m merely trying to sum up my position, and what i said in the last discussion.

            • Andy_Schueler

              No, you just randomly selected some of your BS. “Summing up” is pretty much impossible since you are making this shit up as you go along and never care if it contradicts earlier BS claims of yours.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : It is completely pointless to talk to him about this subject because he will simply make stuff up out of thin air and he doesn´t care at all if it contradicts his other views. Just a tiny sample of his responses so far:

              If asked why there will be no evil in heaven – he will either claim that “evil will have been defeated by then” or “there will be no knowledge of evil in heaven” or will make up something completely novel.

              Allow me to demonstrate, that what I’m saying is trivial knowledge to anyone who have read the bible, and not just something that I’m making up :)

              Revelation 21:4
              He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death‘ or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

              Isaiah 25:7-8
              On this mountain he will destroy
              the shroud that enfolds all peoples,
              the sheet that covers all nations;
              he will swallow up death forever.
              The Sovereign Lord will wipe away the tears
              from all faces;
              he will remove his people’s disgrace
              from all the earth.

              Jeremiah 31:12
              They will come and shout for joy on the heights of Zion; they will rejoice in the bounty of the LORD– the grain, the new wine and the olive oil, the young of the flocks and herds. They will be like a well-watered garden, and they will sorrow no more.

              1 Corinthians 15:26
              The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

            • Andy_Schueler

              what I’m saying is trivial knowledge

              Indeed. Kind of like kids quoting random facts from Batman comics – but most kids are smart enough to recognize clear contradictions in the story and don´t insist that two claims which contradict each other must both be true because Batman#47 and #69 say so.

            • JohnM

              It is trivial knowledge… What little kid has not heard about the battle of Armageddon?

              You know.. The final showdown between good and evil.. Which will end with the destruction of Satan + death + evil… and all of creation being rebuilt without the effects of the fall.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Yeah, your story has potential, but I´ve gotta be honest with you – right now, it sucks.
              There are way to many plotholes at the moment. And this Yahweh character is the worst kind of a Mary Sue character – way too powerful and generally unlikeable (readers hate that).
              Also, there is no tension – Lucifer should have the upper hand right until the end and defeating him should only be possible through some clever moves by the good guys (people always root for the underdog).
              I mean seriously, Lucifer is totally outnumbered from the start – he has only a third of the angels. And why does he waste time to convince humans to join his side?? Humans can´t fight for shit – the entire city of Sodom couldn´t even beat two angels!
              Seriously – Lucifer needs to be more powerful in your story, and he shouldn´t waste his time on humans, one angel is worth an entire army of humans.

              You have to try to create tension! And build in a few surprises (and work on those plotholes).

            • JohnM

              Andy said : why does he waste time to convince humans to join his side?? Humans can´t fight for shit

              It’s a bit like Der Untergang. It’s not about winning. It’s about dragging people down with him, so that they share his fate.

              Andy said : You have to try to create tension! And build in a few surprises

              What are you talking about? Jesus Christ was the biggest game-changer ever!

              1 Corinthians 2 : 8
              None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

              The rulers of this age.. The true rulers.. The spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms ( Ephesians 6:12 ) would not have crucified Jesus, had they know, what was to come.

            • Andy_Schueler

              It’s a bit like Der Untergang. It’s not about winning. It’s about dragging people down with him, so that they share his fate.

              Yeah, but for WWII, people already know the backstory and there was plenty of tension up to this point. Even if you want to turn your story more into a drama like Downfall – you need to build up some tension first.

              What are you talking about? Jesus Christ was the biggest game-changer ever!

              Seriously, I would leave him out, he´s almost as bad a Mary Sue character as Yahweh is.
              And he doesn´t really make sense in your story anyway – you have a story climax when Armageddon happens and how do you want to include Jesus there? The way it is written at the moment – he acts totally out of character during Armageddon, you can´t use that.
              Turn him into a kick-ass fighter right from the start or leave him out (but if you turn him into a fighter, give Lucifer something as compensation to retain tension – let the Archangel Michael join his side for example, the general of the celestial armies switching sides mid-battle would be a great plot twist).

            • JohnM

              Andy said : you need to build up some tension first.

              Genesis 3:15
              I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.”

              Andy said : you have a story climax when Armageddon happens and how do you want to include Jesus there?

              What do you mean, include him? He’s the main character.

              Revelation 19 : 11-21

              I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written: king of kings and lord of lords.

              And I saw an angel standing in the sun, who cried in a loud voice to all the birds flying in midair, “Come, gather together for the great supper of God, so that you may eat the flesh of kings, generals, and the mighty, of horses and their riders, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, great and small.”
              Then I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to wage war against the rider on the horse and his army. But the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who had performed the signs on its behalf. With these signs he had deluded those who had received the mark of the beast and worshiped its image. The two of them were thrown alive into the fiery lake of burning sulfur. The rest were killed with the sword coming out of the mouth of the rider on the horse, and all the birds gorged themselves on their flesh.

            • Andy_Schueler

              What do you mean, include him? He’s the main character.

              Haven´t you read my comment? Him being the main character is one of the biggest problems – right now, you have him act totally out of character at the story climax.
              You have three choices, turn him into a kick-ass fighter right from the beginning (and make Lucifer´s armies stronger to retain tension – have a few more powerful angels join him) or remove most of the action (especially the big battle at the end) and turn the whole story into a drama or leave Jesus out and use a new main character.
              I would choose the last option since Jesus is a terrible Mary Sue character right now.

              Also, I have a great idea for a plot twist at the end – let the four horsemen betray Yahweh AND Lucifer. How about they want the battle to last forever and always fight against the side that gains the upper hand to assure that no one can win? Make it so, that the only way to defeat the horsemen is to destroy the trumpets of the apocalypse by throwing them into the Mauna Loa Volcano on Hawai (yeah, I know – a little bit of a rip off). That way you could also include some humans as heroes in the story – give them the mission to destroy the trumpets.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : Haven´t you read my comment?

              I most certainly did. And you said :

              you have a story climax when Armageddon happens and how do you want to include Jesus there?

              How do I want to include Jesus there? Well you would have know, had you know. Because he was already included.

              Andy said : Also, I have a great idea for a plot twist at the end – let the four horsemen betray Yahweh

              Do you even know what the four horsemen symbolizes??

            • Andy_Schueler

              I most certainly did. And you said :

              you have a story climax when Armageddon happens and how do you want to include Jesus there?

              Dude, you really should read more than the first two sentences before you reply to a comment.

              How do I want to include Jesus there? Well you would have know, had you know. Because he was already included.

              Your choice if you simply want to copy a crappy story – right now, you have no tension whatsoever, more plotholes than all Harry Potter books combined and two completely unlikeable Mary Sue´s as main characters (one of which acts totally out of character during the story climax).
              As I said, this story has potential, but as it is right now, it sucks the big one.

              Do you even know what the four horsemen symbolizes??

              I know your story, and it sucks. My idea is way better.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : Dude, you really should read more than the first two sentences before you reply to a comment.

              Before or after you edit it?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Before.

            • JohnM

              Meh double post

            • Why does there have to be a big battle? If God’s omnipotent, couldn’t he just instantaneously will all evil forces into nothingness?

            • JohnM

              Mike D said : Why does there have to be a big battle?

              Because it’s not a fairytale?

              Mike D said : If God’s omnipotent, couldn’t he just instantaneously will all evil forces into nothingness?

              Omnipotence has always been understood as that which is logically possible.

            • So if God can instantaneously will the universe into existence (for example), why is it logically impossible for him to instantaneously destroy all evil?

              Because it’s not a fairytale?

              You’re right, the epic battle is far more realistic and not like anything found in fairy tales.

            • JohnM

              Mike D : So if God can instantaneously will the universe into existence (for example), why is it logically impossible for him to instantaneously destroy all evil?

              Instantaneously? What genesis are you reading?

            • Fine, God instantaneously willed various aspects of the universe into existence over the course of a week. So, again why is it logically problematic for God to simply instantaneously will all evil out of existence? Can you please just answer the question?

            • JohnM

              You can’t just destroy all evil, without destroying all sources of evil. That’s nonsensical. If you want rid this world of evil, you would have to destroy the entire world and rebuild it. Which is excatly what the bible states will happen. Furthermore, having power doesn’t mean, that things don’t take time.

              But let me explain it to you like this..

              The bible describes a hostage situation. First Satan takes hostage humanity at the fall, though deception. Then Jesus takes stage and provides an escape route for those who want to accept that offer. But there’s still some hostages left in the house, suffering from the Stockholm syndrome. And you can’t just blow the house up, with hostages left in it. So you have to storm the building by force, and kill all the terrorists. And that’s why there’s a giant battle.

              Now, God could have stormed the building, right after the fall, and destroyed all evil, then and there. But it would have meant the destruction of all sources of evil, including you and me. And obviously God does not negotiate with terrorists, but he did want to save as many hostages as possible.

            • Andy_Schueler

              You can’t just destroy all evil, without destroying all sources of evil. That’s nonsensical.If you want rid this world of evil, you would have to destroy the entire world and rebuild it.

              And there will obviously never be any evil in this new world because there is no “source of evil” – yet Lucifer could become “evil” without any “source of evil”. And that is totally not a contradiction because yadda yadda yadda Bible says so yadda yadda yadda.
              And Yahweh totally is the supreme being in this world and has no equal, but he still couldn´t have just killed Lucifer as soon as he turned evil because yadda yadda yadda Bible says so yadda yadda yadda.

              But there’s still some hostages left in the house, suffering from the Stockholm syndrome.

              :-D. How do you come up with this Bullshit? Amazing.

              Now, God could have stormed the building, right after the fall, and destroyed all evil, then and there. But it would have meant the destruction of all sources of evil, including you and me.

              Or he could have just destroyed the magic evil snake before it fucks up everything. Or he could have removed the totally unnecessary magic tree from his creation.
              But that would require at least average intelligence, which Yahweh evidently doesn´t have.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : Or he could have removed the totally unnecessary magic tree from his creation.

              http://www.gotquestions.org/tree-knowledge-good-evil.html

            • Andy_Schueler
            • So why can’t God destroy the devil (and hell) now, and forgive humanity of their wrongs, stop sin from being passed on to children, and in the process end all tyranny and suffering? What’s so special about “later”, as opposed to “now”?

              And you’ll have to pardon my ignorance, but I’m still not getting the whole big battle thing. What are they fighting with? Swords? Guns? Nukes? Force-like magic powers? Why can’t God just instantly defeat all his enemies without a battle? I don’t see why an omnipotent being needs a battle to “kill all the terrorists”. Clearly no one would stand a chance in a fight against God, since he’s omnipotent. So it seems like he’s just messing with people… letting them think they might win, then wiping them out because he’s all-powerful and would win anyway no matter what.

            • JohnM

              Mike D said : So why can’t God destroy the devil … now

              Matthew 13 : 24 – 30
              “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. When the wheat sprouted and formed heads, then the weeds also appeared.

              “The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’

              ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied.

              The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’

              ‘No,’ he answered, ‘because while you are pulling the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest. At that time I will tell the harvesters: First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.’”

              There is a time right for the harvest. And until then, the weed is allowed to grow besides the wheat, so that the wheat isn’t uprooted with the weed. And then when the time is right, things will be judged for what they are, and rewarded according to their own actions.

              Matthew 13 : 37 – 43
              “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.

              “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

              Mike D said : (and hell)

              Hell is not evil. It is justice. A fitting reward for those who have delighted in wickedness.

              Mike D said : and forgive humanity of their wrongs

              It doesn’t work like that. One must repent and follow Christ, or there is nothing to forgive.

              Mike D said : stop sin from being passed on to children

              That’s the false doctrine of original sin. It’s refuted by the bible itself. Sin and death came to all men, not because they were born, but because they themselves sinned. – Romans 5:12

              Matthew 16:27
              For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.

              Revelation 22:12
              “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done.

              Notice that it is according to what each person have done. Not according to what their parents have done. Or according to what Adam and Eve had done.

              Mike D said : and in the process end all tyranny and suffering?

              You and me are the cause of this tyranny and suffering. In order to end that, he would have to end us. And if God was to do it right now, there would be no more possibility of repenting.

              That is why God is holding back judgement upon this world. He’s patient with us, at least for a little while longer. Because at some point, it will end. And God will judge this world.

              I’m still not getting the whole big battle thing … Why can’t God just instantly defeat all his enemies without a battle?

              It only works like that in harry potter. In the real world, things takes time and requires an effort.

              Mike D said : I don’t see why an omnipotent being needs a battle to “kill all the terrorists”.

              And that’s because you’re approaching this subject as if it was fiction, where every thing that one can imagine, is possible. Not so, in the real world.

              Mike D said : Clearly no one would stand a chance in a fight against God, since he’s omnipotent.

              I don’t like the word omnipotent. The biblical word is all-mighty. But even with might, things takes time. And there is a right time for everything.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Hell is not evil. It is justice. A fitting reward for those who have delighted in wickedness.

              Hint: The words “Justice” and “wickedness” don´t mean what you think they mean (they actually mean the opposite).
              Why don´t you just use “anti-justice” (or “Yahweh-justice”), that way, it is less confusing.

            • JohnM

              Anti-justice would be letting all the un-repenting wicked people get away with it.

              God is perfectly merciful and perfectly just.

              Merciful to those who repent and follower Christ.

              And Just to those who do not repent of their wickedness.

            • Andy_Schueler

              God is perfectly merciful and perfectly just.

              No, the God that you believe would be infinitely/perfectly unjust.

            • Daydreamer1

              The universe sure has the strangest justice system. This is all about Jesus and nothing about the victim. Its like a King letting people off of crime so long as they agree to fight for him. The victim is left sitting at home in pain left with the justice system stating ‘don’t worry, he’s been forgiven’. Non-Christians get royally screwed by this – they get told “don’t worry your abuser has converted”, or likely “your going to hell too”.

              The greatest trick of the metaphorical devil wasn’t convincing people he doesn’t exist. It’s convincing good people that this is a moral system.

            • If I’m understanding you correctly regarding the scriptures, you’re saying that there’s a proper time for this all to take place – redemption, justice, etc. etc. I’m sorry but I’m not quite seeing how that addresses why it isn’t logically possible for God to do it differently. You seem to be saying that this is just the way it is, and it has to be this way. But… why?

              Re: Hell and justice – do you believe that it is just to punish someone infinitely for finite crimes? Is it just to create human beings knowing they will be sinful, and then punish them for their nature?

              You and me are the cause of this tyranny and suffering. In order to
              end that, he would have to end us. And if God was to do it right now,
              there would be no more possibility of repenting

              This is what I’m saying – why not bring judgment now? Take everyone before God and give them an opportunity to repent and be saved. Destroy Satan. Destroy Hell, since it serves no purpose aside from infinite torture (I don’t see how Hell is more just than simply wiping evil people out of existence).

              It only works like that in harry potter. In the real world, things takes time and requires an effort.

              There were big battles in Harry Potter. But why does God have to expend effort? That would suggest he has finite energy, or something like that. Where is the logical impasse that prevents God from avoiding the battle and just willing the victory in its entirety? Same result, different process. Why is that logically impossible for God?

              And that’s because you’re approaching this subject as if it was
              fiction, where every thing that one can imagine, is possible. Not so, in
              the real world.

              I’m just trying to find a logical consistency in your arguments. You tell me things have to be a certain way; I ask why that is logically the case, and you just reiterate that it has to be that way.

              I’m fine with not calling God omnipotent. Harold Kushner would agree. But whatever word you want to use, in what way is God’s power limited and how does that show that the questions I’m asking are logically impossible?

            • JohnM

              Hey Mike :)

              MikeD said : If I’m understanding you correctly regarding the scriptures, you’re saying that there’s a proper time for this all to take place – redemption, justice, etc. etc. I’m sorry but I’m not quite seeing how that addresses why it isn’t logically possible for God to do it differently. You seem to be saying that this is just the way it is, and it has to be this way. But… why?

              It may be possible for God to do it different. I don’t know. But I know, that this is the way that God has decided it to be.

              Why has he decided upon things to be this way? Could he have done it differently?

              Those are question that we can speculate about. But only he can answer them for you.

              MikeD said : do you believe that it is just to punish someone infinitely for finite crimes?

              I don’t hold sin to be a finite crime. I hold sin to be an eternally wicked thing. Something which damn ones soul. Souls, which are eternal, and not temporary.

              MikeD said : Is it just to create human beings knowing they will be sinful, and then punish them for their nature?

              Again, I don’t subscribe to the doctrine of original sin. I don’t think that we are born as sinners. I don’t look at newborn babies and says to myself “There’s an evil sinner in need of a baptism of repentance”. No.. I see an innocent human being, who has not yet become part of this fallen world.

              I hold that we are born without sin, and that we ourselves sin, when we become old enough to do so, because of the influence of the fallen world.

              It didn’t have to be that way. Jesus was without sin, because he just didn’t sin. He refused give into the temptation, no matter how much the devil tried in the desert.

              We are not sinners, because it just had to be like that. We are all sinners, because we all happen to have fallen short of the glory of God.

              There was a hole in the ground, on the path of life, placed there by the devil. We didn’t have to walk right into it. It was quite possible to walk around it. But everyone except Jesus, just happened to walk right into it.

              MikeD said : why not bring judgment now?

              In this case, I can give you the answer that we find in scripture. And that is, that the gospel has not yet been preached to all those who need to hear it.

              MikeD said : Take everyone before God and give them an opportunity to repent and be saved.

              Well, that is not how it works.

              Hebrews 9:27
              it is appointed to men to die once, and after that to be judged

              The only time to repent, is now. In this life, when one hears the gospel. Those who refuse to love the truth and follow Christ in this life, will not be given a second chance. They will be judged according to their own actions, and not be looked upon with mercy.

              God even goes as far as sending the latter day saints, a powerful delusion.. What do I mean by latter day saints? Am I talking about Mormons?

              Well yes and no. What most Mormons don’t realize, is that the latter day saint title, is actually something which you don’t want to be associated with.

              The latter day saints, are those who refuse to believe, until they see with their very own eyes, in the very last days. They refuse to accept the gospel, up until the point where it is undeniable. And only then do they repent, in order to try and save themselves from the coming judgement. At which point it will be too late..

              2 Thessalonians 2 : 9 – 12
              The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

              If one waits to accept the gospel, up until the point where it is undeniable, one will be lost. Because God will send a powerful delusion to such people, and they will follow the anti-Christ, and be condemned for that.

              God does not want people, who only repent and believe the gospel, when they are standing in from of him. God does not want people, who only repent in an effort to try and save themselves. God only want people, who truly repent and are willing to follow Christ, in this life.

              MikeD said : Destroy Hell, since it serves no purpose aside from infinite ( punishment )

              I understand what you mean by hell. But just for the record, Hell ( or Hades ) is a temporary holding cell.

              Revelation 20:13-15
              The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

              MikeD said : I don’t see how Hell is more just than simply wiping evil people out of existence

              To me, the whole discussion about annihilation vs infinite existence in the lake of fire is not that interesting.

              Annihilation in the lake of fire, is an eternal punishment.

              Existence in the lake of fire, is an eternal punishment.

              No matter what happens in the lake of fire, the punishment will be eternal.

              MikeD said : But why does God have to expend effort?

              Because things requires an effort?

              Think about it.. Do you know anything that does not take time and effort?

              And if that’s true of us, why would it not be true of God? After all, we are created in his image. And God did take 6 days to create the earth, and then rested on the seventh day.

              Furthermore, I don’t see that, as not being all-powerful. Power is about ability. Not the speed of which it is carried out.

              It doesn’t matter that God has to do battle with the fallen angels. The end is the same.

              MikeD said : That would suggest he has finite energy, or something like that.

              Just for the sake of logic, it is quite possible for things to require energy, and you to have an unlimited supply of energy.

              On the other hand, God did rest on the seventh day, and looked upon what he had made.

              MikeD said : Where is the logical impasse that prevents God from avoiding the battle and just willing the victory in its entirety?

              Well, my reply to that would be : Reality.

              We all know, that it’s quite possible for us to imagine things in our head, that are not possible in the real world.

              So why should this idea if instantly overcoming Satan, even be possible in reality? Wouldn’t it be more logical to first establish that it IS possible?

              MikeD said : ‘m fine with not calling God omnipotent. Harold Kushner would agree. But whatever word you want to use, in what way is God’s power limited and how does that show that the questions I’m asking are logically impossible?

              It’s limited to what is possible in reality. Creating round squares, is not possible, for example.

              But again, that’s just a jedi mindtrick. Because what is not possible, is just an imaginary limitation.

              So there is no limitation. There is only that which is possible, and that which we are wrong to imagine to be possible.

            • Andy_Schueler

              I don’t hold sin to be a finite crime. I hold sin to be an eternally wicked thing.

              And once again, you don´t understand how words work. Calling something “infinite”, although it is factually finite, doesn´t make it “infinite”.

              MikeD said : Is it just to create human beings knowing they will be sinful, and then punish them for their nature?

              JohnM: Again, I don’t subscribe to the doctrine of original sin. I don’t think that we are born as sinners. I don’t look at newborn babies and says to myself “There’s an evil sinner in need of a baptism of repentance”. No.. I see an innocent human being, who has not yet become part of this fallen world.

              I hold that we are born without sin, and that we ourselves sin, when we become old enough to do so, because of the influence of the fallen world.

              It didn’t have to be that way. Jesus was without sin, because he just didn’t sin. He refused give into the temptation, no matter how much the devil tried in the desert.

              We are not sinners, because it just had to be like that. We are all sinners, because we all happen to have fallen short of the glory of God.

              There was a hole in the ground, on the path of life, placed there by the devil. We didn’t have to walk right into it. It was quite possible to walk around it. But everyone except Jesus, just happened to walk right into it.

              :-D.
              So many words to say “I do believe that we will be punished for what we are, but I´m too dishonest to admit that, so I hide behind a wall of gibberish”.

              The only time to repent, is now. In this life, when one hears the gospel. Those who refuse to love the truth and follow Christ in this life, will not be given a second chance. They will be judged according to their own actions, and not be looked upon with mercy.

              And once again you don´t understand how words work. You use words and phrases like “love”, “truth”, “judged”, “according to their actions” – yet what you actually believe has nothing to do with how these words and phrases are actually defined.

              So why should this idea if instantly overcoming Satan, even be possible in reality? Wouldn’t it be more logical to first establish that it IS possible?

              :-D
              You are doing nothing but blathering about a ridiculous and incoherent fairy tale that could not possibly have happened and you ask others to demonstrate the possibility of alternative formulations of this fairy tale?? That takes some chutzpah dude ;-).

            • JohnM

              Andy said : And once again, you don´t understand how words work. Calling something “infinite”, although it is factually finite, doesn´t make it “infinite”.

              Infinity and eternity is two different things. And I don’t know about you, but I try to only use the word infinite in relation to numbers and sizes.

              And while is true that the number of sins of a human being is finite. We are not talking about the number of sins. We are talking about the wickedness of each and every sin.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Infinity and eternity is two different things. And I don’t know about you, but I try to only use the word infinite in relation to numbers and sizes.

              That is because you are ignorant, “eternal” actually refers to a form of “infinity” – in this case it would be temporal infinity.
              And you thinking about “infinite only in relation to numbers and sizes” again only demonstrates your ignorance.

              And while is true that the number of sins of a human being is finite. We are not talking about the number of sins. We are talking about the wickedness of each and every sin.

              I could ask you to demonstrate that “sin” actually exists, but I already know that you can´t do that and will not even try to do so. So I make it easier for you – demonstrate how it could even be conceptually possible for beings with only finite abilities (cognitive and physical) to do anything that is “eternal” or infinite in any other degree.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : I could ask you to demonstrate that “sin” actually exists

              First of all. Are there things that really are right and wrong?

              Is abducting and raping a child, really wrong? Or is it just us who think that it’s wrong and immoral?

              What if the perpetrator think that his actions are right,…on what basis are you going to challenge that, and proclaim them to be wrong?

              What is your moral foundation for right and wrong? Is it just what we think individually? Or are there something above that, that makes us right or wrong, regardless of what we ourselves think?

            • Andy_Schueler

              I asked you to demonstrate that “sin” actually exists, and you evidently cannot do so and don´t even try.
              (hint: “sin” is not a synonym for “objectively wrong” you might want to look up what that word actually means first)

            • JohnM

              I’m trying, if you would only answer those question…

              And by answering them, you would actually admit what you claim that I cannot show to be the case.

            • Andy_Schueler

              I’m trying, if you would only answer those question…

              1. I did answer those questions, in considerable detail, I also explained to you (along with two other commenters) the ambiguity of the word “objective” (hint: it has more than one meaning). Your response was trolling for roughly six hours, during which you never engaged anything that was actually addressed to you and instead kept on replying to your own misconceptions (followed by an explicit admission that you were trolling).
              2. If you would look up the word “sin”, you might realize that your questions have nothing to do with establishing if this concept actually exists or not.

            • Those are question that we can speculate about. But only he can answer them for you.

              My question doesn’t require you to know the mind of God. I’m just asking you why it would be logically impossible for it to be different. Since you’re the one who brought up the issue of logical im/possibility, I assumed you’d be able to answer the question.

              I hold that we are born without sin, and that we ourselves sin, when we
              become old enough to do so, because of the influence of the fallen
              world.

              Is it possible then that someone could be a sinless human (aside from Christ, obviously)? Has anyone aside from Christ ever been a sinless human? I’m asking because I don’t see much functional difference as it relates to my question.

              Besides, your answer seems circular. You say that we’re the cause of evil. Yet we do evil because we succumb to the influence of this “fallen world”. So why can’t we stop the cycle? Once the just are in Heaven, what will stop them from making the same mistake Adam and Eve did? They managed to sin even before the world was fallen.

              To me, the whole discussion about annihilation vs infinite existence in the lake of fire is not that interesting.

              Annihilation in the lake of fire, is an eternal punishment.

              I mean annihilation as “ceasing to exist”. If you’re in the lake of fire suffering, you still exist. That’s not really “punishment”, since it never ends. It’s just torture. Why is that good or necessary? What’s the point of Hell even existing?

              Power is about ability. Not the speed of which it is carried out.

              So speed can’t be part of ability?

              So why should this idea if instantly overcoming Satan, even be possible
              in reality? Wouldn’t it be more logical to first establish that it IS
              possible?

              If it’s not possible, it’s because God lacks the power to do so, which makes me wonder why he ought to be called “God” at all.

              The only time to repent, is now. In this life, when one hears the
              gospel. Those who refuse to love the truth and follow Christ in this
              life, will not be given a second chance. They will be judged according
              to their own actions, and not be looked upon with mercy.

              So does God care primarily about people’s actions, or what they believe? And why isn’t God merciful, especially since he knows we’re all inevitably going to sin?

            • JohnM

              MikeD said : So speed can’t be part of ability?

              It could, if it that was a requirement for success.. Doesn’t have to, if the end result is the same.

              MikeD said : If it’s not possible, it’s because God lacks the power to do so

              Sorry, but that’s flawed logic.

              You may as well claim, that God is not all-powerful because he cannot create round squares and married bachelors

              MikeD said : I’m just asking you why it would be logically impossible for it to be different. Since you’re the one who brought up the issue of logical im/possibility, I assumed you’d be able to answer the question.

              I DO NOT think that it IS logically possible to wipe out Evil instantly, exactly because I see no reason why it would be logically possible. As far as I know, everything requires time and effort. And therefore I have no reason to assume that it is possible to do it instantly.

              MikeD said : Is it possible then that someone could be a sinless human (aside from Christ, obviously)?

              In theory, yes. But there are no such people, according to the bible. We have all fallen short of the glory of God.

              MikeD said : Besides, your answer seems circular. You say that we’re the cause of evil. Yet we do evil because we succumb to the influence of this “fallen world”.

              It depends on what you mean by cause.

              Satan is the father of lies. ( John 8:44 ) And in that sense, we are not the cause of the existance of evil.

              On the other hand, if nobody allowed themselves to be tempted by Satan, there would be no moral evil in this world, besides Satan, and so in that sense, we are the biggest cause of evil in this world.

              MikeD said : So why can’t we stop the cycle?

              The bible states that the cycle will end. When Satan and everyone who follows him, has been destroyed.

              That’s the way to truly fix things.. Demolish it and rebuild it anew. Everything else is just patchwork on a flawed foundation.

              MikeD said : Once the just are in Heaven, what will stop them from making the same mistake Adam and Eve did?

              Well, would Adam and Eve even have eaten of the tree, without the snake?

              What would genesis have been like, without the snake and the deceiving lies?

              MikeD said : If you’re in the lake of fire suffering, you still exist. That’s not really “punishment”, since it never ends.

              Well, just punishment is always equal to the crime. An eye for an eye, is perfect justice.

              So, if the eternal lake of fire, is righteous justice, I guess sins are really really wicked, huh?

              But of course, you don’t see it that way. You see sins as “little mistakes”. “No big thing”. And maybe that is why you have a hard time seeing the lake of fire as justice. But I do. Because I hold sins to be eternally wicked.

              MikeD said : What’s the point of (the lake of fire) even existing?

              Ultimate Justice.

              God is a Just God. He wouldn’t be, if he just allowed the un-repentfull siners to get away with it.

              MikeD said : So does God care primarily about people’s actions, or what they believe?

              God cares about the heart. Does on truly repent? Or does one only say so, to get away with it?

              And does ones actions reflect that? Have one really changed? Or does one just say one thing, while still doing another?

              MikeD said : And why isn’t God merciful

              God is merciful to those who repent and accept the gospel. And just to those who reject the gospel.

              You cannot expect mercy without repenting and asking for mercy. Therefore, those who perish because they would not love the truth and so be saved, perish at their own fault.. Their blood will be on their own heads, as the bible states it.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Well, just punishment is always equal to the crime. An eye for an eye, is perfect justice.

              Right, if we catch a rapist – we should rape him for, graet justice! If we catch a drunk driver who caused an accident and killed an entire family – we should kill his entire family and let him watch, for graet justice! If we catch a serial killer who killed his victims in the most gruesome ways, we should not only kill him, but also study his crimes in detail and inflict on him the exact amount of pain that he caused others – for graet justice!

              You are disgusting.

              So, if the eternal lake of fire, is righteous justice,

              It cannot be, by definition.

              I guess sins are really really wicked, huh?

              If “sin” exists (which you cannot prove or even demonstrate that it is plausible), no human sin could be, by definition, infinitely / eternally wicked.

              But of course, you don’t see it that way. You see sins as “little mistakes”. “No big thing”.

              How about you prove first that there is such a thing as “sin” and then we´ll tell you how we feel about it?

              And maybe that is why you have a hard time seeing the lake of fire as justice. But I do. Because I hold sins to be eternally wicked.

              That is because you are not only stupid and incapable of applying even rudimentary logic to your beliefs, but also thoroughly evil.

              God is a Just God. He wouldn’t be, if he just allowed the un-repentfull siners to get away with it.

              As if “repentance” (actual “repentance” not what you think this word means) has anything to do with that according to your beliefs.

              God is merciful to those who repent and accept the gospel. And just to those who reject the gospel.

              Here one doesn´t even have to point out that this has nothing to do with “justice” – this is so transparently self-refuting that it speaks for itself.

              Therefore, those who perish because they would not love the truth and so be saved, perish at their own fault..

              So you will “perish at your own fault” then? Got it.

            • JohnM

              Right, if we catch a rapist – we should rape him

              No no, that’s flawed logic. Justice is not paid in the same currency as the crime.

              We repay speeding, with a fine. A drunk driver, with no drivers licence. And a thief with a jail cell.

            • Andy_Schueler

              JohnM (thirty minutes ago): Well, just punishment is always equal to the crime. An eye for an eye, is perfect justice.

              JohnM (now): No no, that’s flawed logic. Justice is not paid in the same currency as the crime.

              You truly are a parody of yourself.

            • JohnM

              Oki, so let me get this right.. You think that rapists will be raped in the lake of fire? And that murders will be murdered in the lake of fire?

            • Andy_Schueler

              I don´t believe any of this stuff, I pointed out that you degenerated into a parody of yourself by refuting your own comments within a few minutes after you made them.

            • JohnM

              An eye for an eye, is a scale of justice. It’s not a method for revenge.

            • Andy_Schueler

              An eye for an eye, is a scale of justice. It’s not a method for revenge.

              No, that is actually literally what “biblical justice” (aka injustice) is all about. See Deuteronomy 19:18-19:
              The judges must make a thorough investigation, and if the witness proves to be a liar, giving false testimony against a fellow Israelite, then do to the false witness as that witness intended to do to the other party.

              or Deuteronomy 25:11-12:
              If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.
              => ok, that is actually more “a hand for a dick”, but you get the principle.

              Btw, hell is not “eye for an eye” in any case.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : Btw, (The lake of fire) is not “eye for an eye” in any case.

              That’s the whole point. It’s fire for sin.

              Justice is not paid in the same currency as the crime.

            • Andy_Schueler

              That’s the whole point. It’s fire for sin.

              Infinitely unjust, as I said.

              You were still wrong about what “eye for an eye” means, but I´m used to you never acknowledging that you have been wrong about anything.

        • GearHedEd

          Secondly, if one only reads the bible, one will find an explanation, that deals with the origin of evil, the continual existence of evil, and the future end of all evil. And in the light of that, there is no problem of evil, because everything is accounted for.

          The real problem is that you see the Bible as authoritative, despite how spectacularly wrong it is on so many subjects.

          • JohnM

            GearHedEd said : The real problem is that you see the Bible as authoritative

            Of course the bible is authoritative. We are discussing Christianity. And you don’t discuss Christianity, based on what you read in a book about weed.

    • deltaexmachina

      The Culture Industry – The Ideology of Death

      ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-961596

      .,…,.,.,

      • Andy_Schueler

        Stopped taking your meds Dennis? Does your mommy know that you are being a bad boy again?

        • Is that him? Markuze/Mabus? Wow. Clearly mental.

          • Andy_Schueler

            Yeah, his rants are easy to recognize by the random links to depeche mode videos and the “MILLIONS WILL SEE THIS!!” sentences.
            Too bad, last thing I heard from him is that he was in rehab and found a job – if he violates his most recent court order (again…), he will most likely be institutionalized.

            • I followed the link. I have been to several of those type pages before. I never realised that was him!

            • Andy_Schueler

              For the rare cases where he goes back to a thread where he spammed his links – he will deny that it was him and claim “not Mabus, but a fan” ;-).
              If you see the ip of commenters, you could just check whether it resolves to the Montreal area and send his comments to the Montreal police department (but his condition is clearly improving given that he spams with much lower frequency now, and since he will get in big trouble when he violates his most recent court order again, it might be better to just let him be).

            • Seems it’s a proxy IP through India – covering his tracks!

    • JohnM

      Oki, so let’s approach “the problem of evil” from another angle. The angle that Stephan law likes to take.. The evil God challenge..

      1: If God is good, then why is there so much evil in the world?

      2: If God is evil, then why is there so much good in this world?

      And I do think that this is a very effective criticism of people who take a one god responsible for everything perspective. But there are more ways to look at it..

      If there’s both a good God and an evil god, at the same time, the challenge completely evaporates, because then good God explains good, evil god explains evil, and everything is accounted for.

      Now, I’m pretty sure that Stephan himself has actually pointed that out, in one of his talks / debates about the evil god challenge, because he is a pretty smart guy. And I’ve been trying to find where that was all day, so that I could quote him here, I just can’t find where that was. If anyone could me with that, I would appreciate it..

      So no, I’m not going to accuse him of not having thought this though. He has.. And he does ( as far as I remember ) point out that the challenge completely evaporates if you have both a good God and an evil god at the same time. But he then dismisses that option, because according to him, that is not what Christians believe, and therefore it’s irrelevant, according to him.

      What I would like to accuse him of.. is of being a bit ignorant about what he’s arguing against.. I believe that he’s got Christianity mixed up with Islam.

      Muslims will often make the claim that: “There is only one god, and Muhammed is his servant.” or.. “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger”. Clearly Islam claims to be worshipping the only god.

      While in the bible we read : Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. John 17:3

      And Deuteronomy 10:17
      For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality and accepts no bribes.

      The claim that we find in the bible, is not that God is the only God, but rather that he’s the only True God or the God of gods. Meaning that there are other gods.

      And anyone who have read the old testament will know, that the bible often speaks about other gods. Such as Baal and Molag. Even Zeus and Hermes are mentioned in Acts 14:12.

      But what the bible also tells us, is that those names are all disguises, used by Satan to extract worship for himself. And indeed people have been worshipping Satan, under the names of gods such as Baal and Molag, for many many years. And if we combine all these gods linked to Satan, into one god, we really only find 2 gods in the bible.

      YHWH, the Creator God. The lord of Lords, who Jesus refers to as The father.

      And Satan, the opposer, the great deceiver and corrupter of this world.

      Furthermore, the bible itself, when speaking about Satan in 2 Corinthians 4, actually refers to him as“The god of this age”.

      And that is why, in Christianity, we do have both good God, who explains good, and evil god, who explains evil. And therefore, we have no problem of evil.

      • Andy_Schueler

        It´s fascinating how you make up this Bullshit without bothering to look up anything.
        Hint: The equivalent to Lucifer / Satan in Islam is called “Shaytan”, and his backstory is, that one of Allah´s creations turned evil. It´s exactly the same incoherent Bullshit that you believe in, just with different names.

        And your “explanation” is nothing but bullshit stories, which contradict several of your other bullshit stories (not to mention that you change these bullshit stories roughly as often as your underpants).

        • JohnM

          Andy said : It´s exactly the same incoherent Bullshit that you believe in

          Let me get this right. Are you calming that there’s no difference between Christianity and Islam… In fact, you’re saying that it’s exactly the same, correct?

          • Andy_Schueler

            No.

            • JohnM

              That’s a pretty solid contradiction.

            • Andy_Schueler

              To a complete moron with no reading comprehension it might appear as one.

            • JohnM

              So I don’t believe in exactly the same incoherent Bullsh*t as the muslims? Or what?

            • Andy_Schueler

              That depends on which particular bullshit stories you are talking about – and this is where reading comprehension might be helpful.
              Try to find out what exactly the pronoun “it” might refer to in the comment you read, but didn´t understand.

            • JohnM

              My questions also refers to “it”, as we were talking about “it”.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Then try to find out what “it” refers to.
              If this is too hard for you, you should maybe try it with a simpler example first:
              “I played soccer today. It was fun.”

            • JohnM

              Thank you for wasting my time, by trolling, in an attempt to escape the burden of your ultimate claim.

              No, Christianity and Islam does not teach us EXCATLY the same things about Satan. That is why one is called Christianity. And the other is called Islam. Mkay?

            • Andy_Schueler

              No, Christianity and Islam does not teach us EXCATLY the same things about Satan. That is why one is called Christianity. And the other is called Islam. Mkay?

              Same bullshit, different names.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : Same bullshit, different names.

              That’s pretty ignorant. There are substantial differences. And I think you know that.. At least be reasonable, and stop acting like a little kid.

            • Andy_Schueler

              There are substantial differences

              A different name, being a Jinn instead of an Angel and an explicitly stated reason for rebelling against his creator does not constitute “substantial differences”.
              Within islamic theology, Shaytan fulfifls the exact same function as Satan does in christian theology.
              Same bullshit, different names.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : Same bullshit, different names.

              Thank you for sharing your ignorance with us. Maybe you want to study it a bit more.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Maybe you´d like to study anything before vomitting your ignorant garbage on innocent threads?

        • JohnM

          Your objection is invalid.

          It’s irrelevant that Islam has a character named “Shaytan”.

          What’s relevant, is that the bible proclaims Satan to be “The god of this age”. Therefore Christianity has both good God and evil god. And therefore Christianity has no problem of evil.

          • Andy_Schueler

            Therefore Christianity has both good God and evil god.

            So does Islam. Moron.

            And therefore Christianity has no problem of evil.

            Logic is not your friend.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : So does Islam. Moron.

              No, Islam does not consider Satan to be a god. That is why they constantly proclaim “There is no god but Allah”. Consider your lies exposed.

              Furthermore, even if you were correct, what would you have achieved? Well all you would have accomplished, would be to show, that Islam too has both good God and Evil god, which would mean that they too would have no problem of evil.

              So what you’re doing now, is nothing more than a fool’s errand.

            • Andy_Schueler

              No, Islam does not consider Satan to be a god.

              Neither does christianity consider Satan to be a God.

              Furthermore, even if you were correct, what would you have achieved?

              Pointing out that you are a complete moron who never does any research for the umpteenth time.

              which would mean that they too would have no problem of evil

              Moron.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : Neither does christianity consider Lucifer to be a God.

              More Lies…

              He’s “The god of this age” as we read in 2 Corinthians 4.

            • Andy_Schueler

              He’s “The god of this age”

              While there are roughly 30 other Bible verses saying that there is no God or no “true God” besides “the LORD”. If your argument is that Shaytan is “not a God” while Satan is “not a true God” (i.e. same Bullshit, just stated differently), be my guest.

            • JohnM

              There’s a huge difference between saying that there’s no God but Allah, as Muslims do, and saying that God is the only one TRUE God, as Christians do.

              Christians leave room for other gods. And indeed we do find many other gods being mentioned in the bible itself.

            • Andy_Schueler

              There’s a huge difference between saying that there’s no God but Allah, as Muslims do, and saying that God is the only one TRUE God, as Christians do.

              No there isn´t because the Quran condemns the worship of “FALSE Gods” as well. It´s the exact same bullshit.

            • JohnM

              You seem to be stuck on the fool’s errand quest.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Whatever you think “fool´s errand” means (adding a “quest” afterwards makes no sense btw) – it is most likely wrong.
              Also, you should try reading the Quran, or at least a summary of what Muslims believe in (I know, you don´t like reading… And it gets in the way of making up Bullshit out of thin air, doesn´t it?)

            • JohnM

              I don’t need to read some kind of wikipedia summary. I talk to Muslims on a daily basis..

              And just look at the ignorant gibberish that you’re posting..

              Seriously, why do you think that Muslims have such a big problem with the trinity?

            • Andy_Schueler

              I talk to Muslims on a daily basis..

              Yet you didn´t even know before yesterday that there is a “Devil” in Islam as well.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : Yet you didn´t even know before yesterday that there is a “Devil” in Islam as well.

              Bring it on. Where have I expressed such a view?

            • Andy_Schueler

              You were bragging that you, unlike muslims, “don´t have a problem of evil” because you can explain it with “Satan”. Which can only be explained by assuming that you were either lying, or simply didn´t know that muslims believe in a being that is functionally identical to “Satan”.

            • JohnM

              That is not what I said.

              I said, that unlike Muslims who proclaim that Allah is the only god, Christians proclaim that God is the only TRUE God, and therefore leave room for other gods, which we do find in the bible.

              And none of this has anything to do with whether or not there’s a “Devil” in Islam.

            • Andy_Schueler

              I said, that unlike Muslims who proclaim that Allah is the only god, Christians proclaim that God is the only TRUE God

              There is no difference you moron, the Quran condemns the worship of “FALSE Gods” just like the Bible does.

              and therefore leave room for other gods, which we do find in the bible.

              Which, according to you, are all “Satan in disguise”. And again, the “Devil” in Christianity and Islam is functionally identical – they have the same personality, the same modus operandi, the same background – the only thing that differs are NAMES, functionally, there is no difference.

            • JohnM

              Clearly, it’s just your ignorance reading something into what I’ve said.

              In no way have I expressed the view, that there’s no “Devil” in Islam.

            • Andy_Schueler

              In no way have I expressed the view, that there’s no “Devil” in Islam.

              So you were just dishonestly pretending that you, unlike Muslims, have “Satan” as an “explanation” – although you knew that Muslims believe in a being that is functionally identical to “Satan”?
              So you were just lying again eh?

            • JohnM

              No, I wasn’t talking about whether or not Islam has a Devil.

              I was talking about whether or not Islam has an evil god.

              And I pointing out, that the answer to that question, is found by observing, that Muslims proclaim, that there is no god but Allah.

            • Andy_Schueler

              No, I wasn’t talking about whether or not Islam has a Devil.

              I was talking about whether or not Islam has an evil god.

              And I pointing out, that the answer to that question, is found by observing, that Muslims proclaim, that there is no god but Allah.

              Even if I would grant you, for the sake of the Argument, that Satan is actually considered to be a “God” by christians, it doesn´t make ANY difference.

              “Satan” and the “Shaytan” are functionality identical – calling “Satan” a “God” doesn´t change the fact that he has the same personality, the same abilities, the same modus operandi and the same background as the “Shaytan” does.

              Name ONE, just ONE single thing that “Satan” is able to do (and likely to do) according to Christians, which the “Shaytan” is NOT able to do (and likely to do) according to Muslims. Or name ONE, just ONE single thing that would be explicable by the actions of “Satan” but NOT explicable by the actions of the “Shaytan”. You can´t, because they are functionally identical.

              Moron.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : Name ONE, just ONE single thing that “Satan” is able to do according to Christians, which the “Shaytan” is NOT able to do according to Muslims.

              Does the Quran allow for Satan to be an evil god?

              Or does the Quran state, that there is no god but Allah?

              http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=9&verse=129

            • Andy_Schueler

              Name ONE, just ONE single thing that “Satan” is able to do (and likely to do) according to Christians, which the “Shaytan” is NOT able to do (and likely to do) according to Muslims. Or name ONE, just ONE single thing that would be explicable by the actions of “Satan” but NOT explicable by the actions of the “Shaytan”. You can´t, because they are functionally identical.

              Moron.

            • JohnM

              I just did.. – “Be an evil god”

            • Andy_Schueler

              I just did.. – “Be an evil god”

              No you didn´t. I asked you to name ANYTHING that “Satan” could DO which the Shaytan cannot DO, or ANYTHING that could be EXPLAINED by assuming the existence of “Satan” that could not be explained by assuming the existence of the “Shaytan”.
              And all you try to do is proving that Christians have other names for their Devil than Muslims do – these names and titles are completely irrelevant, because the beings that they refer to are functionally identical.
              If you own a car and your neighbour owns a car, but you refer to your car as “evil God” – you still have just a car, exactly like your neighbour does, giving it a different name or title doesn´t mean that it stops being a car and magically turns into something else.

              Moron.

            • JohnM

              Why don’t we ask the Muslims themselves, then?

              http://www.answering-christianity.com/satan.htm

              Conclusion:Satan in Islam is different than Satan in the Bible.

            • Andy_Schueler

              So you found a muslim that agrees with you that if you have two functionally identical things, but use different names for them, they stop being functionally identical and magically turn into different things because names have magic power.
              If you wanted to prove that Muslims can be as stupid as Christians, you´ve succeeded.

            • JohnM

              Andy said : So you found a muslim that agrees with you that if you have two functionally identical things, but use different names for them…

              Actually, those guys also use the same name Satan.

              And if you had actually read the link, you would have know, that they consider Satan in the bible different from Satan in the Quran, because of the “functionality” of Satan, found in certain books of the bible and not found in the Quran.

            • Andy_Schueler

              Actually, those guys also use the same name Satan.

              They also use the names “Devil” and “Demons”, you might have noticed that the Quran was not written english – the names they use are إبليس‎,(Iblis) and شيطان‎ (Shaytan). And in popular english-speaking culture, you can use the name “Devil” or “Satan” for the Shaytan / Iblis. Because they are functionally identical.

              And if you had actually read the link, you would have know, that they consider Satan in the bible different from Satan in the Quran, because of the “functionality” of Satan, found in certain books of the bible and not found in the Quran.

              Of course… You just can´t refer to ANYTHING that “Satan” is able and likely to do, which “Shaytan” is NOT able and likely to do. You also can´t refer to ANYTHING that christians try to explain with “Satan”, which Muslims do NOT try to explain with “Shaytan” (and you obviously can´t refer to ANYTHING which could, even in principle, be accounted for by “Satan”, but NOT by “Shaytan”).
              The only thing that this guy refers to, is that the Quran is more specific about the background of the Shaytan than the Bible is about the background of “Satan” (unlike Christians, Muslims actually have a reason / motivation for why the Shaytan turned evil, instead of a mere declaration that he did become evil for no particular reason).

              They are functionally identical. Moron.

            • JohnM

              Can Satan be an angel according to Islam?

            • Andy_Schueler

              Do names have magic power and do different names turn functional identical things into things that are no longer functionally identical?
              Does you car stop being a car when you refer to it as “chicken”?

            • JohnM

              Angel is not a name. Neither is car and bicycle.

            • Andy_Schueler

              *yawn*, you are not even trying anymore are you?

              The “Devil”, “Satan” or however you want to call this imaginary construct is an “Angel” rebelling against his creator according to Christians, while it is a “Jinn” rebelling against his creator according to Muslims.

              And calling this imaginary asshole “Angel” or “Jinn” changes what exactly? What can Angel-asshole do that Jinn-asshole cannot? What is Angel-asshole likely to do that Jinn-asshole is not? What do Christians try to explain with Angel-asshole that Muslims don´t try to explain with Jinn-asshole? How are Angel-asshole and Jinn-asshole not functionally identical?

              Referring to your car as “chicken” won´t magically turn your car into something different.

            • JohnM

              If you want to know the difference between a Jinn and an Angel, just ask our Muslim friends, that I linked to earlier.

            • Andy_Schueler

              I take that as an admission that you finally realize that you have absolutely nothing to refute the fact that the concept of a “Devil”, “Satan” etc. is functionally identical in Islam and in Christianity.

            • John. Remind me, what was Satan before he became Satan? Was he a fallen angel? ie he is not a god. You are THE ONLY Christian I have ever heard claim this. In this instance, gotquestions is actually quite useful:

              Question: “How is Satan god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4)?”

              Answer:The phrase “god of this world” (or “god of this age”) indicates that Satan is the major influence on the ideals, opinions, goals, hopes and views of the majority of people. His influence also encompasses the world’s philosophies, education, and commerce. The thoughts, ideas, speculations and false religions of the world are under his control and have sprung from his lies and deceptions.

              Satan is also called the “prince of the power of the air” inEphesians 2:2. He is the “ruler of this world” inJohn 12:31. These titles and many more signify Satan’s capabilities. To say, for example, that Satan is the “prince of the power of the air” is to signify that in some way he rules over the world and the people in it.

              This is not to say that he rules the world completely; God is still sovereign. But it does mean that God, in His infinite wisdom, has allowed Satan to operate in this world within the boundaries God has set for him. When the Bible says Satan has power over the world, we must remember that God has given him domain over unbelievers only. Believers are no longer under the rule of Satan (Colossians 1:13). Unbelievers, on the other hand, are caught “in the snare of the devil” (2 Timothy 2:26), lie in the “power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19), and are in bondage to Satan (Ephesians 2:2).

              So, when the Bible says that Satan is the “god of this world,” it is not saying that he has ultimate authority. It is conveying the idea that Satan rules over the unbelieving world in a specific way. In2 Corinthians 4:4, the unbeliever follows Satan’s agenda: “The god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ.” Satan’s scheme includes promoting false philosophies in the world—philosophies that blind the unbeliever to the truth of the Gospel. Satan’s philosophies are the fortresses in which people are imprisoned, and they must be set free by Christ.

              An example of one such false philosophy is the belief that man can earn God’s favor by a certain act or acts. In almost every false religion, meriting God’s favor or earning eternal life is a predominate theme. Earning salvation by works, however, is contrary to biblical revelation. Man cannot work to earn God’s favor; eternal life is a free gift (seeEphesians 2:8-9). And that free gift is available through Jesus Christ and Him alone (John 3:16;14:6). You may ask why mankind does not simply receive the free gift of salvation (John 1:12). The answer is that Satan—the god of this world—has tempted mankind to follow his pride instead. Satan sets the agenda, the unbelieving world follows, and mankind continues to be deceived. It is no wonder that Scripture calls Satan a liar (John 8:44).

              Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/Satan-god-world.html#ixzz2RZNjapRQ

            • JohnM

              Thank you for quoting that Jonathan. I actually agree with most of what is being said..

              gotquestions said : This is not to say that he rules the world completely; God is still sovereign.

              That’s right. Satan is a lesser god.

              And God is God of gods – Deuteronomy 10:17

              Pretty strange title, if there are no other gods, right?

              gotquestions said : But it does mean that God, in His infinite wisdom, has allowed Satan to operate in this world within the boundaries God has set for him

              That’s just another way of saying, that God has not yet dealt with Satan, because he wants to save as many people as possible, before he wipes out all evil. ( hostage situation described elsewhere in this thread )

              gotquestions said : When the Bible says Satan has power over the world, we must remember that God has given him domain over unbelievers only.

              That’s refuted by the bible itself.

              Genesis 1:28
              And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

              God gave Adam and Eve dominion over the earth. It’s humans themselves, who give Satan dominion over them, and enslaves themselves to Satan, when they wilfully commit sin, and do that which is wicked in the eyes of the Lord.

              And it is though his puppets, that Satan becomes the puppet-master over the earth. He has no authority of his own. His power over the earth comes from deceiving and enslaving humans, who then carry out his evil will, knowingly or unknowingly.

              Jonathan said : Remind me, what was Satan before he became Satan? Was he a fallen angel? ie he is not a god.

              First of all.. What is a god?

              A god is a higher being who people worship.

              Is Satan/Lucifer a higher being? Yes. He’s a high-ranking fallen angel, who rebelled against God, because he himself wanted to take his place. He wanted to be the most high himself.

              Isaiah 14:13
              You said in your heart, “I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon.

              Do people worship Lucifer? Yes. The gnostic did it. The Satanists still worship Satan. And Freemasons still worship Lucifer. Satan is their god. As well as a lot of other peoples god.

              Is Satan a creator god? Well…

              God is the creator of the first world, the garden of Eden. But we don’t live in the garden of Eden. We live post fall. And in order to explain this world, the world that we live in, one needs to invoke both the creation, which God was the architect of, and the fall, which Satan was the architect of.

              And therefore the bible is a good God + evil god explanation, of the world that we now live in.

            • So all angels are gods????!!!

              Yerright.

            • JohnM

              Jonathan : So all angels are gods????!!!

              No, not at all. Only fallen angels desire to be worshipped by man.

              The righteous angels, who did not follow Satan, refuses to be worshipped.

              Revelation 19:10
              At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers and sisters who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For it is the Spirit of prophecy who bears testimony to Jesus.”

            • Tell me, cite, reference ANY Christian source which claims that Satan is a god.

            • JohnM

              I have already told you about 2 Corinthians 4

              Furthermore, here is another not so Christian source:

              How to Dedicate You Soul to Satan
              http://www.angelfire.com/empire/serpentis666/SATANIC.html

              The prayer includes the following:

              I proclaim Satan Lucifer as my one and only God.

            • This is too ridiculous. You appear to be confusing theistic Satanism with Christianity…

            • JohnM

              Christianity and Satanism are two sides of the same reality. Christians serve the forces of light. Satanist serve the forces of darkness. But it’s the same chessboard that we inhabit.

              Here’s a few quotes from Helena Petrovna Blavatsky :

              “Lucifer represents.. Life.. Thought.. Progress.. Civilization.. Liberty.. Independence.. Lucifer is the Logos.. the Serpent, the Savior.”

              and

              “It is Satan who is the God of our planet and the only God.”

              Furthermore here’s a freemason admitting that he Worships Lucifer, on camera:

              http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhd-DsfVqfI

            • Andy_Schueler

              OH MY GOD. The Satanists are everywhere!!11! Wake up sheeple!!

            • Andy_Schueler

              There are plenty of fundie “sources” that agree with JohnM that “Satan” is a (false) “God” and the puppet master behind any non-christian religion / ideology. But, unsurprisingly, none of those “sources” present any evidence whatsoever for this idea.

            • Andy_Schueler

              And God is God of gods – Deuteronomy 10:17

              Pretty strange title, if there are no other gods, right?

              Given how Judaism evolved out of a polytheistic culture, it is not strange at all.