Where's Satan?

Oh, Olivia.

Sweet, sweet, Olivia.

My sweet child.  It was you who asked "where's Satan?"  I was originally going to post this not knowing who had said it, but, thank you for posting, because now I know.  Thank you for posting because I also now know your thoughts.

So, I have comparison for you:  "And God saw that it was good." vs. "And God saw that it was perfect."

You say that the lack of the Serpent suggests that God had created something imperfect that turned on him without provocation.  Yet, you forget that Lucifer didn't have a Serpent provoking him.  Did God not create each of his angels, including those who "hit the bottom of the ground"?  Are you saying that God couldn't create evil, therefore Satan?  But, that's a bit of a slippery slope and not completely my point.

The problem I have with your argument, and a common belief I've found among Christians I've known: Satan is the cause of our sins.  As I mentioned before, I started a bit of a slippery slope (to prove a point), however, we, as Christians use this fallacy so often we've kind of accepted it as a truth.

1.  Satan is evil.
2.  You said God can't create something evil
3.  Therefore, you're saying God didn't create Satan.

Above is my argument, obviously a very slippery slippery slope (with some strawman thrown in). Now, I'll list yours:

We sin because of the Devil.

This may not be 100% what you're saying, but your reasoning is actually very similar to most Christians who accept this "doctrine".

1.  Satan is evil.
2.  The Serpent tempted Eve
3.  Humanity fell because of Satan.

Okay, popular belief right here.  Admit it, you know someone like this, or, who knows, maybe you are someone who thinks like this.  Easy to see how we get here.  However, I suggest you take a closer look.  What do these three assumptions have to relate them?  Eh, not much.  This is what makes it a slippery slope.  Unfortunately, I don't think I can correctly illustrate how the serpent isn't necessary for the sin in human nature.  Luckily, Back already has in the very short you are referencing.  The whole point (by whole point, I mean my point, because, honestly, I don't think we can confidently pinpoint a "whole point" of it) of the short was to show that sin is only present in mankind, along with the destruction we can cause. Excusing the symbolism of killing God (which a much more philosophically confident member of the blog is welcome to tackle), the very nature of their sin proved enough already. And, as an added bonus, it was the same.  Let's compare:

Biblical original sin: demanding more and disobeying God.  (It was not listening to the Serpent or even eating the fruit.  It was disobeying God's orders when he told them not to eat it)

Back's original sin:  demanding more and disobeying God. 

So, really, I don't see what concept he was really missing.  If anything, I think it's more powerful.  Let's compare (once again).

Problem:  Sin stems from Satan.

Solution:  Fight against Satan and keep a good watch over him.


Problem:  Sin is inherit in human nature.

Solution: Fight against our own desires and keep a good watch over our actions.

Honestly, there isn't much of problem with believing the top one,yet.  Because, ultimately, both solutions are avoiding sin.  However, what happens when you do sin?  If it was Satan's fault, then how do you fix it?  I'm not asking how you are forgiven or redeem yourself.  How do you fix your mistakes, learn from them, and grow from them if they weren't yours in the first place?

That's the next point Back makes.  Sure, it's in human nature to sin, but it's also in human nature to learn and grow and improve after we sin.  It's in human nature to sin and learn from it.  After all the destruction we cause, we can still learn.  It's what separates us from Satan.  It's what makes us human.

Now, I might be misrepresenting your thoughts and I appologize for grouping you for my little explanation.  But, I do recognize your original thoughts.  You said that it was the Serpent who tempted Eve, and that, without him, she probably never would have sinned.  But, I have a question for you:  if God had been the one to explain that she could gain god-like knowledge by eating the fruit, would Eve have taken it?  By this I mean that I don't believe that it was because the Serpent tempted her with who he was, but instead by what he said.  I mean, it wasn't because he was the most evil being on Earth that she sinned, but because he said that she would gain knowledge.  God had never offered this "truth" before him.  He had only said that they would die if they ate from the tree.  But, then the Serpent explained, "well, no, you won't die, instead you'll be as smart as God.  Oh, man, bummer."  So, I believe that even without the Serpent, Eve would have taken the fruit if she knew what she could gain from it.  (Hence, Back's illustration on humans only wanting more.)

And, on the flip side, since we are able to sin nearly equal to that of Satan, then we are able to also create nearly equal to that of God.  Thus, The Man Who Planted Trees.

On a final note, I believe that the choice, our own choice, between great evil and great good is what makes us humans so beautiful.  What makes us so beautiful, yet so terrifying is our ability to effect everything around us.