GOD IS WHAT MAN WANTS TO THINK HE IS
Man tells you what to think of God. You take man's
word for it that he really got revelations from God. Man always judges morals
and doctrines to see if they came from God. Religion is human opinion pretending
or imagining it is not. It pretends to be God's work.
God and religion are simply masks. Man cannot claim
to be God so man does the next best thing - claim to be inspired to speak for
God. Though we are not to condemn something just because it can be abused, we
can condemn religion for the harm it has done because religion is an abuse.
Let me explain.
In the light of man's involvement in alleged
communications from God - they are only ever alleged and some allegations are
convincing but still false - it is man who tries to come up with explanations
for God allowing evil. It is man's word we take for it. That is so repulsive and
is repulsive because of the nature and magnitude of human suffering. It is
unspeakably repulsive when it is not God that is condoned even if there is one
but man's version of God or religion's version. It is like people
imagining they know Madonna through the media when in fact that does not amount
to knowing her at all but only knowing what perception there is of her.
HUMAN NATURE LIKES TO DEFINE GOOD ON HUMAN TERMS
The more evil and suffering you see around you in the
universe you say is God's creation, the more condoning you are doing.
If we look at human nature we worry more. The human
being is selective in her or his compassion just like everybody else is! She or
he can be glad that others are suffering and not loved ones. She or he can think
that those who suffer deserve it. Human nature often condones terrible treatment
of oneself and others for it relieves and keeps anger and hatred at bay and they
are horrible emotions. Human nature does not love good - it loves good when it
fits what it wants it to fit.
Is that the kind of creature that should be respected
for saying God lets evil happen for a purpose and even writes violent
commandments for a purpose? And people are attracted by imperfection to one
degree or another. Some like everything to have another side, an evil side. Are
they in a religion that praises the God of the evil Bible because his commands
were evil?
Do you want to be the kind of person who deliberately
condones? You may do it because you see many others doing it. You may fear
their condemnation and backstabbing if you stand up to them. So you just
play along.
Do you want to be the kind of person who sees
inexcusable evil, useless evil, the suffering of little babies, and who imagines
there is a divine purpose? That is very serious if there is no God. If there is
no God then man is disgracefully condoning terrible things in its name and
pretending it is in God's name. It means you fail to understand fully what
happened to the babies. You are not trying to. You are excusing something that
cannot be excused. You are hailing vicious ruthless blind nature as God. To
worship a non-existent God means you imagine that God has done what God has not
done. If you are decent, you will expect to be told if you are making such a
hideous mistake - the greatest one of all. Remember if you believe, "God is
right to let that plague torment babies to death though I don't know why" you
are saying you would do the same thing or try to if you were God or if God asked
you to run things for a while. Surely God should not be told he has such a huge
responsibility if he has not?
FREE WILL DEFENCE: THE SMOKESCREEN
What does the teaching of free will say about
believers?
Christians condone God letting us suffer by saying
that he is right to allow it to happen so that he can respect free will that is
let us do things without him controlling us. They say God is perfection itself.
They are saying then that they would send us that suffering if they had the
power to. If the freedom defence is wrong then there is no God so you have to
assume free will exists before you can assume God does.
The Church says that not all believers approach evil
with the attitude: "I don't care if the evil is intolerable and if there can be
no divine plan for it. I will condone it. I will assume there is a plan for I
want to feel good while others suffer." But how does the Church know this? At
least it admits that for many, the problem of God letting evil happen is about
blessing evil and not about trying to be part of his plan to eradicate it. Human
nature is dark and hides its true nature so would it be surprising if all
believers were wilfully condoning God's role when a baby suffers under his care?
People care not about good but about what they want
it to be. Human nature likes inventing its own good. It may be close to the real
thing but it is not the real thing. Even if it is a perfect match for real good,
it is not mean we are really attuned to what good is. It could be that we don't
care about good as good but only care about good for it happens to match what we
want good to be.
Thus people have no place speaking up for God when
terrible evil befalls. It could be their hypocrisy talking.
God would not send man on a mission to condone the
divine role in human suffering. It is like sending Jack the Ripper into a
mission field of prostitutes.
FINALLY
Human nature tends to condone evil. Some condone evil
even to the point where they will spill their blood in the service of evil. That
is why no reasonable person would let you get away with it if you do anything
that looks like condoning.
Condoning is too serious of a matter to ignore. If
religious people deny they condone the evil that happens, what if what they do
and say is indistinguishable from condoning? Anybody can and will condone and
deny it. Assume they are condoning. Assuming they mean well is not fair on the
victims of evil.
If you talk and act like you are condoning you are
condoning - period. No loving God would create a religion that creates such a
terrible risk. The risk has to be looked at as extremely serious and important.
It is people who suffer we are talking about.
Many condone what is obviously harmful. They might be
okay with vigilantes attacking a drug dealer.
Many condone the evil they do themselves and often
deny wrongdoing.
Many condone evil when they feel that nobody will
challenge them.
Many who condone cover it up. For example, they could
say, "God has to let great evil happen for we have to have free will to do good
or evil." Even if that could be correct, is it the reason they say God should
let evil happen?
For the purpose of argument, if many are not they are
still at fault. They make it easy for others to condone divine evil. And they
are at risk of condoning it themselves.
It is extremely easy to condone divine evil for it is
impossible to be caught out. Condoning human evil means some people will see
what you are doing. But God's evil cannot be checked out the same way. Thus it
makes sense to assume that a person who is okay with what God allows to happen
no matter how terrible is condoning for they will get away with it better.
God cannot ask you to just assume that the evil he
makes and the evil he allows is necessary for a good that is greater than the
evil and makes it worthwhile. It is evil in itself to assume something like
that. It is like you are permitting him to hurt babies and you don't know if you
should. No matter how much good you do, your empathy for the sufferer is lacking
at least as far as God is concerned. It is possible to care about a suffering
person one way but not another. Love does not stop you degrading those you love
in some way.
As terrible as it is to condone the evil done to you,
it is heinous to encourage others to condone what happens to them. It is even
more heinous for you to condone what happens to them.
Believers in God are using suffering people as a
means to an end. They try to turn the suffering of others into a lesson about
faith in God. I mean they look at a baby suffering and look at any alleged good
in it that results or happens in spite of it as evidence that God is with the
child holding her hand. This is about them idolising faith. It is wrong.
The believers in God are condoning divine evil. To
put it another way, they are refusing to see what divine pitiless nature is
doing to innocent creatures. They are like people who reason, "This baby has a
terrible disease. Somehow this disease has intelligence. It lovingly afflicts
the baby for if it does not a worse one would happen." That is refusing to admit
what evil is and it is whitewashing it. It is a kind of praise.
People who offer to pray for you should be firmly put
in their place. Doing that presupposes that God is right to let bad things
happen. It is an insult and a mark of evil. It is extremism in principle.
If you want to say God is right to allow suffering,
then your responsibility is to abandon a normal life and dedicate yourself to
others and give them your food. Put your actions where your faith is for there
is something disgraceful about the likes of the Pope praising God when he has
comforts that are denied little babies and little animals.
A supreme God who exists only in the mind of man will
produce evil for man thinks much evil. Such a contrived God even if it does not
encourage evil does nothing to thwart it. It has no intrinsic power to help with
evil. And the supreme God notion gives man a way to say, "It is God making these
rules not me". How clever and how empowering for man! The human origin of faith
in God and how dangerous that faith is in the hands of religious fraudsters and
liars and politicians and monarchs and prophets shout one thing out: DROP GOD!
Everybody agrees that nobody's suffering should be used by you to show yourself or anybody else how good you are. Let us put aside the fact that you have literally NO entitlement to do that. The more innocent the person is and the more helpless then the less entitlement you have to do it. You will use their suffering by praying and by saying you have faith. It is vile for you are not the one in their shoes. They are doing the suffering . Risking using or creating the temptation to use is bad enough but doing it is worse. There is no justification for it for their suffering is not about you.
If I did not have to make a substance and make it and it is only good for poisoning people then I would be called evil for making it if it were the case that people would be better off if I just hid the then why is it okay for God to do that? Even more to the point why is it okay for me to judge, or worse assume, that God should be okay with that? That is me inventing and why am I not condemned for that when I would be if I made up a God and excused the evil I think he did?
Religion says God gives suffering so we may use it. So the "evil and suffering has a purpose" brigade are saying, "When you suffer you are an agent." That is a diabolical suggestion. It blames the sufferer.
To argue that God uses your suffering to do great good means you have a high opinion of your suffering and its value. You are soothing the pain and fear with pride and arrogance. That leads to a poor attitude to the suffering of others.
To argue that God uses the
suffering of others is worse. You cannot suffer as much as most people do. So
you have to be talking only about their suffering or mainly about their
suffering. There is something sick in arguing that other people's suffering
benefits while practically leaving your own out of it. Unless you are willing to
take what they have to take instead of condoning their suffering you have no
right.
Faith in God needs to cease being esteemed for it
tempts and seduces people into condoning divine cruelty. And some think
God is indifferent but they don't care as long as the indifference does not
affect them. An indifferent God can still give you good things for
indifference is simply not giving a damn about you. Indifference is worse
than cruelty for it follows no rules at all. You should do anything rather
than risk condoning or worse worshipping a cruel or uncaring God...
APPENDIX
Well done Barbara!
"I am ashamed, in retrospect, that I ever found it
possible to worship the supposed creator of over-reproduction, sentient food,
disease, and natural disasters. If I still believed in an omnipotent creator, I
would have to heap curses on him".
I love these lines. They simply express the
assumption that instead of trying to make out a baby's terrible suffering is
allowed to happen for a good reason by God you help the baby. Do not waste any
of your care on God and bestow it all on the baby. If hypothetically we have to
help the baby for her own sake or for God's (because he wants us to help others
not because they need it but out of devotion for him and he commands it) and it
has to be one or the other who should we choose? If we say God then it follows
that there is some misanthropy in us. Human nature needs an outlet for its dark
side. Some would say that the saints were able to be so good because their
outlet for evil was in condoning the sick and twisted ways of God and of those
lousy enough to back him up. Not so good underneath it all then...
