RELIGION LIES THAT IT BATTLES EVIL FOR IT ONLY SEEKS TO CONTAIN IT

We all know that evil leads to people trying to fight it with evil.  It is all down to the evil one prefers.  People are only against the evils they do not like and for the ones they do like. Anything that lies about that, anyone that lies about it, is a friend of evil.

There is no way you can understand evil if you don’t think lying is inherently evil and thus always wrong. Lying in that case is just bad and though it may seem to help in a situation, you are still making a society where people start to distrust and lies stop working for people don’t trust you. Lying then is not bad because of the consequences but the consequences are mere results of it being bad.

Understand this carefully. Evil is defined as a lie about the person and the abuse happens as a result of the lie. The evil is the lie.

Most believe that evil is regarding a human not as a dignified person but as a thing. You use the person for your own benefit. That is inherently abuse. A person is not there just for you. Alternatively you may see the person as a roadblock that needs to be kicked out of the way. The person stands in front of what you really want and they don’t matter.

Interestingly, religion says that God alone ultimately matters as the total origin of all we have and are.  So the evil of treating God as a thing infinitely surpasses that of treating a child like a football.

Religionists who say that atheists can be good are lying. It is probably cowardice and they do not wish to get a visit from the police over hate. Or is their faith not as genuine as they claim?  The bad person believes the other person does not feel much and the atheist believes there is no God.  Both fall back on a belief that refuses somebody their dignity.

Yet the other side of that is that the atheist can see the religionist as refusing to look at the dignity of the person but looking at an unconvincing God's.  To an atheist, that is evil.

From how lying is so rampant it is clear we have all done evil and will do it again.

If evil and good are so hard to tell apart then what is the point?  People warn that there is also a good side so that is why we should keep challenging evil.  They advise hope. 

Or perhaps we have a side that is best described as not-evil if good is too strong of a word.  People fighting for good are ignoring how getting rid of an evil does not mean putting a good there but making something non-evil.

There is a problem with how if we harbour evil, that the good we do then seems to be done not because it is good but because it suits us. If you were truly wanting to be good you would throw the evil out then do the good.  That way you are making sure your intentions are pure.

A person who sees good and evil as a battleground is said to be in high danger of becoming evil themselves over such a philosophy. The temptation to become a monster to fight a monster will arise.

It is warned that evil is never satisfied and has to demand more and more. It wants to go and spread and give birth to more evils that suit it. This is especially true of a person who will not reform.

They talk as if the evil itself will keep going and never stop until it is forced to stop. They talk as if the person carrying the evil will never be placated.

So is it half and half?

If we don’t know should we assume it is more the evil than the person or should we assume it is more the evil than the person?

Now this surely will lead to the evil person blaming the evil inside them for encouraging them or forcing them.

The only guaranteed way to stop the evil is to kill the person.

We all know that evil does indeed go to war against evil.

So you cannot say evil keeps trying to grow and then tell a person not to become a monster to fight it. That makes no sense. We see that merely believing in evil is enough to make you bad.

Religion when it condemns evil means that evil is indeed the lie but it is the lie that the other person has not got the same dignity from God and in God as you have. This means that anyone who fails to state that and keep it in focus or who is atheist and discards it entirely is evil.

We are all guilty of damning a whole group for what some people in the group do. We do not argue, “Right once you do that you are no longer part of that group.” It is not up to us to declare them excommunicated or expelled from their group. And even if it were we would not class them as outside the group. And we tend to ignore how the group itself still treats them as brethren. That means the group itself is asking for assessment as a group for what harm its members do.

So for that reason we should be blamed for our influence or lack of it.  The other person in the group does the evil yes but we are not guilt-free.  This is true even even if it is a person we do not know. Influence carries wider than we can imagine.

Another issue is how as Jesus said, sin is crafty as is Satan himself is. So the evil person, the devil and the evil all put out smokescreens. And they are likely to be different ones so that makes it more confusing. Evil does not like being clearly diagnosed so while you try to tell yourself that the bad person is mixing good and bad the reality is you have to be suspicious of the good. The good is the worst part for it is the mask. A good injection needle is used to deliver the poison. So to call anybody’s deed evil means you are NOT focusing just on the evil. You say you are but you are not. So it stands to reason you are not reliable when you say you condemn only the bad a group will do and confess that there are good people in it

Evil is always the tip of the iceberg. Religion says chances are people hide it hides itself too and always tries to look justified. So if you see it nobody else sees it exactly as you do. Many pretend to see it but do not for they don’t want to be thought of as morally deficit. Only an individual attempts to diagnose. It is not like a rash. It is like a virus that nobody knows much about. You know that evil if it is crafty and invites and feeds on craftiness so it cannot really be treated but just quarantined or contained or limited. So only you think you know what to do. We see then how belief in evil cuts each person off everybody else and demands an almost solipsist response. We all know evil people are largely like the individual who thinks they alone can decide what to do.

The Law of Attraction in spiritual circles is a form of victim-blaming.  The person is accused of causing their own cancer and wasting the hospital's resources.  They did this by not praying, or obeying God or by thinking fearful thoughts.  The religious person modifies this a bit by saying that prayer only guarantees God will be with you not that you will never contract the terrible illness you pray against.  But they admit that they cannot be sure or give evidence that any particular person has not asked for their cancer by failing to pray correctly.  Also, they claim that the person who finds nothing where they are supposed to maybe find God is deluded or blind.  That is a clear example of a Law of Attraction doctrine, "If you pray correctly you will have God and you have him no matter what evidence or experience is saying you do not."  It bullies the person and refuses to hear them.  It is serious for it says that once you decide God is not there, that bad things come to you for you are outside his protection and blocking it.  This is as very bit as vicious as the version of the Law that we all know and hate.

It is no wonder we develop a prejudice against a group for what a few within it does because we tend to remember the bad a person has done against us and forget the good. That alone would mean that we are asking for that treatment ourselves or cannot judge it if it happens.

If forgiveness is a gift from God to you and the other person then you must also be rewarded for granting it and the other for acting it.

The notion that it is a gift leads directly to a dangerous sense of security, essentially a placebo. You deal with the threat of harm by dismissing it.

Forgiveness is simply letting the past go and saying it does not matter anymore and things can get better. So to forgive somebody taking a sip from your beer is just as much forgiving as forgiving a cruel vicious massacre where your people are tortured to death. We want to believe that forgiving the latter is something amazing and noble while the former is a trifle.