My Dear Scutpale

How in Hell are we supposed to continue our eternal effort (and it is eternal, whatever the Enemy might say) at muddling the minds of humans if the Propaganda Department keeps giving the game away? I refer to this monstruosity. Did no one grasp that this was the kind of argument that should never have been thrown out to the human Internet, for all to see? Precisely who is minding the shop there?


Oh, of course I know it's an old argument, from one of the humans most famous thinkers, that cynic Plato (just how he managed to escape our clutches is a mystery even I am not privy to), part of a dialogue that has been used by atheists to cool the ardor of Christians since time immemorial. But that is precisely the point. The Euthyphro has to be used, with an unspoken bias and an exercise of glibness. It is perfect for a soul-dead adjunct professor of philosophy to use on an human youth who stopped learning anything useful about the Enemy when he or she was twelve years old (there are, of course, so many such humans nowadays). There the ephemerality of verbal speech, the sense of deference to authority, and the silent pressures we exert can have greatly desired effects.


But the written word is different. It remains, and therefore it's weaknesses can be discovered. It does not take a clever human to see that the "Euthyprho dilemna" is a false dichotomy. It's a classic heads-I-win-tails-you-lose trick. It purports to prove that either a) morality is seperate from the Enemy, and therefore superior to Him, or b) morality is decreed, by the enemy, and therefore arbitrary. The former is of course an absurdity, and the latter we have taught the humans to believe, without ever saying it baldly of course, as somehow "not good enough."


Surely, Scutpale, you know that the real deception lies in how we have taught the humans to think about what the Enemy calls morality. Specifically, we have taught them that Morality is a nature and being unto itself, not a descriptor of acts that either are or are not in line with a being's Enemy-designed nature. A lion stalking and hunting down and antelope is being true to its nature, following the commands that the Enemy has given it: feed and make more of yourself. Humans, alone among His material creatures, have the power to choose to go against their nature, to be immoral. Morality is therefore irrelevant outside of Creation; and since all Creation (Our Father Below, sadly, included) stems from the enemy, all morality must as well.


The fear of the arbitrary is a weapon we use well, since it stems from the Enemy-inspired love of the eternal. Because of our centuries of darkening, the humans cannot put the arbitrary and the eternal on the same plane. We cannot allow them to say to themselves "Given that the Universe itself is an arbitrary being, which did not have to exist, why am I surprised that Morality would be, too?" Such thoughts lead inevitably to dangerous wonderings about the Necessary Being, which that miscreant Aquinas put on the track to theism centuries ago. We must always supress them.


And honestly, Scutpale, did you not see that allowing the arguments for atheism to appear next to the arguments for the existence of the Enemy ought never be put in the same room together? Of course none of the latter prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the enemy exists; the humans cannot see Him. That isn't the point. Do you not see that the atheist ones are based not on reality but on attitude? Of course it's difficult for their silly, time-bound reason to understand Him. How could it not be? These problems we have used well, but not a one of them demonstrate as a logical consequence that He does not exist, merely that He is poorly understood. The other side shows from the arbitrary nature of existence itself that He does exist. Put the two together and what do you have?


I sometimes wonder if your department takes a bit too much joy in it's work, the crafting of argument. Remember my predecessors dictum: He can argue, too, and our purpose is not to enliven their minds.




Yours in austere sublimity,



Toadpipe