Is evolutionary theory blasphemous? Is it wrong (morally/theologically) to believe in it? Is belief in evolution anti-Christian?
This thread is NOT about whether it is correct as a theory (though, that's obviously a related question). I just want to know if there is a case to be made, from scripture or holy tradition, that to even believe in evolution is unchristian or blasphemous. Opinions? I would also ask the same thing for Old Earth.
Other urls found in this thread:
thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com
thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com
worldwisdom.com
cis-ca.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
blogs.discovermagazine.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Yes, because it fundamentally denies that God is our creator. Evolutionists will try to get around this by saying God guided the natural processes that caused existence, however this is closer to the Mormon doctrine than to creation. Let's say that God did not inspire scripture, but guided the processes that resulted in its writing, could it still properly be called the word of God? Certainly not, it would not be the product of a divine mind.
I have a theory that God created us and we looked like monkeys, and over time we changed form to look as we do now. I did read there was a study on monkeys forming loosely-defined religions, so maybe they worship God, but since we cannot communicate with them outside of basic sign language, who knows?
> And of every living thing of all flesh you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.
Genesis 6:19-20 NKJV
All animals we have today evolved from the two of every kind that Noah brought onto the ark. This is supported both biblically and archaeologically
Yes, if God guided it towards his intended purpose, like a captain guiding a boat to it's destination.
creation is more complicated than what genesis illustrates, but even then evolution is still uncertain and probably different and more strange than we imagine.
I don't think Christians who believe in it are "blaspheming" necessarily. I just think they lack all the information and have a bad habit of fence sitting.
That said, while there's a lot of interesting things to discuss about evolution, I would rather skip biology entirely (it bores me..sorry) and go to the bigger, cosmological picture. There's an undeniable fact about Earth's unique place in the cosmos, and people are only left with two options now: God or Multiverse?
Every Christian should watch this documentary. Especially the fence sitters.
Anyone who tells you this is a moron.
Literal nonsense. Creationism is more fraud than they could claim science to be.
It's only blasphemous when wedded to the philosophy of materialism, because then it becomes an implicit denial of the existence of God. For this and some other legitimate reasons though, we should at least be skeptical of the claims of many of these religious Darwinists.
It's all wedded to materialism. Or rather, the cosmological principle (see the vid I posted above). if the universe rests merely on chance, then there isn't anything to put a stake in except the material.
Evolution is totemism, but with the monkey for whole of manking.
The Bonobo in particular is what they want you to emulate.
Wonderfully succinct.
it's also literally true. My anthro professor practically worshipped them.
Evolutionism presupposes materialism. You can't divorce the two.
Also theistic evolution is also materialist and totally incoherent. Titus Burckhardt demolishes Teilhardian evolution in his essay on the theory of evolution. Perennialist thinkers usually have better critiques of evolution than protestants.
Fun/Maddening Fact:
Bonobos were considered pigmy chimps prior to reclassification.
Bonobos are weaker and dumber than the common chimp and every time they meet the chimps massacre them.
Bonobos can only survive inside a little pocket of the Congo without predators.
All of modernity's problems are exemplified on the Bonobos.
To be fair, chimpanzees are hyperagressive wrecking machines.
But I think hit the perfect bullseye - the bonobo is the secular highpriests' goal for humanity.
No. Read this:
thoughtsintrusive.wordpress.com
"– “Revelational experience is formulated in created words and concepts. The God-seeing Prophets, Apostles and Fathers use the perceptions of the people of their era in order to put their experience into words. Their basic teaching is that God created the world and He directs it, but the formulation of the experience in words comes from the knowledge of the period. The teaching is a matter of theology, the wording is a matter of communication. The cosmology of the Old Testament, as regards expression and formulation, is influenced by the Babylonian cosmology of that age. We stress this to avoid any confusion between the theology of the God-seeing saints and the scientific language of each era.” (Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos)"
"The aim of these concepts is to lead us through asceticism to God: by means of purification and illumination to lead us to glorification. Apart from that, these concepts also aim to make clear to us the relationship between uncreated and created things,.."
"The Fathers know about the relationship between the ‘created’ and ‘uncreated’ from their experience of glorification. They not only know about the existence of created and uncreated things but about how they interrelate. This does not mean, however, that they know and learn about the essence of God or even about the essence of creatures.”
this is an interesting video on the subject, he has more on the channel.
I took evolution for granted before watching this video, now im torn on the issue.
Why did God go out of his way to make evolution seem real?
He didn't. It's a preposterous theory, and is unsupportable by the facts.
Darwinism was initially accepted because it fitted the postivist professors pervspectives before a true, thorough excavation of whether or not Darwin's findings were actuate.
Even now epigenetics explains 90% of genetic expression in "evolution" and there's really no mechanism for macroevolution (mutations can really only give either unreadable code or deletion), yet, what is the excuse """"""unbiased"""""" philosophers use "Well, even if our current model of adaptation is incorrect, it's certainly better than what other people proposed". Undoubtedly they're referring to creationists and creationists' works in the 70's to 80's. You won't find many atheists who engage with contemporary creationist articles.
So why give a damn? If they're right, then atheists will go extinct, as they cannot keep up with their replacement rates.
Okay, so why did God make all traits more or less heritable, which would lead to greater or reduced reproductive success? Why does God give make people with genes that make them more or less prone to religious belief? Why does god go out of his way to mutate bacteria that becomes resistant to antibiotics?
All of these things make it quite evident that for some reason, God wanted to make evolution seem real for anyone who was looking.
None of those things are evolution.
All of them are related to evolution.
God formed man from slime, and breathed life into him. I just did, with how the sacred Scriptures described it. Evolution offers a how, not a why.
how?
Pope Emeritus Benedict supports it. Evolution in itself offers no particular comment on causality, so it's on you to prove how it is incoherent.
You've been hoodwinked into believing that.
you need to offer better arguments if you want anyone to agree with you
Evolutionary theory needs to offer better arguments. Burden of proof is on them and they have failed to deliver.
Job 4:15
King James Version
Think about this verse. There exists in the human body, a biological function that raises the hair on the skin. Today, humans don’t have much hair on their bodies, but many other mammals do, and we all share this function. Again, it seems that God went out of his way to make evolution seem as though it’s real.
That doesn't make it seem like evolution is real lol, you're reading an unproven theory into ordinary facts.
So humans caused evolution.
What exactly is “unproven”?
Also, the fact that many beings share this function is not evidence that we all also share various ancestors?
they have plenty enough scientific evidence, you've provided nothing but "nuh uh, ain't real".
No, it's not. It only seems to "prove" that because you've got evolutionary glasses on and see everything through their lense. It does not follow, by any reasonable inference, that similar traits means we all evolved from common ancestors. That's not proof at all, and the more you consider how many complications are involved with such a hypothetical process the more you will realize how preposterous of a theory it is. It requires a very high degree of credulity to believe in evolution.
No, they don't. They have far fetched interpretations of data.
ok, list them
God gave man the ability to create the uncreated as part of the free will package? Seems pretty clear cut to me.
pgs 4-7 of this pdf:
worldwisdom.com
here's another good, but longer essay focusing on "morphos":
cis-ca.org
vid related is also good
Incidentally, the vid is an agnostic Jew, the first essay is a Christian, and the second a Muslim lol
How old is this video? This guy is making the same “muh irreducible complexity” arguments that died out before the nu-atheism popularity of the early 2000s. It’s also bizarre that he’s making the claim that there are no transitional fossils when there clearly are. There’s such a large change in biodiversity during the Cambrian era that doesn’t exist anymore, it seems like he’s arguing against himself.
Similarity in bones proves nothing. We aren't living in the 19th century, gramps. Biology is way more complex than that. You evolutionists have more unshakeable faith than the most die hard religious fundamentalist. I'm not wasting time proving a negative to you. As soon as evolution acquires an iota of intellectual credibility give me a heads up. It's pure mythology.
Did you watch the video? Berlinski’s argument is literally “muh lack of bones”.
I look forward to reading your paper disproving evolution and submitting it to Yale and Harvard so you become rich and famous.
No, it's not. Maybe you need to rewatch it.
Yeah it is. “Muh Cambrian explosion”, “muh gaps in the fossil record”, “I never heard of experimental before”, etc. All arguments that are a generation old.
Evolution as a constant change is real.
Evolution as a metaphysical force that makes "the better" survive is absolute nonsense.
Evolution as a discipline of history is a theory and whether you think it may have merit or not makes no difference on your salvation because unless it's your area of expertise, it doesn't affect your soul, morality nor character.
And people using just the worst arguments against evolution, like those arguments in this thread, are insane Americans.
Yes, evolutionary theory contradicts Christian revelation and theology because, as an example, it denies that death comes from the Fall. Death is natural according to evolutionary theory; there's no way for Christian evolutionists to worm their way out of this.
You can literally see hairs on your arm skin.
Unless you're a stupid little boy like you sound.
...
Cardinal Schonborn said that neo Darwinism is against the Catholic doctrine.
He's right on this one.
what's supposedly wrong with him?
He is what you can someone trying to be on the middle ground.
Not that it affects me but other catholics I've met aren't very found of him, because he always tries not to be too harsh. For example he said he has a gay friend. He sad although faggotry is a sin, his friend now only has one partner so it's a step towards virtue although it's still a sin.
But then he attacks Islam saying they are conquering Europe.
Basically this:
en.m.wikipedia.org
I liked his catechism though.
None of those posters are incorrect.
Sick argument, bro. Your posts have really changed my view. I no longer believe in evolution.
...
Then God created the soul in a fallen state?
We are created in the shadow of Adam, so yes.
This whole thread tires me. Trolls, trolls, trolls as far as the eye can see.
How do you figure, sports-fan?
Not if you believe in theistic evolution.
Is using money anti-Christian? Both have the potential to do much evil.
I'm not sure whether I'm offended or not.
No thanks, though I did start and frankly I find the inconceivably massive size of the universe and the apparent insignificance of man's planet in an insignificant galaxy "in an insignificant corner of the universe" more wondrous and exciting than any small version of creation because it tells me just how big my God is.
>"We're nothing special"
This is why I couldn't watch this bile for 90 minutes: the very fact that a bunch of non-special collections of pre-programmed carbon atoms can even HAVE a debate about our specialness or lack thereof TELLS ME there actually IS something special going on on Earth.
Two people look at a picture, one sees God in all His majesty, the other the endless void of insignificance: thus the modern age is summarised.
Is this a joke?
Your lack of imagination is what leads you to that conclusion.
Death is not "natural" according to Theistic Evolutionary theory: it has a very decisive cause. Your move, troll.
>"in an insignificant corner of the universe"
Following on from this notion, that's a wrong-headed conclusion to make based on the relative size and position of the earth in the universe (to state the obvious). It fundamentally uses size and relative position as the metrics by which "significance" is measured. Significance is a value judgment. We can talk about significance in statistical terms, but this tells us nothing when we say "significant corner of the universe". No, the word they are using isn't statistical, but a synonym of importance. Importance is a value judgment. A "subjective indicator of value". Ergo, significance is a value judgment, and their "value" metric is physical size and position to the "centre" of the universe (wherever that may be in an expanse we cannot see the edges of). They basically made their judgment in advance. The size of the universe has little to do with it.
(Neo)darwinian 'evolution' implies an ontology of death and nihilism, there's no fixed essences to any living thing, even humans, and everything is in a state of flux, constantly evolving from one thing to another, even terms like "species" are nominalist. There is no clear dividing line between men and beast, there's just this unbroken continuum of more and more 'apelike' ancestors becoming more and more 'humanoid', but the distinction between ape-ness and humanity only exists in our minds. These are just nominal polythetic categories we label certain groups of organisms with that share certain traits. Every organism is just a biochemical machines reducible to its parts, just blobs of molecules blindly operating and functioning that just so happen to bring about birth and motion, as well as thought and consciousness some how in a way no one can explain.
'Evolution' is just biological nominalism. And like all nominalism it leads inexorably to nihilism. The effects of this can be seen clearly, and have been quite well documented. See for example (Darwinist, atheist) philosopher Michael Ruse's book "Darwinism as Religion", where he catalogs the nihilism expressed in the literature from the time. The dawn of Darwinism lead to the spread of materialism and atheism among the elite (concurrent with a weird rise of occultism/spiritualism at the same time). Like most 'science', Darwinism was a ploy by 'scientists' to increase their own status and social standing, largely by undermining their competition, which at the time was Christian clergymen. The narratives Darwin spun were useful in stopping people from turning to priests and pastors for answers about the meaning of life, and to rather turn to 'scientists' for said answers instead. It was also useful to elite liberals who wanted to undermine Christianity. So it was promoted. That is incidentally why everyone is taught to believe in it. And there are scientists working full time to create rationalizations to try and justify it, there are institutions that exist to promote it, and to ensure that it is the only acceptable point of view with regards to the origin of the various lifeforms we see around us. It is the dominant paradigm that is useful in making people behave the way the elite want them to behave. This is why people believe in it. That there's no justification for believing in it, it doesn't make any sense and the people promoting it rely on equivocation, bad analogies, misrepresentations, and outright lies, all goes with the nominalism, the nihilism. It's not supposed to make sense. People are raised from a young age to be taught to think in ways to avoid seeing it doesn't make sense. That's the point of it all.
The faulty logic of Darwinism is the same faulty logic all 'science', all leftism is predicated upon. It's the same kind of logic used to promote transgenderism. Because Darwinism denies teleology in favor of teleonomy, and maybe trannies are just novel 'evoltions'. It's not like there's any real teleology to the human sexes, it's just teleonomy, bro. Those aren't birth defects, they're just "novel phenotypical features" that have evolved. A Darwinian can't even be sure his own baby is human; it might have 'speciated', evolved into something else. Well 'species', like all biological taxa, are nominal and arbitrary. It's a human if you want it to be. If not, well I guess abortion is already legal in the whole US, so why not infanticide? Attempts by Christians to square these ideas with the Faith always fail, falling into some kind of weird Cartesian dualism, that portrays the relationship between body and soul in a way that is at odds with the teachings of the Catholic Church. And does nothing to convince anyone of their compatibility outside of a few educated Catholics who have been brainwashed not to see the contradictions all their life. So yeah, belief in Darwinist ontology and history is directly contrary to all truth, sanity, and the Christian faith.
Wow, great post, user.
I'd like to agree with this user's criticism of materialism, Darwinism and evolution in a theological sense.
I'd also like to note that nothing in here disproves the idea of change thru time that evolution is usually used to describe.
Creation is not a point in time, but a continuous process. God is still creating creation.
Shoving everything that was, is and will be into unchanging categories is at the very least delusional and at worst subjugating ideas to (flawed) materialism. Just note that I'm not arguing for nominalism, which the previous poster would surely respond with.
In any case I'm not going to respond to any critiques because I'm not interested in debating. The previous post just sounded cool enough that I feared anons will be seduced by it so I felt I had to point some things out.
I think you'll enjoy this. It's not an insignificant planet/galaxy.
I posted this earlier in a media thread, but everyone here would probably like it tbh.
And I was was going to post 'and I can't believe they bought it' ('it' being the presentation of science and faith as mutually exclusive). But I bought it because it was ingrained in me like the rest of us and presented as a default, and was ignorant of any other option until I decided to start looking online about all these big types of questions and finding out about different worldviews. But presenting them as mutually exclusive is a fundamental category error (in the sense that science can provide an insight into the what how and when in a mechanical material sense, but will never be able to answer 'why' which is what faith and only faith can provide, science will never be able to as its fundamentally outside its remit) that, really, if we werent all so poorly educated and desperate to reject God, should only be made by complete fools and who should have been called out for such an error. The real question is, then, why on earth did the church and educated faithful not initiate all intellectual and educational war on those foolishly perpetuating this fundamental error. I can't fathom it. Maybe they did and just weren't loud enough. I don't know how this could have slipped through the net so unnoticed.
I don't deny that there's some seriously powerful and insideous aspects to high society and the elite, but I'm less inclined to view it as them maliciously plotting knowingly going against God and incurring societies destruction for their own short term material gain and rather them thinking in their hubris they're on the right track and working for the good of society. Most people think they're good people, and if the elite is working iniquity I think it's more realistic that it's coming from a place of pride rather than some comic book style villainy. Having said that, whenever people talk about this comic book style elite villainy, I always replace the word 'elite' or whatever word is used, with Satan, because he's the real enemy pulling the stings of these aspects of the world and is indeed acting out of malicious intent and seeks only death, destruction choas and hate for the world, whether the 'elite' who are being controlled by him know it it or not, they're playing right into his hands.
Aware of teleology, not this though, will have to google
I watched this a couple of weeks back when first posted, was cool and interesting
Phoneposting so sorry for typor
To clarify, what I write here I meant to get across that in the majority of cases it's like I've described. I'm not denying that there are absolutely purely malicious, purposely evil, explicitly God hating and either explicitly or implicitly Satan-worshipping and or/satanic/demonic infected people who comprise the elite. I think it's very much a real thing, just not the majority or anything.
Unironically this, even when I had no qualms with the evolutionary theory, I noticed this.
Maybe in his case it's true. Professors can't get a real job.
I recently discovered an essay titled "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Biology" by Theodosius Dobzhansky, a russian orthodox christian and biologist, which may help answer your questions.
Evolution is not necessarily the antithesis to God being our creator.
Yeah, this. We have to remember that what Satan used against man was an appeal to pride. Sage because I don't have much to say on the topic. (I don't believe in evolution, the entire idea is fatuous and requires an atheistic view of the world–end of.)
"Science" doesn't exist. What gets called "science" is largely a bundle of technology, philosophy, and history. And while the technology is often very good, the philosophy and history are very bad. Engineering and medicine are forms of technology. Cosmology is mostly natural philosophy; natural history is just history. You've been told there's this one thing out there, "science", that causes all these things. There isn;t. There's no science, there isn't even a scientific method (blogs.discovermagazine.com
"Science" is just a word. And words are either assigned an objective meaning, or they're not. Science never was. Hence the existence of the Demarcation Problem (en.wikipedia.org
The current sense of the word "science" was coined in the 19th century as a rebranding of "natural philosophy". The word science existed before, but had different senses. It was repurposed so that certain natural philosophers could pretend their doctrines weren't just philosophy, but something more. Natural philosophers did this to up their status. The "natural philosopher" became the "scientist", a big boost. But scientists are still doing philosophy, even though most of them don't realize it. They make claims about knowledge, but knowledge is the domain of epistemology, a branch of philosophy. They make claims about reality, but reality is the domain of ontology, also a branch of philosophy. But the philosophy natural philosophers at the time were trying to sell was bad philosophy. It was a reductionist, nominalist, naturalistic descendent of the Mechanical Philosophy invented by Robert Boyle in the 17th century. Said philosophy never made any sense, it lead to the rise of the Mind-Body Problem among others. It's an incoherent ontology of nihilism and death. But claiming it was true made one look "woke". The Mechanical Philosopher could see the emperor's new clothes, so you better show them some respect.
Boyle was crafty and claimed that experimentation could settle questions of philosophy. Now actual philosophers of science have discovered a wide variety of concepts, like Underdetermination, The Theory-Ladenness, the Quine-Duhem Thesis, etc, that demolish Boyle's claim. No experiment can prove anything about ontology. There is no "following the evidence", but "evidence" is the product of observation interpreted through the lens of a worldview. And worldviews are the domain of philosophy. But most scientists are bad philosophers. They sell ontological and historical "theories" (narratives, stories) rooted in philosophical assumptions, but can never justify them. Because some of their assumptions can't be known to be true or not; others are outright lies. Premises inherited from Mechanical Philosophy, blindly adhered to as artifacts of tradition. No, the human body is not a machine. Yes, non-life is different from life. Reductionism is false. We can know these things via our innate capacity for knowledge, that also tells us that we exist as persons, that the other humans around us have consciousnesses of their own, that there is even a world outside of our own minds at all. Denying this leads inexorably to widespread delusions and immorality. Which it has. So "science" is not merely incompatible with Christianity, but with truth in general. "Science" is the emperor's new clothes. That something has been labelled "science" is irrelevant to whether it is true or not. And the truth is what we should care about, not "science", which isn't real anyway.
Why must my people disappoint me so? Here's a finding that might be of some interest.
bump out of general interest/curiosity
Geocentrism.
Absolutely blasphemous
Adding on to this, scientists often tout Popper as one of the only philosophers to understand science, yet they don't seem to realize Popper was saying scientific testing is not only incapable of proving anything, but is incapable of making any theory even the slightest bit more likely to be true.
Evolution is nonsense and makes Genesis one of the stupidest books in the bible and extremely misleading. People claim that if a kid gets cancer or a birth defect or something it's because of sin. But how did evolution happen then? There had to be dead and mutations and defects and all sorts of things for millions of years before the fall.
Also it means that Adam had animals for parents. Are they actually his parents? Did he have to honor and listen to what his animal parents told him to do? God says he gave dominion over all animals to Adam. So Adam had dominion over his parents? Were they like pets for him or something? Also those animals are in the line of Jesus as well. Jesus great-great…grandfather was an animal.
I mean there are millions of things that make absolutely no sense if you actually believe in evolution. It also means for thousands of years scripture has mislead Christians, and the moment you read this book, it starts of with some of the most convoluted and misleading stuff. God could have clearly explained creation in a simpler way that allowed for evolution or something as well. The way it is written you have to do next level mental gymnastics for evolution to even attempt to try and fit and even then it still makes absolutely no sense.
The documentary presents evidence for Earth being the center of the entire universe, and shows how mainstream science has desperately tried to construct a model of the universe that makes Earth seem like an insignificant planet, using that "fact" as proof that humans are nothing special.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the Earth is in motion.
Every other operation of the natural universe follows in accordence to natural laws which we can observe, with the exception of miraculous, non-replicable anomalies. Why is it in this one instance, that we cannot accept that our creation was a development in congruence with these natural laws and processes, which god defined and set into motion?
Because we are explicitly told that it wasn't the case, and it is philosophically irreconcilable with the assertion from Christ Himself that through Adam, death entered the world, and that from the very beginning God made mankind, not 6 gorillion years after the beginning and after eons upon eons of death.
That's like saying God sinned because the fall happened under His watch
How did we get our modern technology, like the computers we are posting on if science doesn't work?
I am only concerned with evolution as it concerns mankind. So, I raise you this. Man is made in the likeness of God. God is whole and perfect, and so is everything about him. How would God attain his own image through imperfection. It doesn't make sense.
Personally, I've never seen it as a useful debate. Reminds me of arguing genealogies and other details that add nothing impactful to the source text or the present. However, interpreting Genesis literally and allegorically (doesn't automatically mean evolutionarily) have both been positions represented in the Early Church to the present. I'm not convinced there was much of an ancient Hebrew impulse to interpret Genesis literally, either.
The cultural consquences of Darwinian theory have been absolutely horrendous, though. Anglicans would lose their intellectuals to Darwinism, who would then revive the occult to fill the spiritual void, who would produce figures such as Crowley and the various secret societies, who would then help produce the
esoteric Synagogue of Satan as we know it today. To the more average person, the death of God was followed shortly by the death of Man. We aren't created in the image of our Creator, we are impulsive apes bound to the laws of positivism. There might be a better, more honest lens with which we can view evolutionary theory and Genesis, but this is the one we have now, and as I see it it must be combated on all fronts.
It's not necessarily that science does not work, which is not what I was saying. Scientific testing is designed to demonstrate if a hypothesis is false. Essentially "if x occurs then it means my theory cannot be correct". Scientific testing does not prove a hypothesis correct, only that so far it hasn't been conclusively disproven.
Trade winds have a well-observed westward direction in both hemispheres. It is widely accepted that this westward movement is a consequence of the Coriolis effect, which requires a rotating Earth. What else would be the cause, then?
(checked)
Pic related
So any ideas about dinosaurs?
Yes and you are going to hell for believing in it, but that's okay because as a Satan worshiper I believe that hell is the good place and hell is the bad place. Satan is a qt girl with a dick and I'm going to join her schoolboy shota harem in the afterlife because I'm ATHEIST, and you know what that means? THAT MEANS THAT I HATE GOD AND I MASTURBATE TO CHILD PORNOGRAPHY WITH GOOD FRIENDS RICHARD DAWKINS AND SATAN, LET US ALL PRAISE THE FALSE GOD OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY AND MASTURBATE TO TRANNY PORNK SO THAT WE CAN JOIN SATAN'S HAREM IN HELL. HAIL SATAN, HAIIIILLL SATAN
(You)
sorry I meant to say heaven is the bad place, that's why that jew-god yahweh and his dead kike on a stick son gaysus is there. Satan was one of the greatest heroes in all of fiction and as a hermaphodite she was really hot. Trust me, I had a deeply religious experience last year when I almost died in a car crash and had an NDE, I was in a coma for 4 months during which my heart stopped several times. Without Satan's soft hand gently stroking my shota cock in hell I would not have found the strength to return to this life.
...