The funny part about saying that "The Devil"™ runs things down here is funny. The reason it's funny is that even when I was a fairly religious person I could never quite figure out why "The Devil"™ was so evil.
He disobeyed "God"™, but that was about it. Apparently, now, he runs a place called Hel or Helle(or if you prefer the misspelled version: hille, hillja, hell, etc...). He's also able to tempt us (or if you wish, we let him tempt us, giving him even less power) to do things; who knows what though. He's also supposed to be a fallen angel that many think to be red and ugly with horns. It should also be noted that Hell (Hel) has lakes of fire (which sounds cool; almost like Hawaii), but seems to lack all the horrific stuff you hear of elsewhere.
I'm just wondering, why Lucifer (The Bringer of Light) is so "Evil"™? Also, last time I checked "Free Will"™ was sitting around; so if "The Devil"™ runs Earth, why do we need that? His role greatly differs throughout the Christian realm of knowledge as well as those that are linked (like Judaism, Islam, etc...). The idea of a bad guy against the ultimate good guy sent here or another place are in many religions world wide. Some of those religions pre-date Christianity by more than a thousand years and Judaism by hundreds (if not more). Sometimes these "figureheads" have been concentrated into one form as they were once in the form of many figureheads, besides "God" and "the Devil".
There is a litany of things attributed to: Satan, ha-sataan(Judaism has no "real" direct version), Baal Davar, the Devil, Lucifer, Lord of Flies, Dragon (or serpent; is "believed" to be the serpent in the Garden of Eden), Beelzubub (if you like the demon storyline; not a Mormon thing), Iblis, Shaitan, Jinn, Ying-Yang (pick one), Vishnu (atleast one aspect), Set, Apep,Sammael, Belial, ad nauseum...
Anyway, he disagreed with God "about something"; the "about something" depends on the flavor you belong to.
To cut it short: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism... They all suffer from the same problem: cognitive dissonance. Not a one holds up to a double-blind scientific experiment, let alone a simple thought experiment. If we have a "God" they most certainly are not prescient or omnipotent. The fact that I can post this kills one half of the logic, the other logic "free will" seems to be negated by every law and fact of science ever put together. You have choice, but it most certainly is not absolute.



If you were formally religious I am surprised you don't understand why the Devil is evil. I'll elaborate on this..

In the beginning, when man still dwelled in the Garden of Eden, he existed in a perfect state of grace with God. There was no such thing as sin, or death. Adam and Eve, the first humans, walked and talked with God face to face. God, to test their hearts, only gave them one command..not to eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He promised them that if they did so they would surely die.

Now the devil enters the picture. God had made him the most beautiful of all the angels, and gave him great power and dominion. The devil was soon corrupted by his own vanity however, because he started to think "I will be like the Most High" and desired to have his throne beside Gods. His sin was/is pride. Because of this, he was cast down to Earth.

Now God gave Earth to Adam. He was its ruler. Satan knew this, and knew that if he could corrupt him, he would gain power over the whole world because he would gain power over Adam. So the devil came to them and said that God was lying about the apple. That, not only would they not die, but they would become like God by eating it. After eating, Adam and Eve lost their innocence and the state of grace they enjoyed with God by sinning, and brought death into the world. From that moment on they were mortal beings with mortal needs.

Satan has been the ruler of this world since then. His power, however, was broken at Calvary when Christ died on the cross. Christ, the new Adam, lived a sinless life. Being born of a virgin, he did not inherit the sin of Adam. By living a sinless life, he redeemed mankind and gave all people on Earth a way to know God, His Father, through Him. When He died He went down to hell, battered down the gates, and took the power of death from the devil. When He was resurrected, He liberated mankind from the power of death, and was the first fruits of the world to come.

Now, Satan is still the ruler but on the run. He knows his time is short and growing ever shorter. His last shot is when the antichrist comes to power. Now, free will is fairly simple. You have the choice to obey or disobey Gods commands. God doesn't make you love Him. All those who delight in wickedness, however, will be punished on judgment day. Hell was not created for humans, but anyone who throws their lot in with the devil will earn the devils reward. His sin was pride, and so too are the ones who reject God similarly prideful, for they believe his lies and reject the truth.

That about sums it up. I would ascribe some cognitive dissonance to your post also, for your conclusions have seemingly been pulled from a hat. How does posting what you did negate anything about Gods omniscience, and how do the arbitrary rules of science say anything about free will? You may want to read about determinism vs free will for some background before you answer.

Sarah, like George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan before her, is a perfect corporate vessel. She has that right combination of vanity, self importance, folksy charisma and complete ignorance. If elected, we will focus all our outrage on her as she mindlessly carries out the will of big business. She will gladly take credit for all of the things she has been instructed to do, and at the end of her term, will be completely destroyed by the public and the media. Luckily for her anonymous patrons, there is a limitless supply of megalomaniacs in the USA. Rinse, Repeat...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

So she doesn't use her hands because of... a depraved excess of vanity?

Watching this self-fascinated ape makes me feel deeply uneasy. I wish I had pretty hands.

Excellent sift! Thanks.

I recommend reading http://exiledonline.com/the-rally-to-restore-vanity-generation-x-celebrates-its-homeric-struggle-against-lameness/ . Even though I agree with far from everything in that article/blog opinion, it has some valid points.

Agreed, "Bonfire of the Vanities" is one of my favorite books. It's like a blueprint for the way that the media, justice system, community organizers and everyone else react to any event.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

For comic writing, Tom Wolfe ain't too shabby himself. Bonfire of the Vanities and A Man in Full were fantastic.

You'd have to be pretty close to certain that the smoking has lead to this cancer, surely?

From his Vanity Fair article:

"In one way, I suppose, I have been “in denial” for some time, knowingly burning the candle at both ends and finding that it often gives a lovely light. But for precisely that reason, I can’t see myself smiting my brow with shock or hear myself whining about how it’s all so unfair: I have been taunting the Reaper into taking a free scythe in my direction and have now succumbed to something so predictable and banal that it bores even me."

He doesn't expect any sympathy. In his CNN interview he does suggest to those watching that having "a few less cocktails" would be good advice...

>> ^maximillian:

I disagree. Saved Christians are compelled to help as a result of their salvation. Before my salvation I helped people because I wanted to hear people's praises of how good I am. Now I do it because of the love of the Lord. There is a difference because the later is a selfish sacrifice whereas the former is vanity. This selfish attitude is the fruit of a true Christian. Not saying non-Christians don't behave this way. However when faced with adversity and other hardships people's motivations are tested. If I only had earthly motivations then I would falter.


Ummm... selfISH is bad, selfLESS is good. Big difference.


Just sayin'

>> ^maximillian:

I disagree. Saved Christians are compelled to help as a result of their salvation. Before my salvation I helped people because I wanted to hear people's praises of how good I am. Now I do it because of the love of the Lord. There is a difference because the later is a selfish sacrifice whereas the former is vanity. This selfish attitude is the fruit of a true Christian. Not saying non-Christians don't behave this way. However when faced with adversity and other hardships people's motivations are tested. If I only had earthly motivations then I would falter.


So before you did it because you wanted to hear people praise you for your good works, and now you do it because you want an invisible man to think your a good person for your good works. So nothings changed, just the source of your affirmation. Doing good works shouldn't require ANY source of affirmation other than your own. You do them because you want to do them, not for love from people, god, or anyone else. Don't lessen yourself or your works by giving them a reason for being done. Do it because its the right thing to do, end of story.

>> ^maximillian:

I disagree. Saved Christians are compelled to help as a result of their salvation. Before my salvation I helped people because I wanted to hear people's praises of how good I am. Now I do it because of the love of the Lord. There is a difference because the later is a selfish sacrifice whereas the former is vanity. This selfish attitude is the fruit of a true Christian. Not saying non-Christians don't behave this way. However when faced with adversity and other hardships people's motivations are tested. If I only had earthly motivations then I would falter.


Your personal justifications are no deal maker; people will help others out of empathy, vanity, expectance of reciprocity, etc., with or without religion. All religion does is have an authority figure tell you you must be a certain way otherwise you will be tortured forever and not go to an imaginary wonderful place.

The same results of "salvation" as you call it can be found by reading philosophy and/or working on one's ethics and self esteem; no need to have "faith" or believe in the supernatural for any of that.

>> ^maximillian:

I disagree. Saved Christians are compelled to help as a result of their salvation. Before my salvation I helped people because I wanted to hear people's praises of how good I am. Now I do it because of the love of the Lord. There is a difference because the later is a selfish sacrifice whereas the former is vanity. This selfish attitude is the fruit of a true Christian. Not saying non-Christians don't behave this way. However when faced with adversity and other hardships people's motivations are tested. If I only had earthly motivations then I would falter.


People find strength through religion, and I think that's fantastic due to the fact that it motivates people to go beyond what they think they can accomplish. I have no problem with religion! Just, please, don't ever, EVER, impose your views onto someone else.

My biggest problem with religion is its imposition on others. People have the right to choose what they believe in for themselves.

I disagree. Saved Christians are compelled to help as a result of their salvation. Before my salvation I helped people because I wanted to hear people's praises of how good I am. Now I do it because of the love of the Lord. There is a difference because the later is a selfish sacrifice whereas the former is vanity. This selfish attitude is the fruit of a true Christian. Not saying non-Christians don't behave this way. However when faced with adversity and other hardships people's motivations are tested. If I only had earthly motivations then I would falter.

His recent article in Vanity Fair is a beautifully written, pit-wrenching piece about coming to terms with cancer.

Well worth the read.

>> ^poolcleaner:

>> ^kronosposeidon:
I actually hope it ends now too. Not because I haven't enjoyed these ads. They've been the best series of commercials I can remember in ages. But when they keep drawing water from the same well they commit the greatest sin in advertising: Making it boring. Overexposure will do that every time.
So good bye, you ridiculously handsome man. If I were gay you'd top the list of my celebrity fantasies, but because I'm hetero my heart belongs to Amanda Seyfried. (Her eyes make me melt. Her beautiful smile and hot bod also stimulate my loins. Rowr!)

As an amendment and slight deviation: What I feel is the biggest failure of these videos is the over use of the random-noun-dropping-from-the-top-of-the-frame-into-his-arms thing. I liked it A LOT in moderation, but a giant fish dropping from the sky didn't make me laugh the fiftieth time they did it.


Fair enough.

However I'm sure there is one thing we can all agree on: Amanda Seyfried is HOT.
I will brook no dissent.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

I actually hope it ends now too. Not because I haven't enjoyed these ads. They've been the best series of commercials I can remember in ages. But when they keep drawing water from the same well they commit the greatest sin in advertising: Making it boring. Overexposure will do that every time.
So good bye, you ridiculously handsome man. If I were gay you'd top the list of my celebrity fantasies, but because I'm hetero my heart belongs to Amanda Seyfried. (Her eyes make me melt. Her beautiful smile and hot bod also stimulate my loins. Rowr!)


As an amendment and slight deviation: What I feel is the biggest failure of these videos is the over use of the random-noun-dropping-from-the-top-of-the-frame-into-his-arms thing. I liked it A LOT in moderation, but a giant fish dropping from the sky didn't make me laugh the fiftieth time they did it.