Are we living in Heaven or are we living in Hell? 

30 Oct 2025 7 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Are we living in Heaven or are we living in Hell?  There was an old Twilight Zone episode where a big-time gangster died and found himself in a room with a nerdy middle-aged man and his frumpy wife.  They were showing endless repeats of their boring vacation 8 mm film clips.  At first the gangster was polite but after a while he could not take it any longer.  He went to the door and tried to get out of the room.  A monstrous demon appeared and told him that he could never leave.  He was in hell.  The gangster said that he could understand why he would be in hell but what has this nerdy couple done to deserve it.  The demon gave an uproarious laugh and screamed at the gangster,  “They are not in hell, this is their heaven.”

Two more famous men, C.S. Lewis and William Blake wrote books with diametrically opposed views of heaven and hell.  C. S. Lewis’s book was “The Great Divorce.”  He wrote this as a rebuttal  to a book by William Blake called “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.”  Here is a brief dialogue between the two men at a fictitious meeting discussing what they might have said to each other.

Blake (smiling): So—you are the Oxford don who annulled my marriage of Heaven and Hell.

Lewis (bowing): And you the engraver who dared to join fire and light in one bed.  I fear your union lacked divine sanction.

Blake: Ha!  Eternity laughs at sanction.  Heaven and Hell are not realms, but the two wings of imagination—reason and desire.  To clip one is to fall.

Lewis: Yet ungoverned desire burns the wings that bear it.  I wrote of ghosts who mistook appetite for freedom.

Blake: Then your eyes were half shut.  ‘Energy is Eternal Delight.’ You worship order; I, the creative storm.

Lewis: And I have seen storms that destroy the very life they claim to free.

My father was seldom patriarchal but often insightful.  He told me at an early age that heaven and hell were right here now on this earth.  Our choices made our lives.  We could choose to live in heaven, or we could choose to live in hell.  I often reflected on the meaning of his words.  Sartre said, “Hell is other people.”  He was noting that the judgment and objectification by others can cause torment, leading to a loss of one’s freedom and sense of self.  To lose both is to live in hell.

Another quote that I have sometimes accepted was said by Satan in John Milton’s epic poem, “Paradise Lost”. “Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.”  This famous line is a declaration of rebellion by Satan, who prefers to rule over his fallen kingdom rather than be subservient to God in heaven.  Anarchists have a comparable thought which goes “”Ni Dieu, Ni Maitre.”  Translated this means “No Gods, No Kings.”  As an atheist, I find myself trying to live with these thoughts in a world suffused with religious fervor for a God who supposedly waits on humanity to plea for his help and guidance.  Unfortunately, it often seems that God is either deaf, dumb or blind.

For years, I saw organized religions as the Bain of humanity.  I believed that more wars had been fought over religious differences than perhaps any other reason ever known.  I wanted nothing to do with a God who belonged to any religion.  My “conversion” to Atheism was attached to a belief that humans could self-regulate their behavior.  People would naturally do what was right without the threat of hell or the promise of heaven.  Seventy-nine years on this earth has taught me the error of this thought.  It would now seem that the further we get from heaven and hell, the more chaotic our world has become.

In many religions of the world, “bad” people go to hell.  Good people go to heaven.  But thoughts and beliefs about hell have varied widely over the centuries.  Here are some of the more common thoughts about hell summarized from the world’s major religions:

What Hell Is:

  • Historically, Hell is not originally a large universal fiery lake of eternal damnation that the popular imagination may picture.
  • Hell in some traditions is temporary (in many Indian religions; in early Judaism in some texts). Hell is more of a place to get your life in order.
  • Hell is often metaphorical or theological — e.g., separation from God or loss of the ultimate good. Catholics say the best thing about Heaven is seeing God.  In their version of hell, you will never see god.
  • Hell’s imagery is heavily shaped by cultural, social, and historical contexts (prisons, mines, burial rites, afterlife beliefs).

What Hell Is Not:

  • It is not uniformly defined across religions — one model of Hell does not fit all faiths.
  • It is not always eternal or always fiery.
  • It is not always the first idea in the tradition; often developed later (Hellenistic Judaism, Christian Latin Fathers).
  • It is not only about punishment; in many traditions the emphasis is on purification, transformation, or consequence of one’s own actions (karma) rather than a punitive act by God.

What Heaven Is:

We must then contrast our ideas of hell with the ideas of heaven that many people have.  I was brought up in a Catholic tradition where heaven was this wonderful place in which we would be united with all the good people in our lives that we loved but most importantly with God and Jesus.  Heaven was a place where every wish we could ever think of would be granted and there would be no toil, no pains, no hardships, no misery.  Everything that anyone could ever want in their wildest dreams would exist in heaven.  Heaven was a very personal place since we could all find and achieve our dreams there.

Now think about this for a minute.  Does the idea of heaven that I have described seem somewhat preposterous?   How could all this be possible?  Could two realms actually exist?  One holds all the bad people that ever existed and the other all the good people.  And how does St. Peter decide who is good and who is bad?  What magical talisman could exist to objectively separate the two?  Lewis and Blake also differed greatly on their attitudes towards heaven and hell.

Lewis: If Heaven and Hell are one, where lies choice?  Good and evil must part, else neither lives.

Blake: Contraries are life itself.  ‘Without contraries there is no progression.’  The dance between them drives creation.

Lewis: Yet the dance must end in a yes or no.  The soul cannot waltz forever between God and self.

Blake: Perhaps your yes is my spectrum.  You see white; I see all colors folded in it.

Lewis: But colors fade without the light that births them.  Love orders even the rainbow.

Blake: And fear of color breeds night.  You guard truth so tightly it cannot breathe.

Lewis: You set it so free it forgets its name.

Lewis:  There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’

Blake:  To obey God is to create with Him; submission divides, imagination unites.

The difference between the moral absolutist Lewis and the Blake version of good and evil still divides us today  For Blake, “Good” is whatever springs from imaginative love, energy, and vision.  “Evil” is whatever crushes imagination through repression, hypocrisy, or self-righteousness.  For Lewis, a moral foundation is built upon objective, divine law discerned by reason and revelation.

We can discern these two opposing themes concerning morality, good and evil, heaven and hell in every fabric of life today.  Theologians, politicians, leaders from all walks of life are all divided upon the questions concerning good and evil, absolute morality and moral relativism.  Is humanity innately good and bound to follow the “right” path based on its own self-interest or is humanity a neutral vessel in need of a moral code to help guide their choices in life?

I have come to believe that this apparent dichotomy simply reflects the complex ambiguity that humanity entails.  Some people need heaven and hell to do the right thing.  They will break laws, take advantage of other people, as long as they think they can get away with it.  Taking any moral codes or fire and brimstone away from them only makes it easier for them to prey on others.

Conversely, there are many good people who do good because it is the right thing to do.  They obey laws when laws are not apparent.  They help others not because of fear but because of love.  They feed the hungry and welcome immigrants because they understand the need to have a better life.  They do not clamor about hand-ups versus hand-outs because they know that many people lack the arms and legs to climb up the proverbial ladder.  They do good not because of a fear of hell or desire to get into heaven but because they yield to a greater law.  A Law of Love and Compassion for all of humanity.

Virtues, Values, Morals and Ethics:  What are the differences and Who Cares?

24 Jul 2025 16 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The older I get, the more questions concerning virtues, values, morals and ethics concern me.  Like most people, I thought that I learned what these concepts meant through church, parents, school, books, fairy tales and movies.  What I never really learned was: 1. Why are they important?  2. What do they mean for society?  3. Why should we care about the differences?  4. How do they actually play out in real life?  Real life meaning in war, in peace, in times of societal disasters and even in everyday living.  Now with a few years left in my life, I am immensely concerned with the above questions. 

I started reading more about virtues and values and morals and ethics a few years ago and did not make even a slight dent in the literature.  Recently, I looked into YouTube to see what some videos had to say about the same questions I am concerned with.  I found more videos to watch than I could review if I lived 100 more years.  Nevertheless, I spent some time scanning a few of these videos to see what other writers had to say about virtues, values, morals and ethics.  After reviewing these videos, I decided I would just wing it from my own perspective and experience.  In this blog, I will try to answer each of the questions I posed based on my own experiences.  Before we begin, I would like to provide a very simple definition for each concept.  No ChatGPT or Google here.  This is my own simple and probably not very profound definition of each.  

Virtue:  A gift to be earned.  Examples, “Patience, Honesty, Faith”

Value:  Something we think is important or worthwhile.  Examples, “Happiness, Love, Frugality”

Moral:  A principle we want to live by.  Example, “Do unto others etc.”

Ethics:  Principles others think we should live by.  Examples, “Always respect your customers”

 1.  Why are they important?

The simplest but most compelling answer to this question is that they help you to lead a happier, more fulfilling life.  People adhering to these concepts will have character and integrity and be both respected and admired.  They may not make you rich.  They may not make you famous.  But true happiness does not come from fame and fortune.  Here are some quotes that I like on happiness:

“True happiness is not attained through self-gratification, but through fidelity to a worthy purpose.” – Helen Keller

“Happiness is not something ready-made.  It comes from your own actions.” – Dalai Lama

“Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.” – Mahatma Gandhi

“Happiness is a warm puppy.” – Charles M. Schulz

“It is not how much we have, but how much we enjoy, that makes happiness.” – Charles Spurgeon

You might be asking yourself “Well, do we really need to pay attention to each of these concepts?”  Why not just worry about virtues or ethics?  My answer is yes.  We need to pay attention to all four of these concepts because they work together.  Like a car needs a transmission, engine, battery and wheels to get anyplace, you cannot become the person you want to be if you ignore any of these ideas. 

You cannot be virtuous and have shallow values.  You cannot have great values but no ethics.  You cannot have ethics but no morals.  We need to understand and embrace all four of these concepts.  Values and ethics deal more with external influences on our lives while virtues and morals come more from inside us and deal with our own abilities and character.  Can you have good character and embrace “bad” actions?  Can you have “bad” character and pursue good actions?  I think the answer to both these questions is “very unlikely.”  Actions flow out of character and character is developed by actions. 

2.  What do they mean for society?

First let me ask you a few questions and see if your thinking about these questions answers my question above.  Are you happy with the way people drive on the freeways today?  Do you feel that politicians and leaders today really care about you and the country?  Do you think that poverty and homelessness are inevitable or that good leadership could help to amend these problems?  Is a good leader ethical, moral, virtuous and guided by good values?  Do you think the above problems can be taken care of simply by higher incomes and fewer taxes? 

Now, I would ask you to go back to my question number 2 and take a few minutes to think of how you would answer it.  What would it mean for society if everyone practiced good virtues, morals, ethics and values?  Would we have as much unhappiness in society as we seem to have today?  Would our crime rate be high?  Would we constantly be involved in fighting wars in other countries? 

“Virtue does not come from wealth, but wealth, and every other good thing which men have comes from virtue.”  – Socrates

“No people can be great who have ceased to be virtuous.”  – Samuel Johnson

“A country cannot subsist well without liberty, nor liberty without virtue.” – Daniel Webster

“The first principle of value that we need to rediscover is this: that all reality hinges on moral foundations.  In other words, that this is a moral universe, and that there are moral laws of the universe just as abiding as the physical laws.  –  Martin Luther King Jr

Once upon a time, I thought that the most important thing I could teach in schools would be critical thinking skills.  However, after having been teaching since 1975 in every class from kindergarten to Ph.D. programs, I have come to believe that the most important thing I can teach is an appreciation of these four concepts.  I have no illusions that I can or should force any particular virtue or values or ethics or morality down anyone’s throat.  I think that while each of these concepts is universal, each person must identify his/her own ideas and beliefs that are most important to them.  I have my list of virtues and morals that I try to live by.  Each day, I start out with a little prayer to remind myself to practice a particular virtue.  Today it was patience.  Tomorrow it will be kindness.  I do an inventory at the end of each day wherein I ask myself “how did I do today on my virtue.” 

As for morals, I have several principles that I try to live by.  I have listed five of my most important moral principles below.  You may have five, ten, fifteen or twenty that you believe in and not one that matches any of mine.  I think that what is important is that each of your principles is a building block for positive character.  A character that other people can admire but even more importantly, a character that you can be proud of. 

  • Do no harm to others
  • Stand up for what I believe
  • Do unto others as they would have done unto them
  • Demonstrate integrity in all I say and do
  • Do not be afraid to do what is right

 3.  Why should we care about the differences between these concepts?

Dr. Deming was famous for his quote that, “Experience without theory teaches nothing.”   I strongly support his axiom.  What it means is that if you keep doing something and it works or perhaps does not work, without an underlying theory of causality, you will never understand what factors or actions have resulted in your success or failure.  Without understanding these factors, it may be difficult to replicate your success but also likely you will not be able to improve on it. 

For instance, what if people seem to shy away from me and dislike me?  Or what if I seem to aggravate people but I cannot figure out why?  Going to school to study psychology or reading “How to Win Friends and Influence People” by Dale Carnegie might be just the theory that you need to better understand yourself and your behavior.  Socrates said, “Know Thyself” and also that, “The Unexamined Life is Not Worth Living.”  Reflection and knowledge can lead to wisdom and wisdom will help you to lead a good life.

I also support the opposite belief, that “Theory without experience teaches nothing.”  You can read all the psychology books you want but unless you act on your theories, you will also learn nothing.  You cannot understand an apple or a steak without biting into it.  We must couple action with theory in our lives, or we risk going through life with a tank ½ full.

4.  How do these concepts play out in real life? 

This is a very challenging question.  I can tell you that in my life I tended to ignore the theory part in favor of experiences.  I learned a great deal through the proverbial trial and error, but my life has been in the past like a rubrics cube that came apart and I could not put it back together again.

I did not understand the relationship between the concepts we are discussing now and how they could and should play a role in my life.  I looked for a better more meaningful life by working harder, making more money and acquiring more diplomas and certificates.  Only in the past few years have I began to understand that without a firm grounding in morality, ethics, values and virtues, I could never live a life that measured up to my goals and aspirations.  These concepts form the bedrock and foundation for a life that exemplifies integrity and character. 

“Despotic power is always accompanied by corruption of morality.” – Lord Acton

“Where the roots of private virtue are diseased, the fruit of public probity cannot but be corrupt” –  Felix Adler

“Moral decline has become a growing concern in many societies around the world.  As the traditional values and principles that guide human behavior weaken, we see a shift in attitudes, actions, and even societal structures.  This decline in ethical standards, often characterized by increasing selfishness, dishonesty, and a lack of accountability, has widespread implications for individual lives, families, communities, and nations.” – Virtuous Magazine, 10-9-24

“Those who conduct themselves with morality, integrity and consistency need not fear the forces of inhumanity and cruelty.” –  Nelson Mandela

Conclusions:

I wrote this blog because as many people have attested to, there is an alarming decline in morality, ethics, values and virtues in our world today.  Many people now subscribe to an opportunistic philosophy which states that “If it is not illegal, than I can do it.”  To these people, it does not matter who they will harm by their actions.  The only things that matter are their own personal wants and desires.  Some people have referred to the present generation as the “entitlement” generation.  Others call our present times a time of Amorality.  Amorality is between immorality and morality, but it does not denote a Golden Mean.  Rather it is more like a zombie state that ignores the negative effects of a lack of morality on society.  It ignores the harm that Amorality does to individuals in any society. 

Opportunism, Amorality and Entitlement have become strong values for many in American society.  In this respect, I see them as “bad” values.  The difference between Good Values and Bad Values might seem to be merely a matter of opinion but I disagree.  I have argued in my previous blog that there are Bad Laws and Good Laws.  So too there are Bad Values and Good Values.  Bad values devalue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for private profit and gain.  The opposite is true of Good values.  Good values enhance life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for the greatest number.  James Madison said that a Democracy is a “Rule of the Majority with a concern for the Minority.”  What we see in America today would seem to be the rule of an Oligarchic Rich Elite exploiting minorities for their own benefit.  Perhaps more emphasis on morals, values, virtues and ethics in the media and press and less emphasis on violence and mayhem could reposition our country.  I think many of us would like to live in a nation that is based on empathy and compassion for all rather than revenge and retribution for those who are more vulnerable, poor or less powerful.

The Diagram that I used in this blog was created by Sudir Vigneshwar.  He has a very good blog on the subject of Morality and Virtue at his website.  I think the diagram depicts in a model what I have been saying in so many words.   Look for 

The Moral Alignment Scale: In Depth Conversations on Morality with an A.I.

How Can You Tell Good Poetry from Bad Poetry?

17 Jul 2025 5 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , ,

I have to confess that while I love to write, I have never been able to understand  a good deal of poetry much less write any poetry that I thought was very good.  Over dinner the other night, Karen and I were reading from our book of dinner prayers, and we came across a poem that we both thought was awful.  We agreed that in our humble opinions, it was “Bad” poetry.  

It is very difficult to call anything “Bad” poetry.  I have sat through many writing sessions where someone brought in poetry samples, and I thought to myself “Bad” poetry.  When everyone applauded, I of course felt very humbled and guilty.  Perhaps, I am just a barbarian.  A Luddite who really does not understand what good poetry is.  There seem to be what I might call “poetry snubs” who proclaim poetry as the highest art form in literature.  Only morons and the uneducated and unwashed would call anything “Bad” poetry.

However, being the logical person, I think myself to be, it stands to reason that if something can be good than something can be bad.  I decided once again to turn the question over to my favorite muse these days and ask ChatGPT the question:  “How does one tell good poetry from Bad poetry.”  I actually thought that it might reply, “Stupid question John, there is no such thing as “Bad” poetry. Much to my surprise and delight it answered my question with the following replies.  First, here is what ChatGPT said about “ Good” Poetry:

Signs of Good Poetry

  1. Emotional Impact
    • It moves you, surprises you, or makes you feel something new or deeply familiar.
    • It lingers in your mind after reading.
  2. Fresh Language
    • It avoids clichés and uses original images or phrases.
    • Common experiences are made new through metaphor, simile, or unexpected word choices.
  3. Strong Structure or Form
    • Whether free verse or formal (like a sonnet), it has internal rhythm, pacing, and flow.
    • It uses line breaks, stanza shape, or sound devices with purpose, not at random.
  4. Layers of Meaning
    • It offers depth—something you can re-read and interpret in more than one way.
    • There’s often subtext, symbolism, or ambiguity that invites reflection.
  5. Sound and Musicality
    • It reads well aloud: rhythm, alliteration, assonance, and other sonic qualities enhance the meaning.
    • Good poetry doesn’t sound flat or awkward—even free verse has rhythm.
  6. Precision and Economy
    • Every word counts—no filler. Good poets can say more with less.
    • The language is intentional, not just pretty or verbose.

I was very pleased with the above list that I received to my query.  These made a great deal of sense to me.  Not being a total Luddite, there are in fact many poems that I do like.  I then asked ChatGPT to write me a “good” poem about two elderly lovers, one of whom was dying.  Here is the poem that Chat wrote:

“Still, You Hold My Hand”

We do not walk as quickly now,
our steps are slow, but still in tune—
two shadows stretching side by side
beneath the silver hush of moon.

The clock has softened all our lines,
our hair grown thin, our fingers bent,
but what we’ve lost in strength or speed
we’ve found again in time well spent.

You lie here now, your breath a thread,
the light behind your eyes grown dim.
I hold your hand, recall the days
when we would go on every whim.

Do you remember, love, the spring—
the daffodils, the borrowed car?
We chased the sun across the hills
and kissed beneath a falling star.

Your voice was once an angelic bell
that called me in from any spree.
Even now, though faint and frail,
its echo still brings peace to me.

I talk, though I don’t know you hear;
you smile at things I cannot see.
But when our fingers intertwine,
I feel you’re still right here with me.

So rest, my love. I’ll hold your hand
until the last small breath is through.
And if there’s more beyond this veil,
I’ll walk there slowly… back to you.

I made a few changes to the above poem, but otherwise I thought it was very good.  Now, we come to the part about “Bad” poetry.  The following are characteristics are what ChatGPT said were Signs of “Bad” Poetry.

⚠️ Signs of Bad Poetry

  1. Clichés and Predictability
    • Uses worn-out phrases like “my heart is broken,” “the stars above,” “a love like a rose,” etc.
    • You know how it ends after the first few lines.
  2. Flat or Forced Rhyme
    • Rhymes are predictable or awkward, sacrificing meaning for the sake of sound.
    • It reads like a greeting card instead of a crafted work.
  3. Vague or General Language
    • Lacks vivid imagery or specific detail.
    • Talks about feelings without showing them through actions or concrete images.
  4. Lack of Rhythm or Flow
    • Feels choppy or randomly broken up.
    • The poem’s form doesn’t add anything to the message.
  5. Overuse of Adjectives or Adverbs
    • Tries too hard to sound poetic without real substance.
    • “The extremely beautiful shining golden sun rose splendidly” = cluttered.

I asked ChatGPT to give me an example of “Bad” poetry based on the following idea.  A man who would be king.  Can you imagine who I might have had in mind?  Here is the “Bad” poem that Chat wrote.  I think she did a good job of describing “he who shall remain nameless.”

“Absolutely.  Here’s a deliberately bad poem—complete with clunky rhyme, mixed metaphors, awkward phrasing, forced rhythm, and shallow content.  It’s meant to be humorous in how poorly it’s constructed:”

“The Man Who Would Be King (Someday Maybe)”

He woke up late, ate moldy bread,
Put a chicken hat upon his head.
Declared aloud with mighty tone,
“I think I’ll sit upon the throne!”

His suit was blue, his tie was red,
He dreamed of ruling folks in bed.
“I’ll ride a cow into the war!”
(He’d never left for war before.)

The people laughed and called him Blob,
He called himself “King Corn-on-the-Cob.”
He made a sword out of old ham,
And practiced battle on a clam.

“I shall be feared from east to west!”
He yelled while pounding on his chest.
But tripped and fell into a bush—
A squirrel proclaimed, “You royal tush!”

His kingdom vast, inside his head,
With loyal troops (all made of bread).
He ruled his yard, his fans approved,
Until the cat said, “You’re removed.”

Considering the subject matter, I actually liked this “Bad” poem.  I thought it fit “you know who” very well.  So let me finish with Chat’s “Tips to Evaluate a Poem.”  I  hope all you poetry lovers out there have found something useful in my blog this week. 

👂 Tips to Evaluate a Poem

  • Read it aloud – Does it flow? Does the sound match the subject?
  • Ask what it’s really about – Is there a deeper idea or emotion?
  • Notice what’s not said – Good poems leave room for you to think or feel.
  • Try rewriting it – If you can improve it easily, it probably needs work.
  • Test time – Does it still move you after reading it twice, or a week later?

A Conversation between Satan and God

11 Dec 2016 8 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , ,

god-and-satan

Satan and God were sitting on a rock one day having a discussion about the human race.

Satan said to “God, I need some more souls in hell.  I think we have played this game with humanity for long enough.  Let’s end it and start a new game.”

God said:  “Well, I could be talked into that.  How would you suggest we end it?

Satan:  “We can divide up the human race.  You take the good ones and I will take the bad ones.”

God:  “Who would you include among the ‘bad’ ones?”

Satan:  “I will take all the people who never promoted peace and who sowed the seeds of hate and bigotry among humanity.”

God:  “They are all you want?”

Satan:  “Well, I would also like all the greedy ones who never did anything to help anyone else but who collected as much wealth as they could and would not share it with anyone else.”

God:  “Does this include all the greedy people who were against taxes to help the poor and needy?”

Satan:  “Of course.”

God:  “That’s not fair.  There would hardly be anyone left for me.”

Satan:  “Do you remember a long time ago when you gave Lot the deal with finding ten good people and you would save the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah from your wrath.  Your angels could not find even ten people for you to spare.  That was a good day for me.”

God:  “You have had many good days since we started this game.  Do you think perhaps it’s all your fault?  You are constantly sowing greed and hate.”

Satan:  “Guilty as charged but do you remember the Parable of the Seeds?  Some fell on good soil and grew and some fell on bad soil and did not grow.  My efforts would be fruitless were not humans so ripe for plucking and beguiling.”

God:  “Still, sometimes, I think you have been overzealous.  I gave humans free will when I created them and this has come back to bias our game.”

Satan:  “Please, now is not the time for hindsight.  I warned you about this when you created them but you were ever the optimist.”

hell_lavapitSatan:  “Do you want to concede and I will just take them all down to Hell?”

God:  “Do you have no mercy and compassion in you someplace?

Satan:  “You created me and now you extol me to be compassionate and merciful.  Those are traits best left for you and your saints.  I have no heart or soul so how can I care about anything much less human beings.”

God:  “Would you like to start over.  I can always recreate you.”

Satan:  “Thanks, but I am fine.  I like myself just the way I am.  I see no need for pity, love, kindness, or any of the other traits that you gave to humans.  Much good it has done them.”

godGod:  “The interesting thing about humans is not their stupidity and evilness.  It’s the surprising amount of love that they can sometimes show for others.  I am ever the optimist.  That is my role, to be the Eternal Optimist.  I have had hopes since the first cave men and since Moses and Socrates and Jesus and Mohammed and Gandhi and King and Mandela that humans have a spark in them.  A spark that when ignited can change themselves and the world into something beautiful.  Something that is so beautiful, it is even beyond anything I might have created.”

Satan:  “Yes, and then they turn right around and burn it down again.”  Hardly a day goes by on earth, when there is not some riot or war or holocaust or massacre or murder.”

God:  “It seesaws back and forth.  For over 100,000 years now, we have played this game and just when I think, I might win, someone or something evil seems to possess humans that I would never have thought of.”

Satan:  “Right, and you would like to blame me for it, but you gave them free will.”

God:  “The game would have been too predictable without free will.”

Satan:  “You keep hoping they will believe in you someday.  How many times have we had this discussion and yet we keep playing this game.”

God:  “Would you deny me the chance to win.”

chess-for-humanity-1Satan:  “You know I don’t care one way or the other.  I have no feelings to be hurt.  I cannot gloat or feel any satisfaction.  Whenever, a new soul comes down to Hell, it is no sense of pride or satisfaction to me.  These humans seem to mistake my logic and justice for evil.  I am the parent who dispenses the discipline and they see me as the mean and cruel one.”

Satan:  “From a purely logical viewpoint, I do not know why you subject yourself to this.  I see your pain and heartache whenever you lose one to me.  Why go on like this?  It will never be any different.  I get them for a thousand or so years and then I send their cleansed souls back to earth and in a short time they are back down again to Hell.”

God:  “I have no limits to my forgiveness.  They pray to me regularly for forgiveness and I forgive them.”

Satan:  “Yes, but even before they ask for forgiveness, they ask for their daily bread.  It is the only thing they can think about, eating and drinking and sex.”

God:  “You forget the good ones.  The mothers that devote their lives to their children.  The soldiers that forfeit their lives on the battlefields.  The fathers that work two jobs to support their families.  The martyrs who give their lives for their faith.  The blessed who are humble.  The peacemakers who face scorn and ridicule to end war.  The charitable who give the shirt off their backs to help those in need.”

Satan:  “Yes, and for every good one, there are ten evil ones.  That is why I want to end this farce.  How many souls must I take down to Hell, before you concede that humans are hopeless?”

God:  “Perhaps if I send another prophet or messiah to spread my message, we could turn the game around?”

Satan:  “You have sent dozens of prophets and many messiahs and it has made no difference.  They end up scorning or murdering your prophets and messiahs.  They would not follow your message if they could find the tablets that you etched in stone and gave to Moses.”

God:  “I don’t want to win for my sake.  I fight for love and peace and justice and beauty.  These are the things that bring color to the universe.  Without these, you have a bland shade of grey.  You have a sterile meaningless bunch of rocks.  You have never understood this because you see everything through pure logic and no emotions.”

Satan:  “When you created me, you thought that such a being as I am would be superior to one that could be swayed by emotions and feelings.  Now you criticize me for doing my job?”

God:  “I did not realize how monotonous and tedious the universe would be without feelings.”

Satan:  “It does not seem like you can have it both ways.  You want to create a world without evil and based on compassion and love and yet you give humans the ingredients that foment hatred and bigotry.”

God:  “Do you not think we have made any progress since the first humans were created?  I have infinite patience.  We can play the game for eons but I will win someday.”

Satan:  “And is it worth it?  How much pain and misery and suffering must you endure dealing with these humans?”

God:  “True, they have tried my patience at times.  But just when I might be willing to concede to you, I see justice and love blossoming some place and it makes the battle worth winning.  As their creator, I cannot turn my back on these humans.  There is no limit to my forgiveness.  I am not driven by logic as you are.  I am the mother who cannot give up on her children regardless of how many times they make mistakes.”

satan-imageSatan:  “But they never learn. They are shortsighted, petty, vindictive and greedy.  Do you really think they care about your teachings or precious commitment to love and peace?  They would rather fight wars and dominate others.  They even fight wars in your name.  Their religions scream for violence over other religions.  Their leaders preach victory over other nations.  Their minion’s rape and pillage in the name of some esoteric ideology.  They all believe they are superior to each other.  They send their own children to die in wars of so called freedom and liberation.  They abuse and murder their own spouses at alarming rates.  They teach their offspring at an early age to be intolerant of other races.  And they pray in your name for the power to be successful in all of these efforts.  They invoke prayers to you before murdering millions.  How can you listen to these prayers and want to help these hypocrites.”

God:  “Being in charge of Hell does not help you to see any positives in the universe.  You have a very difficult job.”

Satan:  “We make a good team.  You, the everlasting optimist, full of hope and love.  Me, the ultimate logician, ever ready to exact justice for evil done.”

Satan:  “They will destroy themselves anyway and then what.  Did you know that the earth was warming up at an alarming rate?”

God:  “Of course.”

Satan:  “It is not your doing, right?”

God:  “No, I have nothing to do with it.”

Satan:  “And yet they blame you for it.  The last thing in the world they want to admit is that it might be their fault.  That all of their pollution, oil burning, fossil fuel burning and carbon emissions is changing their climate.  They deny any responsibility for it.  I thought they would destroy the world with nuclear weapons, but they somehow avoided doing that.  Now, they are working to destroy it by overheating it.  I don’t think it will be long before the game is over.”

gods-voice-vs-satans-voiceGod:  “You count them out too fast.  The clock was close to 12 with nuclear weapons but as you noted, they carefully avoided destroying themselves.  They are often very shortsighted and many of them will never be long-term thinkers.  However, there are enough who care and who are passionate enough about others to help save humanity.  I can’t help being filled with astonishment at the love that humans frequently have for each other.”

Satan:  “Yes, but it always seems to entail some crisis to bring it out.”

God:  “That is true.  But it shows that there is hope.  And even if there is only 1 human being still alive who cares about others, that is enough for me.  The game will go on.”

Satan:  “Well, how about a cap of another 10,000 years. I am tired of being the gatekeeper of Hell and punishing evil and wrongdoers.  I do not have your patience.”

God:  “Done, we will give humanity another 10,000 years and see how they are doing then.”

Satan:  “I have a feeling we will be having this same conversation in another 10,000 years.”

Time for Questions:

What would you like to tell God if you could?  Do you believe in God?  Why or why not?  Does the concept of God make a difference in the world?  Why? For better or worse?

Life is just beginning.

“Satan, on the contrary, is thin, ascetic and a fanatical devotee of logic.  He reads Machiavelli, Ignatius of Loyola, Marx and Hegel; he is cold and unmerciful to mankind, out of a kind of mathematical mercifulness.  He is damned always to do that which is most repugnant to him: to become a slaughterer, in order to abolish slaughtering, to sacrifice lambs so that no more lambs may be slaughtered, to whip people with knouts so that they may learn not to let themselves be whipped, to strip himself of every scruple in the name of a higher scrupulousness, and to challenge the hatred of mankind because of his love for it–an abstract and geometric love.”
― Arthur Koestler, Darkness at Noon

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sin and Evil

17 May 2013 10 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

I hope you will excuse the apparent redundancy in the title of this blog.  I had started it as Sin and the Serial Killer but then decided it would be Sin and the Mass Killer.  I wanted to include spree, serial and mass murderers in this treatise on sin and evil.  The title, Sin, Serial Killers, Spree Killers and Mass Murderers: Why are they Evil?, just seemed too long.  Actually, if you think Sin and Evil are redundant, I can assure you they are not the same. 

When I was a young boy going to a Catholic School called Mount St. Francis, I learned that there were two types of sin:  Venial and Mortal.  A Mortal sin (if un-confessed at death) would earn you a one way ticket straight to hell.  No stops along the way.  A Venial sin would get you into a place called Purgatory.  If I remember correctly, Purgatory was a lot like hell, you did not get to see God and it was awfully hot. However, a ticket to Purgatory could eventually be exchanged for a ticket to heaven.  You merely had to sit in Purgatory for some length of time and then you would be allowed to change your place of residence.

Way back then, and even today, I had a hard time trying to figure out what were Venial Sins and what were Mortal sins.  Perhaps this is why I rejected the catechism of Catholicism and eventually all of organized religion.   The nuances and intricacies of getting to heaven or hell were beyond my cognitive capacities.  For instance, one of my great pleasures “Masturbation” was good for a ticket to hell.  I cannot tell you how many tickets I earned to hell while deriving great pleasure from this pastime.  I still cannot understand why something that hurts no one, including myself and is actually a great deal of fun would be deemed a Mortal sin.  Neither can I give you an example of a Venial sin since I think I never committed any.  Somehow all of my sins at the time were Mortal:  Disobeying my parents, taking the Lord’s name in vain and having sex without marriage.  I was good for at least 50 Hail Marys’ at every confession I went to. 

So since we cannot define sin, can we say that there is no sin?  Assuredly you would answer NO!  Sin is Evil.  If so, then we must define evil.  If we say that evil is committing a sin, then we really are being redundant.   Perhaps looking at some definitions of evil might help us with this problem.  Here are some various definitions of evil:

  • Profound immorality, wickedness, and depravity, esp. when regarded as a supernatural force.
  • According to the Bible evil becomes a reality in the very beginning with the first couple. Sin produces evil. Gen 2:9, the tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
  • Although the Bible meaning of evil includes the idea of sinfulness or wickedness in many cases, it also has a broader meaning that is commonly used. In this broader meaning, evil refers to those things that are generally thought of as bad or undesirable; or as the dictionary says, “causing pain or trouble.” This would include things such as wars or disease and this is the kind of evil referred to in Isaiah 45:7.

I think you can easily see that the common definitions of sin and evil are not very helpful on a day to day basis.  It could be argued quite easily that one person’s sin is another person’s good.  Or that sin and evil are simply social conventions defined by majority thought.  Wars and disease are part of the normal fabric of life and when were any political leaders ever consigned to hell because they declared war?  It seems like a rather good idea but I don’t see it happening anytime soon. 

I suppose you are expecting me then to make a case (perhaps already started) that there is no such thing as sin or perhaps even evil?  Actually, I want to argue the opposite.  The older and I hope wiser I have become the more I see that Sin and Evil actually do exist.  Sin and Evil are behaviors that create havoc and devastation in the world. 

My path to this conclusion lay in my thinking about mass murderers.   Much of the general public are fascinated by the subject of serial killers.  It would seem that at least ½ of the novels on the best seller list have serial killers as their theme.  We are intrigued and perplexed by trying to understand why anyone would commit the crimes (a legal term as I use it and not to be confused necessarily with sin or evil) that these individuals do.  If anything could be generally agreed on as evil by most people, it would be these types of murders, including; spree, serial and mass type executions done by individuals and not sanctioned by state or governmental authority.  So we do have at least one area that we can agree on as evil.  Perhaps a definition of evil as applied to such killers would be:  “The taking of random innocent lives by unknown assailants for no apparent purpose.”  But then are these killers also sinners?   Again, you would readily answer yes to this question, but why?  Where in the Bible does it condemn mass killings as sinful?  The Old Testament is full of mass killings perpetrated for gain and convenience.  What sets the mass murderer apart from the murders perpetuated by one society against another society?  Is there any difference? 

I think the answer is yes.  If you look at the motivation of the mass murderers, people like Bundy, Gacy, Dahmer and many others you will find some common purposes.  Wikipedia defines the “motives” of serial killers as: 

The motives of serial killers are generally placed into four categories: visionary, mission-oriented, hedonistic and power or control; however, the motives of any given killer may display considerable overlap among these categories.  Wikipedia

What does not emerge from this typology is the rather obvious fact that in each case, the perpetrator has destroyed something and created nothing.  All mass murderers destroy and leave nothing of any value for the world.  They gain their joy from the act of destruction. Whether they torture their victims or kill them all in mass with a bomb, mass murderers derive their pleasure at the moment of destruction.  Everything else connected with their heinous crimes are prelude and postscript.  Nothing gives the mass killer more pleasure than their ability to destroy and their anticipation of destruction.  The literature is full of examples of impotent murderers who were able to achieve potency only at the point of the actual murder of their victims.  This has been true in mass killings as well as individual killings. 

If Evil is the destruction of life, then Sin is the arrogation of the power to destroy life by an individual.  It has often been claimed that there is a Yin and Yang in the world and that Good is the opposite of Evil.  Or that the Devil represents Sin and Evil and God represents Virtue and Goodness.  I believe this is wrong.  It is a false dichotomy.  The mass killer wants to be like God.  God is the ultimate power.  The Devil cannot stand up to God.  In the madness of the mass killer, they want to experience the power of God.  However, there is a grave difference between the power of God and the power of the Devil.  The Devil only has the power to destroy.  God has the power to both create and destroy.  But the destruction of the Devil and the destruction of God are not the same. The destruction that God creates is a cosmic destruction that is part of the cycle of life.  God’s destruction perpetuates creation by allowing a continuous cycle of birth and rebirth throughout the universe.  The Devil’s destruction creates nothing except evil.  The mass killer destroys but never creates.  On a more limited scale, vandals are evil because they destroy without creating anything. 

To conclude then, I would define Sin as the taking of power to destroy by an individual without the responsibility to create.  Evil is destruction without the creation of value.  Someone who destroys something may be guilty of both being Sinful and Evil.  The mass murderer wants to be like God and to experience the power of God but in the end fails.  Humans can never have the power to create life except where some life did not first exist.  The definition of God is one who can give life and can also take it away.  I know not whether there is a God as defined by organized religion but there is a power in the universe which perpetuates a creative cycle of birth and rebirth or creation and destruction.  There are also those people who have more in common with the Devil since they only destroy.  This is the evil of the mass murderer and any who would be God without the responsibility to create as well as to destroy. 

Time for Questions:

What do you think Evil is?  Do you think the Devil really exists?  What is Goodness?  Can humans be both good and evil?  When does anything become pure evil?  Do we really need a God in the world?  Why or Why not?  What role does God play in your life?  What role does the Devil play? 

Life is just beginning.