In Defense of Evil part 3 of 3: Satan was the Good Guy in the bible. God was the bad guy.

I thank Wylted for continuing this fantastic debate with his challenging arguments. Holistic view My opponent takes singular instances of what appears to be god being a tyrannical, hateful being. However, I hope that you, as the reader, would be able to take these criticisms and consider them in their full context. Know that god, as I’ve quoted in the previous round, has a big plan for all of us. Now, in certain instances, it may appear that god is doing wicked things, but these things are all part of his plan. It would be silly to argue only in the narrow context of a particular incidence, yet this is exactly what my opponent is doing, in general. The Devil is Evil 1. Sinning is evil. Sinning is not wholly defined as “anything that god despises”. There is reasoning behind God’s commandments, for example, “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not steal”. Breeching these will result in a sinful offense, but these commandments are clearly good, right? Is stealing, taking something earned by someone else, good? Lust is not necessarily a wonderful thing, as it objectifies people. In other words, lust reduces people to their physical properties, ignoring the other components, such as personality, that combine to make a person. Greed is also frowned upon by our Lord, as it does not make people truly happy. Think about all the things you’ve acquired, those things that are beyond the necessary for survival. Have you ever had enough money? Have you ever said, ‘I’ve had enough holidays, this will be my last’? God knows that the human condition is one wherein it cannot be satisfied by Earthly means, at least beyond the temporary moment. However, the everlasting satisfaction that lies beyond the gates of Heaven, will be far more satisfying, thus God encourages the latter and discourages the former. In short, some natural human behaviours are not the best for us humans, and thus God does not encourage behaviours. “God didn't really have to subject his son to torture and murder to forgive our sins. God has 2 good alternate actions. He can either just forgive them, or he could stop finding human nature so despicable.” My opponent tries to outright ignore my response by moving the goalposts. God absolutely did need to torture and murder His son, as the sins of man needed to be forgiven, yet man himself could not weather the burden. Something had to take the punishment, as punishment for these sins was required, for the Lord is just. It is perfectly reasonable to argue this. 2. Lucifer means “light bearer” because he was once an angel of God. However, the Bible depicts Satan AFTER he fell from the Kingdom of Heaven (Luke 10:18), thus heavily implying Satan to be wicked. Whilst Lucifer’s name implies that he is good, he is indeed not, as I’ve demonstrated throughout this debate. “My opponent uses the premise that Satan is evil because he disguised himself as an angel of light and a serpent in the garden of Eden. The reality is, Satan is an angel of light. The word Lucifer means light bearer…” God disguised himself as a burning bush so as not to harm anyway, and even said that, “I am the God of your father””. Lucifer, on the other hand, disguised himself as a snake in order to trick people; he did not say who he was. The difference in intention is clearly evident: Lucifer was trying to deceive. 3. “My opponent asserts that Satan is a deceiver and wants you to suffer for eternity. However there is no evidence Satan wants suffering. Even if suffering is the price for wisdom it doesn't mean suffering is the motive…” Alright, I was wrong to assume that Satan wanted suffering, despite the Bible saying otherwise. In the event that Satan doesn’t want suffering, that he’s inadvertently causing suffering, would it then not be terrible that he is so recklessly causing suffering? Would you not prefer to listen to a god, who says that your suffering will be repaid, that offers you the eternal comfort that is Heaven? This is an omniscient, omnipotent god that is talking to you, not a devil that does not have the capacity to understand the consequences of his actions. This is a God that gave His only son to the world, for him to be tortured to pay for our sins. Such a colossal sacrifice surely indicates how loving our God is, yet we have no example for Lucifer. Which seems more reasonable to accept: a devil, who has yet to prove his love for us, wants suffering; or, God, who has sacrificed His only son for us, wants suffering? C1: God does evil things, God does own us; it’s up to Him to do as He pleases. However, keep in mind that this is a loving God, one that has a plan for everyone. It’s not simply, “just trust me”; it’s Jesus, God’s son, dying on the cross for our sins. All God asks is that you believe Jesus died for your sins, and you will be allowed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. God is working in ways that we cannot understand, for we ourselves are not omniscient as He is. “Even God, mentions murder as bad in the 10 commandments.” mur·der n. 1. The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice. [1] God, the author of creation, is the founder of rules and order in the universe. Do you not think that His ‘murdering’ would be entirely lawful, as it is He who decides what is lawful? Besides, his “murders” are not done with malice, as God loves us all, it’s just that He is a just God and He will punish those justly. [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... “My opponent concedes that God views women as inferior and more deserving of rape.” No, I conceded that in God’s infinite wisdom, that He has decided that in some circumstances, rape may have been permissible. It’s not a universal truth that ‘women are deserving of rape’. My opponent blatantly ignores the context of my words, in an attempt to tarnish my argument. Please, as a reader, make note of this. Non-Omniscience In instances where my opponent claims God is not omniscient, it is that God is testing people when appearing to be ignorant. In the Abraham example, God does indeed ask, “Where are you?”-, appearing to be not omniscient. But this is simply a test, you see, the Lord knew how many He would find. He merely wanted to test Abraham’s convictions, to see if Abraham would falter in his faith with the Lord. In the Garden of Eden example, God knows that the fruit of the tree had been eaten, and He knows where the two are. It’s just that, again, He is testing them. He wants to see if they will willingly stand before God and be held accountable for their actions. Such is faith in our Lord: Him testing us, as is explicitly stated in these verses: Genesis 22:1-24; Psalm 11:4-5… C2: God hates humans, “I've shown god to be capable of deceit.” This simply isn’t true. I ask you, as a reader, to control+f and see where the hits are for ‘deceit’ in this debate. “If I'm killed for my sin by God, how does that not signify hate? If God loved me he wouldn't feel it necessary to murder me for something I can't avoid (Romans 6:23).” The verse: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord”. I argue that this verse talks in terms of eternal salvation, meaning that if you are not to believe in God, you will die normally. However, if you are to accept the Gift of God (by believing in Jesus Christ, our saviour), then you will still die, at least physically, yet you will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. See the difference? C3: Let's meet our hero 1. “God has made it clear that he didn't try to keep wisdom from us to protect us from pondering our fate. God feels threatened by us. Satan told us God didn't want us to eat the forbidden fruit because it would make us more like God. When we ate the fruit God felt threatened and gave us a death sentence to protect himself…” Don’t you find it amusing that after dedicating a section to lambasting interpretation beyond the ‘Biblical Narrative’ (made under such a title), that my opponent then tries to interpret God’s intentions? Keep in mind that my opponent is trying to psycho-analyse God, an omniscient being that essentially can work beyond of mind’s grasp (as we are not omniscient ourselves). Anyway, God admits to being angry and jealous of other idols, and why shouldn’t He? He was the creator of all, and He should be worshipped as such. Falsely worshipping other idols, idols that God gives no power to, would be ridiculous, don’t you think? Would not that worship be wasted? Would not everyone be happier worshipping our Lord? “Pondering our fate”: The burden of knowledge My opponent seems to consistently argue that when Lucifer helped free our minds, that he was doing us a favour. Is this kind of freedom, from a benevolent God, really something to strive for? Ignorance is really bliss because in that state, our minds are not troubled with some truly terrible things, such as the shame of being unclothed, or knowing that death is unavoidable. What good comes from knowing these things? Would it really be so fantastic to know everything, especially considering the other option is a wonderful relationship with our Father, who loves us dearly and offers eternal salvation? Would you at least not feel better in believing such things our Lord offers us? 2/3. “But, a loving God would give us our autonomy and still grant us eternal life. Love is not about control.” Are you dictating to the creator of the universe, the author of what is, that his method of love is defunct, as it does not fit your definition? Must I point out the preposterous nature of such a notion?