What makes Satan really interesting for authors like Milton is not necessarily his “evil-ness,” but that he’s ambitious. His crime? Not “I don’t believe,” but “I will not serve” (Non Serviam).

Sometimes, at least in popular culture, the only way to establish the existence of philosophy of a god is to flesh out your satan because God is everything Satan is not. Which always seems a bit of a cop-out — I’d love to see a God character who’s complex, ambitious, smart, schooled and yet zen-like, playful, loving without being smarmy. In short, someone we can kind of relate to — if Albert Einstein is asking too much, then someone like Bob Newhart. Alanis Morrisett’s God in *Dogma* only hints at the kind of character one can create (Milton wouldn’t dream of humanizing his God), and the Jesuses of Jesus Christ Superstar or Godspell or Last Temptation of Christ try really hard to humanize the deity.

I have no idea if there’s a god, but I know full well that I live in a society with people who believe there’s a god. And that’s why this discussion of acceptance, tolerance, and love matters, Allyson, because these beliefs are turned into actions and laws. Theologically, if there’s a risk of humanizing God, of making Him seem less than perfect and good, and if that risk is felt as dangerous in undercutting belief and faith (a debatable claim, of course), the risks of holier-than-thou and love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin attitudes and actions levied upon gender- and sex- and belief-variant people are far greater, and thus it is worth re-examining our concepts of good and evil and hate and love for the sakes of our fellow citizen-sinners.