Ask Yourself Some Questions
I
Is it love to tell people that an all-good God exists? No because it is to say
that people should not be valued above all but he should for he is all-good and
better than us.
That is putting belief before people. If it is okay to do that then how could
hurting people in the name of God be wrong?
II
Is it love to tell people to give all their love to a God instead of a human
being when you will have to be necessarily surer that the human being exists
than that God does? Is it not delusion to claim that you know God exists better
than you know your neighbour exists?
Jesus went as far as to COMMAND that God must be loved with all the heart
(emotions) and our entire being - to be loved with all the love we are capable
of. A command implies force - obey or suffer. The fact that it's a commandment
implies that the fact that love can only be asked for - not commanded - is to be
rejected. That alone is bigoted and twisted. If God is really the good maker of
all good people it follows that they should be valued for his sake and not their
own. So he alone is loved in the strict sense.
Jesus quoted the command from the Jewish Law which he said was the word of God
and in the Law (Deuteronomy 6:4-9) the commandment is treated as the only one
that ultimately matters. It is the one that we are told to obsess with. The
demand to love ones neighbour is not exalted to that level in the Law. So Jesus
agrees with the law but why does he say that love of neighbour is important too?
He is indicating that the command to love God alone contains the other
commandments the greatest of which is to love neighbour. Loving neighbour is
really about loving God only. In other words, love your neighbour not for
themselves but because God says so.
Lovers say they love their beloved one with all their hearts. They do not. They
still feel love for a parent or child or pet or whatever. They keep some love
for people other than the beloved. They deprive the beloved. They take the love
they could give him or her and bestow it on another. Jesus said the commandment
was the greatest meaning that whoever has feelings for themselves or others is
the vilest thing this side of Hell.
The Catholic Church says in the Catechism of Christian Doctrine that we are to
love our neighbour for God's sake - it's not about loving them for their own
sake. So it is really about loving and valuing God. Thus we must value people
only for his sake and not for their own.
Jesus clarified that as follows when he embraced little children - "Whosoever
shall receive one of such children in my name, receiveth me: and whosoever shall
receive me, receiveth not me, but him that sent me" (Mark 9:37). He is showing
that he means welcoming a person in the loose sense. Strictly speaking it is
only God that is to be welcomed. That is how the seeming contradiction between
loving God alone and loving neighbour is reconciled. He is clear that he does
not mean, "Whoever receives a child does not just receive the child but receives
me too". "Receiveth not me", makes that plain.
Jesus said, "Whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to
Christ, I solemnly tell you that he will certainly not lose his reward" (Mark
9:41). You are to serve others not out of common kindness but to show love for
Christ.
These doctrines are so horrendous, that apart from Mother Teresa, most people
just water them down. On the bright side, if God is to be loved completely and
nobody else then it follows that nothing is to be hated more than belief in God
if he does not exist! Opposition is impossible to avoid. To say there is a God
is to oppose those who say there isn't or that we are not really sure. To say
there is no God is to oppose those who say there is or who say that there is a
good chance there might be a God.
III
Is it love to be ordered or asked to believe that it is God's concern what you
do? Let us examine this. Is evil wrong because God says so or is it wrong
whether there is a God or not? If it is wrong because God says so then God can
order us to abuse children. Obeying would be right and good. If even God cannot
make right wrong or good evil then we can be good without God. Good would be
independent of God. It would be his job to discover what is good but he cannot
make anything good just by commanding it. Also, even if you believed God
condemned something, you would have the right to disagree on the grounds that
its only a belief.
The Christian reply that good is God's nature so that what he commands is good
does not solve the problem. The reply is only a trick to make it appear they
have an answer. Both the view that God makes things good by commanding them and
the view that good is independent of God are fatal to the notion that we need to
believe in a God who commands good in order to have a moral code. The Christian
answer is just a rewording and amalgamation of the two views disguised as a
third view. So it's worse than either of them.
The proper view is that we don't need to believe in God to believe in helping
people with joy and compassion. In fact, even if there is a God, we should be
doing good for it is good and not to please him. It's none of his business. Good
is more important than God or prayer. Jesus said that we must love God with all
our powers and this is the greatest commandment and the next greatest is to love
one's neighbour - thus it is less important to help a leper than to love God. He
plainly declared that God and Christian doctrine comes before anything else. We
reject such attitudes as the seeds of violence and religious war.
Is it love to be asked to keep laws that hurt just because God supposedly made
them? Religion claims that God knows what is best and can command what seems to
be morally abhorrent from our perspective. For example, he harshly commands that
people who divorce and remarry must suffer Hell forever. Religion says, "Doctors
and politicians make decisions which seem cruel but which are necessary evils so
why can't God do it? So we must obey God." Is the doctrine of divine authority
not the reason why we see religious inspired violence and peoples’ lives wrecked
by listening to God’s ministers? Oh what power it gives them! Is it any wonder
we read in the Old Testament that God wanted homosexuals caught in the act not
just put to death but tortured to death? Religion has sinister implications –
therefore it is dangerous and no child should be exposed to its seductions.
Society needs to start frowning on the baptism of children and stop any form of
religious education of children that can be termed abuse. Eg telling a child not
to think or that fornicators will suffer in Hell forever if they do not repent.
Rules should be kept to a bare minimum for breaking them makes it harder for the
breaker to love herself so that she can help herself and others better and
produces more fear – fear is the reason we do wrong. Is it love to be asked to
keep laws that don’t hurt just because God supposedly made them? No for then you
are keeping the laws not because they are harmless but because God made them
which means you would observe them even if they were harmful. See what is good
and do it. You don’t need a God to be your king.
IV
Is it love to tell people that there is a supernatural purpose for evil meaning
much suffering should happen? If we really care about people we will not believe
that and we will not let people suffer nor believe that they should. Even if you
deny that people should suffer, once you believe in God you cannot be as sure of
that so it undermines you and insults them. Dentists have to hurt people to help
them but we should not believe that the rotting teeth in the first place have a
good purpose that only God knows and has planned. The people you see must come
before the God you cannot see. The truly good person does not try to find ways
to condone what appears reprehensible. The believer is no better than the
do-gooder who tries to find excuses for a child torturer's grave depravity.
V
Is it love to be asked to follow scriptures, prophets and priests as the
mouthpieces of God whose revelations we have a duty to accept for we have no
right to contradict God? In practice there is no difference between a person who
may really speak for God and one who is just lying to get an undue influence
over your life. Maybe the prophet is genuine but you don't know that! Those who
are lied to are convinced the impostor is not a fake. Even experts in theology
or philosophy are often taken in or pretend to be. To promote faith in God when
this faith is not faith in God at all but faith in men and in their alleged
authority from God to speak for him is wrong. It is really promoting their
interpretation, and their perception which is wrong and bigoted. They make
decisions that are supposed to be God’s but there is no practical difference
between obeying men who really are from God and men who are not but say they
are. Most people are not skilled enough to see through the deception and it is
evil to ask them to obey popes and prophets. To follow prophets is to follow men
not God even if they claim to speak for God. There are countless versions of the
faith even within each religion. There are countless religions and possible
scenarios for inventing a new religion. Most people, even experts, must be
making mistakes. To follow any religion is really to follow men. End of story.
VI
Is it love to promote religion which tells the lie that we can sacrifice? We
can’t sacrifice for we do what we want to do depending on the circumstances. If
you don’t want to be rich and ignore this desire to take the wealth nobody sees
that as a sacrifice! If that isn’t then nothing is. Thus we must be suspicious
of saints and altruists! Religion teaches that love is sacrifice and denies that
loving others through yourself, ie loving yourself automatically makes you nicer
to other people for you are happy to share yourself with them which is egoism is
love. Religion is really just getting in the way of goodness. Religion lies in
wait to deceive.
VII
Is it love to promote religion which tells the lie that to say Adam did wrong
freely (wasn’t programmed by nature) is to suggest that Adam is at least partly
evil and therefore partly hateful? You can’t love the sinner if you hate the sin
(ie despise as immoral and worthy of punishment) or see it as evil any more than
you can say you trust the sinner but not his sins with a straight face! To
condemn Adam’s sin as evil is as good as saying Adam is evil. To say you make a
distinction between blame and responsibility is to add to the hypocrisy. To say
somebody is responsible for evil is to blame them - declare them deserving of
punishment and condemnation - at least implicitly. It is never the evil action
that is the problem but the evil in the person that is shown by the action. It
is that that really hurts and awakens our desire for retribution.
Religion stop your lies. You do not love the sinner and hate the sin. You say
you do. If you hate the sin, you must hate the sinner for the sin only reveals
the sinner and says what kind of person he is. It cannot be separated from the
sinner. To say John’s homework is bad is to say John is bad - at least up to a
point. You may love your evil father but when you think of him as evil or sinful
you hate him then. In fact, the true opposite of love is not hate but
indifference for you can't really hate a person unless you value or love them in
some way. So to call on people to love sinners and hate sins is incitement to
hatred. You can't really hate a brick for falling on you. You do feel a personal
hatred whenever people hurt you because it is not the deed they have done you
hate but them. You can't hate a thing such as a deed but only the doer of the
deed! How can religion say it loves when it lies about those who admit that
nobody can love sin and hate sinners? Religion even smears them as dishonest
people! Religion, your hatred is so sneaky and hypocritical and you have
slandered, tortured and killed people through your lies.
Let us work against bad deeds but not hate them. We don't need to hate. Be an
atheist and joyful in your atheism.
To see through, "Judge the sin not the sinner" (you cannot see a person as a
sinner unless you judge them as such), is to disprove the notion of a God who
loves us in spite of our sins. It demolishes the only reason for wanting to
believe in God. And a God that has to love us in spite of our evil is one that
in some way has to trick or force himself to like and love us. That's no boost
for our self-esteem! The doctrine is harmful.
VIII
Is it love to ask or encourage people to join and commit to faith organisations
or religions that can be done without and which are too amenable to abuse? If
you want faith work out your own needs and invent your own faith to satisfy them
and keep it private. Religion gives people an extra and needless excuse to fight
and kill and so it is bad.
IX
Is it love to promote something that tells you that you have to believe x, y and
z? Who cares if people don’t believe that Jesus is the Son of God – what matters
is how they treat themselves and if they bring joy to others. Humanism only
advises people to believe whatever puts people - ourselves included - first and
only asks them to be very careful and not to be afraid to change their minds. If
religion is acceptable, then why not help people to find the beliefs that work
for them and improve their lives? Religion seeks to get people to believe the
same things as it believes, not caring if it is best for them or not.
X
Is it love to put faith in God and religion above all when all you really have
is not faith in God but faith that others have faith in him? God is an idol made
out of second hand information and hearsay.
Religion is divisive and causes suspicion and trouble and war. It encourages
labels and labels whether they are true or not have amazing power to create an
us not them kind of system that leads to discrimination. If God is good
and religion is man-made then clearly it is dangerous. Anything human carries
risks and it make sense to abandon religion to reduce the risks.
Religion likes to preach tolerance but tolerance says, "I have my reasons for
having to put up with you. Pity!" There is enough to be intolerant about without
religion making it worse.
