Note: I quote here parts of a post by Shadowfax to which I intend to reply.

>> We had that freedom (not "right") already. We used it poorly.

>Oh no "we" didn't. Douglas Adams had a very good point about this. Let's assume the biblical version is true. God makes Adam and Eve. He takes them on a tour of the garden, showing them this and that, and they're very impressed, and they keep getting more and more impressed with God and his powers of creation. At the end of that tour, he takes them over to a tree and says "See that tree? That's a really cool tree. It's fruit is delicious. Better than a Krispy Kreme. And if you eat it, you'll know everything I know. Sound cool?"
>
>"---- yeah!" says Adam.
>
>"Well," says God "Don't eat anything from it or I'll do bad things to you."
>
>Now, God created humans, so he knows human nature (since he created that too) and he knows the best way to get someone to do something is to tell them not to do it. Knowing this, he tells them this stuff anyway, then hides behind a bush waiting for the inevitible. When they eat an apple, he jumps out from behind a bush and yells "GOTCHA!" Any being who would do this is out to get you banished anyway, which means you don't have a choice in the matter.

The first thing that went through my mind upon reading this was: "Oh, *come on* -- Douglas Adams??? Why not also demand a rebuttal to the keen theological insights of "Jesus Christ Superstar"?" Nevertheless, I have to acknowledge that Adams is capable of using his humor as a vehicle for serious commentary, so I'll make an effort to answer.

First, let's iron out the facts of the Genesis 2-3 narrative. Contrary to Adams' representation of the story, God does not in fact give Adam a sales pitch about how tasty and wonderful the fruit of this particular tree is. God doesn't even say that eating the fruit will give Adam special knowledge. The *only* thing God says about the tree is a warning: Don't eat its fruit, or you will die.

It is the *serpent* whose words in Genesis are attributed to God himself in Adams' version of the story. The serpent comes along and provides the whole schtick about how "the fruit isn't really harmful, it will open your eyes and make you like God." As for God jumping out from behind a bush and yelling GOTCHA!, I hope that no one reading this thread needs me to tell them that that's not in the story either; that the actual series of events is that the humans felt shame and tried to cover themselves and hide from God, God called out to them, asking why they were hiding, and they confessed what they had done.

So now that we can work with the narrative as it actually appears in Scripture, what parts of Adams' critique still hold force? I'd say that it's still worth responding to his assertion that God *knew* what the people he created would do -- that in fact God *set them up* to do it, and is therefore capricious and unworthy of anyone's faith. Theodicy seems to be at the center of Adams' argument, which is a typical approach for a post-Enlightenment critic to take. "How can God not be held responsible for all the evil in the world?" is another form of the argument.

That's a bigger question than I have the time or ability to answer in this space; it really needs a discussion group where Q's and A's can flow freely back and forth. But for now, I'll just respond with a few more questions:

* Are we willing to accept any answer to the problem at all that requires us to admit blame for the problems and suffering we bring on ourselves? Or do we seek not truth but a comfortable alibi?

* Is it really a foregone conclusion that the humans in the Genesis story would fall? If so, then wouldn't their "human nature" have been corrupt even *before* eating the forbidden fruit, making the narrative nonsensical as a way of describing the fall of humanity into evil?

* Also, if one argues that the actions of the humans in the garden were unavoidable, does that amount to an argument that determinism is the way the universe works, or is it only a special instance in which God specifically took control of the people he had created, for the express purpose of screwing them over?

> My view of anything created by man as a source of theological authority is pretty dim. Ignoring the many and obvious contradictions in any religious text, we must remember that most religions are oral history passed down over hundreds of generations. It only takes about 10 people in a game of telephone to screw up one sentence. How can hundreds of generations not screw up enough material to fill a huge book?

There are an awful lot of assertions made here, which I think are partly in error. I'll have to address them in a separate post, though.

>> Nor would I urge you to try and draw it. But for those communities that do draw the line, and draw it so as to proscribe what they find to be morally reprehensible, I have respect.
>>
> Would you have that same respect if you LIVED in one of those communities, and that community judged something you cherished to be morally reprehensible?

That's a fair question, and one that I talked about with Jacqueline last night. It's true: it is very easy for me, someone who has grown up enjoying all the benefits of a free country, to talk about freedom as if it were no big deal. If I lived in, say, China, then no doubt my feelings about censorship would be colored by that experience.

But I haven't lived in China, and I can only speak from the perspective I actually have, so here goes: *In principle*, if I were the oppressed party, I would have to agree with the oppressors that what I have to say is indeed a threat to their values. Shutting me up would seem like a sensible thing for them to do to preserve their way of life. And I wouldn't abide by the censoring laws, either; I'd have to employ civil disobedience, or even subversive and secret action.

That is not to say that I would approve of that community's decision to censor me. I may need to reiterate this in every post in this thread: I am not championing censorship. The extent of what I would like to say on the subject is:

A) Censorship is one approach (albeit a poor one) to addressing a social problem that non-censoring communities like ours generally seem to ignore. It points to the existence of the problem and spurs us to come up with our own, hopefully more mature, solution; and

B) Our attitude towards censorship reveals the intensity of our commitment to the ideal of freedom. Ideological intensity of that magnitude ought sometimes to be examined and evaluated, so that we can assure ourselves that we are not falling into some dangerous form of excess.

> What if American Psycho was attempting to do the same thing, but the guy was a really bad writer? Even if it wasn't, why do you assume people are so stupid and evil that they can't decide for themselves what will and will not offend them.

Well, I don't. If I have given that impression, I apologize. As Sam correctly observed in his post (and Dave too, in his own way), the decision on what media to experience is best kept at the personal level.

>> Probably so. I happen to dislike the easy epithet "narrow-minded", but that's for another thread, I suppose.

> If the shoe fits. . . .

".... then wear it." Agreed, but what I'm getting at is the need to examine whether the shoe does, in fact, fit.

> Shad "How can what you say degrade my integrity? You can say or write any disgusting or immoral thing you want, and my integrity will not be violated" owfax

If I write a disgusting and immoral thing, and you read it, will it have no influence over your conscience or character? I can't answer that for you, but for my part, I regret the way in which disgusting and immoral things, by my own choice to consume them, have degraded my own integrity.

Iss