The Devil's Theology

There is a phrase in the Declaration of Independence which reads "Our creator has endowed us with certain inalienable rights, these being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This sentence also reveals an essential order of increasing dependence, with each successive noun resting it's full philosophical weight on the one before. Those who do not believe in God are content to enjoy the full benefits of the last of these rights listed, choosing not to realize that if you remove the creator from this verbal equation, all of the rest of the rights listed are unsupportable. Without God there can be no rights. Without the objectivity of the One above us, there can be no demarcated boundaries between us. What are rights but the entitlement to ethical treatment by others? Without God there can be no morals. Even the constitution's secular authors recognized what the foundations of morals rested upon.

It seems pretty obvious that there are widely varying ideas between individuals on what constitutes right and wrong. Even morals imposed collectively by societal groups called governments have sometimes proven to be in gross error, witnessed by the execution of vast segments of their population. That we can even decide that these actions are wrong is because we live in a theistically based society. It is better, for individuals and society at large, if morals originate from a source which is fastidious and particularly specific in it's application of standards for thoughts and behavior. Put another way, we want someone to be the judge who is absolute in their justice and all encompassing in their mercy, yet who gives us the freedom to choose. Without choice, it would be rape. Only an all powerful God can give us all the above in one package.

Let's examine atheism for morals by philosophical dissection of it's allegedly "scientific" prop of evolution. Behavioral fruit doesn't fall far from the philosophical parent tree. We can actually tell what people really believe by the way that they act, not so much by what they say. Saying you have morals doesn't make it so.

The theory of evolution is founded upon the mechanism of natural selection. Other ways of phrasing it are survival of the fittest, and that all life is in a competition to pass on genes. Aside from the fact that success in propagation does not account for emotion or intellect (and therefore meaning, which is what you get when you put together mind and emotion), there is still another problem here. Objective morals cannot be derived from an environment of "kill or be killed." Evolution is selfishness in action. It is working toward a goal, where morals would just be in the way of survival , the concept of "might makes right." The response of "I don't want to get hurt, so I don't hurt others" just opens up this thinker for the receipt of the Darwin award (extinction/death). Kindness is not an evolvable trait. Group cooperation to ensure survival is what war is.

Now, let's look at the results of social experiments in atheism and what comes from applying the precepts of Darwinism. Some benefits might be a motivation to excel, but each individual cannot exceed the limits of the material that they have to work with. Regimes that were officially atheist, as in founded on the principle, have killed a staggering number of their own citizens. It could be said that they were applying the logical actions necessary to achieve clearly expressed goals. Those actions might be expedient, but they are not ethical.

Those who have experienced deprecations at the behest of this brutal philosophy are best qualified to judge it's usefulness to society, and how "moral" is the application of it's dogmas. There are many autobiographies that illustrate how thoroughly life does not function well under this authoritarian system. The authors' suffering and disatisfaction are very compelling.

A personal examination of what is right in front of us, honestly evaluated, could be done of the communications, of any claiming to be atheists, in a place where they are debating those with other points of view. Proof of morality can be seen by the way others are treated who might disagree with them. Loyalty to a particular way of thinking does not have to muddy the waters of truth when coalescing information into a viable conclusion. The groups represented could be considered as control groups in a scientific experiment. How do persons of a each philosophical persuasion treat those who are weaker than them?

The devil was the first anti-theist. His temptation was, in essence, "What do you need God for if you know good from evil?" Evolutionary philosophy also eliminates any need for God. Those who put their faith in evolution must do a lot of futile mental gymnastics to build a logical framework for morals. The only reason anyone can be held to a standard of morals is because we live in a theistic society. (Character is what you do when no one is watching.) If you remove or marginalize the faith portion of society, the rest of the population's true value system will reassert itself. Machiavelli said "The first sign of the degrading of society is contempt for the sacred."

Morals, in order to be valid or credible, must be absolutes. Contrary to the devil's theology, Jesus requires all christians to be ready and willing to give up their lives for Him, the Absolute. Jesus said, "He that seeks to save his life shall lose it, but he that gives up his life for my sake shall find it." He also said "He that does not take up his cross (execution method) and follow me, is not worthy of me." Willingness to surrender your life to follow God's standard of right and wrong is the true test of morals. This is the exact opposite of the whole point of evolution.

Therefore, right here is the evidence for God: The atheist. Even a child can see and understand the moral contrast between what is of God (self sacrifice) and what is not of God(it's all about me). Only in the godly moral of self sacrifice is there enough power to change the world. A Love that would glady die for you should make you cry every time.