~ god versus goodness ~
Index~ Click To Navigate THIS Site
THE SPIRIT
GOD AN INTOLERANT CONCEPT
GOD SANCTIONS
THE EVIL ALTRUISM DOCTRINE
DETERMINISTS
- TARGETS OF THEIST BIGOTRY
SINNERS BANNED FROM DOING GOOD
INTRODUCTION
People think they want to believe in God.
That is because they don’t know what the belief implies about
discrimination, prayer, lying, murder and capital punishment and how it tries
to loosen the seams of mental well-being.
This book wants to tell them that they have been fooled.
Error is a bad thing. People may
get upset at their errors exposed but they shouldn’t and should be willing to
believe whatever the evidence states is fact so error is never good. To want to live safe in your errors is a
refusal to mature and to respect other people and what is real. It also is refusing to acknowledge what is
real and you can’t respect others if you don’t care about what is real. To say that a good God exists is a very
serious error for it means being wrong that a being of infinite goodness and
purity and knowledge who demands our obedience is out there.
Humanism does not militate against the doctrine of God just because it is
untrue but also because it is a lethal time bomb. The doctrine has sinister implications some
of which anybody could see and it can lead to harmful manifestations of
religion and breed and justify fanaticism.
Fanaticism is whatever conflicts with the rule: “Do what you believe in
but not if harm will be done should the belief be wrong that would not happen
if you believed something nicer”. My
book, The Case Against Altruism, proves that
belief in God is hazardous in every possible way. The information in Love People, Not God
is supplementary to that. As long as
religion likes God it cannot be permitted to take back the power it had before
the nations began to disentangle the Church from the state. Complete separation is a must.
THE SPIRIT GOD AN INTOLERANT CONCEPT
The reason people believe in God is that he is spirit and did not need a
creator so they think he is the only possible explanation for how things came
to be. Spirit is the opposite of matter
for it has no parts. It’s like a circle
whose centre and circumference is everywhere.
Spirit does not need to be made because there is no need for anybody to
put it together. The first alarm bell
regarding whether or not God is a good belief should have sounded by now for it
is clear that God flouts the laws of mathematics. If God’s circumference is his centre then
good can be evil and evil can be good.
If God was matter then there would be no need to believe in him for you
might as well believe things came to be as they are by themselves.
So when God is spirit it follows that he is one entity without division
which means that his powers of love and his justice and his intelligence are
all one and the same power in him. It is
like the Trinity, three persons and there still being only one God. The result of this belief is that God and goodness
are regarded as the same thing. For the
Atheist, goodness is not a being but for the religionist goodness is a
being. God is a being who is also an
abstract, goodness. This is totally
incomprehensible and unintelligible. An
abstract is not a thing. 1+1=2 is not a
thing. If you say a being is an abstract
then either it is not a being at all or it is.
If it is not a being it cannot be worshipped for it is an abstract. If it is a being then the abstract of
goodness is above it and separate from it.
Then it is not God. The concept
of the God spirit itself opposes the distinction we make between good and evil
for it opposes reason and urges us to pretend that our contradicting ourselves
is not contradicting ourselves. The
concept is evil and should be abandoned.
You will see a reply to the view that we need God to explain creation in
my online books, There is No God and God is a Self-Contradictory
Notion.
If God exists he must be good because he causes goodness for our
existence would be worse than Hell if he were evil. A spirit can’t be both bad and good for it is
one power without parts and that power is either bad or good. Only a perfectly sensible being can be
supreme.
Now if God is
goodness itself as the spirit theology states then it follows that Atheists and
agnostics and those who don’t take their faith in God seriously are evil
people. They don’t know or see what real
goodness is, a person, and so they are bad news. They are turning their back on a person who
is goodness and so they are totally wicked.
If God is goodness then it follows that if you don’t see that he exists
then you are blinding yourself on purpose for the good in you should make you
see it. You are silencing and trying to
pervert the good in you so you would be a thoroughly bad egg. People should be chosen for jobs only if
their piety is strong for these are more sincere and trustworthy. Even if an unbeliever seems trustworthy this
is only an act or he or she would love to do the dirty on you but can’t for
some reason. It is accepted that genuine
people should be preferred for jobs (even if the false person who does an
excellent job at pulling the wool over the eyes of others will do as good a
job) for it makes everybody more comfortable working with them. So believers cannot tolerate Atheists. Atheists who know their stuff should find the
doctrine of God the Great Spirit to be very offensive and threatening. We will not stand by and let ourselves be
insulted.
If God is
goodness and a person then he comes first not people. We should help people not because we want to
help them or ourselves but to please God.
If God comes first we should be glad to see Atheists dying tragically
and prematurely because they do not honour him.
We should put them at the back of hospital waiting lists. You might think that hospitals are for curing
the sick not for judging but if God comes first and should be put first then
everything should be done his way. After
all the hospital would not exist without him and neither would the desire to
help the sick.
God is said to
answer all prayers that plead for the enlightenment of the Atheists and others
for wisdom is one of the most important gifts.
So prayer accuses Atheists and agnostics and believers who barely
believe of resisting his light if they don’t convert to theism or to whatever
faith the one doing the praying thinks is the true religion. This is insulting and arrogant.
Anybody that
attracts people to faith by claiming miracles have happened is opposing our
rights and our right to a sound reputation.
GOD – THE BOOSTER JAB FOR SIN
To do harm is bad enough. But religion makes this harm worse by saying that it offends God. So if there were no God, or you believed there were none, you would not be as evil as you would be if you believed in one for you have an extra being, that Great Dignity called God, to take offence. The God belief increases sin. It is immoral. It implies that morality does and should not care what damage it does. It evangelises for a harmful form of legalism. Religion will reply that it makes your goodness better too. But you can do good and not believe and still mean it to please a God.
If God exists then sin is infinitely bad for God hates it infinitely for he is infinitely good or would be. When all sin is infinite, all sin must be equally bad. Anything then that does not seek to root out self-will and make the person all for God is sinful so everything we do is a sin for even the greatest saint says they do not love God perfectly. That means there is no goodness in us for good is just a pretence when we refuse to be totally God-centred. That is a cynicism-inducing doctrine and will make people feel good about murdering and other serious wrongdoing. When you are a sinner anyway why not be a murdering one?
Since sin is infinitely evil that means God comes first and nothing ever justifies sin. It is possible to sin and be mentally ill. It is like being guilty but insane in the law. If a mentally-ill person could not refrain from a world saving act because it would be sinful for him, sin is so bad that he should let the world die.
Failure to put God first is sin. Belief in sin harms us and does not care as much for human life and happiness as it does for pleasing God. It follows then that God comes first and is the only thing that matters.
Sin is intending to do harm so many say that it is a mistake to accuse religion of ethical scepticism just because it says that sins which caused a general decline in sin and did more good than bad are still wrong. They say you still do wrong by meaning to be wrong. Religion is falling into ethical scepticism by saying that you can’t do evil like murder or adultery and have a clean motive even if they will enhance the spiritual lives of others. Even ethical sceptics believe their actions are right for we are all made to do whatever we think is right at the time so there is no such thing as meaning to be wrong. The objective rightness or wrongness of an action is another issue.
If God allows feelings then he wants our strongest feelings to be devoted to him and his pleasing. But there is a link between love and hate. Love makes it easier to hate the person you love. It causes hate. God is asking for trouble when he wants all that love. At least if you love a number of human beings and hate some of them the hate will not be as strong as it would be if you loved one person with all that love and turned against the person. Then your hate will be strong for you have loved that person so much. But God wants to be loved more than any person which means that if God makes you angry the hatred you will feel will be very dangerous and terrifying and strong. You will also be crippled with a hideous guilt. All this will lead you to do bad things to others for people only hurt others when they are unhappy about something. Also if you love several people you may not hate too much if somebody hurts any of them. But if you give all your love to God then you will utterly detest anybody who doesn’t honour him. God and his commandments are our enemies and the enemies of the whole human race. We have enough to hate people about without the God belief making a contribution.
GOD SANCTIONS THE EVIL ALTRUISM DOCTRINE
Morality cannot
be dependent on God but God must be opposed to it when the evil doctrine of
altruism – doing good and not caring if I get a benefit from it or not - is
true if there is a God. God implies altruism
for he says all I do should be done for his sake only. (By the way, if I should not put myself first
then it does not matter if God commands altruism or not. Altruism is still true.)
When religion
tells you that God loves you it means that God wants you to be self-sacrificing
for love is not looking for happiness but is sacrifice. Jesus said nobody
should be praised for loving those who love them meaning that real goodness is
sacrifice. It is said that you value a
person more if you give up happiness for them and religion says that persons
are more valuable than happiness. So
God’s love is frightening.
According to God,
who said it through Moses and Jesus in the Bible, you must love your neighbour
as yourself. Since love is sacrifice,
then loving your neighbour as yourself means you encourage your neighbour to
sacrifice for God as much as you do not that you seek pleasure and happiness
for your neighbour as yourself. That is
why Jesus said the great commandment to love God alone was like the one to love
the neighbour as oneself and John in the First Epistle of John in God’s word
the Bible said that both loves go together and you cannot have one without the
other. It is a terrible sacrifice to
transfer all your natural feelings to God so that you can love him and to put
him before yourself and be willing to suffer horribly if it is his will so
loving your neighbour cannot be pleasant either. The two are alike in their horrific demands.
It is a sin to
help your neighbour when you could be encouraging him to do selfless good
instead. To be happy when your Christian
wife is kind to you is foolish for she is only doing it to please God and not
you for she believes in Jesus’ commandment to love God with all our being and
that God is owed all that love. If she really cares for you even a bit then
she regards caring as sin and she believes that she cannot love you or God with
sin in her heart so she cannot win unless she becomes an Atheist. If God’s will was that she should not do good for her husband she would not be doing it so she does
not care for him at all. She loves him
in the sense that she treats him as God wants him to be treated which is not loving him at all.
The Christian law of love is so horrible that it would make you
anti-social.
The Bible never
says that I must love myself in the sense that it clearly approves of this
love. We always love ourselves in some
way though it is distorted in the case of the person with low self-esteem. Jesus may have the thought in mind: “It is
not a sin to love yourself because you cannot help it. But if the nearest you can get to getting rid
of this love is by distorting it then do so.”
Jesus had a
different meaning for love than we generally have there is no reason to believe
that he tolerated self-love even when he said we must love our neighbour as
ourselves. Love, in his book, meant
doing the will of God be it bad or good for you and trusting him even to the
extreme of being willing to die for his revelation even if death was the end or
the gateway to Hell for having the wrong beliefs. There is nothing reasonable or pleasant in
this “love”. To love God means doing
God’s will without reserve and without hesitation and to love your neighbour
means, “Do what God wants you to do to them” and is not about affection towards
them for themselves.
When God made us he made us to choose between self and him and
consequently hopes that we will choose to do what is painful and reject the
self. Naturally, God will make moral
rules just for the sake of testing us to make sure everybody is faced with the
struggle all the time for real right and wrong will not be enough. This idea ensures that religion will be
divisive and refuse to listen to reason.
It would be dangerous to suffer for a test when it could be that the
religion is wrong and God does not want you to do that test at all. Some God cults order women to let men they
find repellent ravish them.
A doctrine about how we should behave is worthless without a reason why
we should do what it says. Doing
anything because you just suppose it is right is evil for you are just guessing
and need not be. You are doing it
because you suppose it is right and not because you think it is right. Ignorance is no excuse for there are plenty
of books and teachers to guide you.
If we should be selfless as a moral duty, there is no reason why we
should be unless there is a God. We need
the God theory to be able to give an excuse for believing in selflessness. We cannot consider selflessness good because
it makes us happy indirectly for that would make it to be really
selfishness. It is good because it does
not help us. We cannot consider it to be
good because it helps others for we can do that to please ourselves. And if it is good to help others then why is
it bad to be a taker but good to be a giver as the philosophy replies?
Making a law of altruism presupposes that there is a God of absolute
perfection and goodness and holiness who must come first for he would do
infinite good for you. Altruism that
puts people first is fake for it can only be concerned and directed towards
God.
EGOISM AND SIN
I am more sure I exist than I am that anything else exists therefore any
doctrine of right and wrong that does not tell me to put myself first in
reasonable ways (rational egoism) is evil and demanding. The things I am most certain of have to come
first.
We are more certain of our existence than of God’s so he would have no
right to ask us to believe in his prophets who reveal his morality but we have
to work out our own without his influence.
We cannot put the word of a greater uncertainty before the welfare of
the greater certainties. In other words,
you don’t refuse your patient who will die without an abortion an abortion just
because God forbids abortion totally.
The doctrine of sin, sin means an offence against God, contradicts the
profound truth that I should be my own God.
It says that since I have offended God the worst thing I have done is to
offer malice to God. That is the worst
part of my sin for it is better to hurt myself or another person than to hurt
God. If I hurt my friend it is not my
friend that matters but God who does not approve.
Egoism implies that when you do wrong what is so bad about it is how you
misuse yourself to do wrong. What is
wrong is the degradation to yourself.
Some find the suggestion that when Hitler did what he did to the Jews
what was wrong in this was that he demeaned himself to be totally
shocking. But there is no denying that
it is true. It is true that the killing
of the six million was objectively wrong or should not have happened. We are not undermining that but it is also
true that Hitler like us all could only really care about himself so it follows
that he had to emotionally and mentally harm himself and degrade himself to be
able to do this terrible thing. If he
hadn’t it wouldn’t have happened. So
what he did wrong was to abuse himself and we see from the objective wrongness
of what he did that it was wrong and it was self-abuse. We are saying that Hitler’s thinking was
twisted so badly that it could see mass murder as justifiable and his feelings
were also warped to produce this thinking with such unspeakable consequences
for the innocents he got killed. There
is no doubt that he was full of evil.
The people died because he degraded himself in these ways so much. Degrading yourself has bad consequences for
others. Even an altruist cannot do wrong
without degrading his reason and having disordered feelings. He turns away from health to sickness.
There is nothing shocking about saying when a person does something terrible
that what was wrong was they did not respect themselves. Not when respecting yourself is the only way
to be able to respect other people. We all take this for granted. We are not saying it doesn’t matter about the
harm that is done. If the harm didn’t
matter then the person would not be degrading himself by doing great evil. Of course it matters. There is nothing frightening about saying
what we are saying for we cannot please others unless we please them to please
ourselves for they like us to help them because we enjoy it even if it is for
no other reason. They want us to be
egoists no matter how much they may deny it.
If egoism is true we are here to please ourselves. Then there is no purpose in suffering so God
cannot exist. It can only be right to
allow suffering if a person could put others or God first of their own free
will. But the nearest they can get to
doing that is learning to like to some degree helping others more than
themselves but since they rather like it they are helping themselves for they
are taking pleasure.
I have to live my life by the things I am most certain about. I am more sure I exist than I am that others exist. I am more sure that others exist than that God does for I cannot see or sense God like I do them. It follows that I come first, my neighbour next and God last if he exists. The doctrine that I don’t matter and other people don’t matter in comparison to God means that morality or right and wrong should be all about God. I must work for God and not for me. If God exists that would be only right for he is so great and perfect. Morality or right and wrong will not attract me unless I see what is in it for myself so the God concept then blocks the tendency to do right so any good done is done in spite of belief in God not because of it. Therefore any evil done in the name of God or religion is the fault of God or religion even if they say they condemn the actions. Catholicism says you can sin terribly all your life and repent and be saved on your deathbed meaning that you have no reason to be good until then or near then.
The doctrine of sin commands me to insult and hoodwink my neighbour so it is a violation of decency.
The egoist cannot believe in sin. Right and wrong yes but not sin which is a religious idea meaning disobedience to God.
WEIL VERSUS THE GOD OF POWER
Simone Weil believed that the idea of a God of power and might provoked a
response of fear and the thought that he was your king would make you angry
towards him for making demands on your freedom.
She said that for God to suit our needs he would have to empty himself
of his divinity and cease to be God (page 93,98, Faith and Ambiguity). To be an example of self-renunciation he would
have to give up the privileges of being God.
It would not be enough for him to empty himself of deity as man in Jesus
for essentially he would still be the same sovereign God for only the human
part would be emptied.
The following might be the response of some to this. If we were angry and fearful of this God then
the reason this would be is that we do not trust him. A being we trust and see as good would not
inspire this response in us. What really
makes us angry is not his power but his goodness. We fear his power because we fear his
goodness for that means he has the power to do what he wants which is
good. If he had no power we would not
fear his goodness.
Since we are by nature egoists and that is why religion says we will not
cease to sin until after we leave this world and go to Heaven it follows that
she is right about us disliking a God of power for this God will use the power
to get what he wants for he says he knows it all when he says he is good. It is up to him what good is and not us. Fear and anger are the only things God could
produce in us and the love is based on anger and fear and so it is not love at
all but a convincing fake. Thus to
merely believe in God is to advocate a mystery that is not good for us.
Real love is letting others be free to do what they want and make their
own mistakes and being there for them when you are needed. How could you love God then for he is going
to do what he wants for he is the supreme being and you are a mere speck of
dust? You can’t let him make his own
mistakes for he doesn’t make any and you can’t be there for him when he is
unhappy because he is perfect and is not like man and is perfectly happy. So loving God is letting him do what he wants
which means that if you love God most then you are missing out on two superior
parts of love: being there for another person in their troubles and letting
them make their own mistakes. It is
inferior to loving a human being or loving yourself. It is not far from inhuman. If you can’t love God the most then there is
no point in worrying about him or belief in him for the big attraction is
supposed to be that loving God is a good thing.
Letting God do what he wants would seem to include letting him do what
he wants with you – such as turning you into a holy person like himself. But love means that you let people do what
they incline to do and people do have different inclinations and perceptions
and none are perfect. But God must want
to remove diversity for some inclinations are better than others and he is
perfect meaning he is not diverse or interesting. To love means that it is helping others to
try and control their lives. There is no
benefit in loving God.
Everybody says they don’t blame people who lose a loved one in tragic and
horrifying circumstances for saying that God is not good to them. If they don’t blame them then it is it not
selfish to say God is good when all is going well for you? Does it not imply a lack of sympathy and
empathy for the bereaved. The sympathy
that God is supposed to arouse is totally repellent for when improved health
for women has made women more likely to have babies outside of marriage and
obviously to have “illicit” sex it follows that the Church must regret these
scientific advances. The bad times were
good enough to be allowed to happen by God and he allowed them because they
helped restrain sin a lot. A believer
has to concur with that so the believer must wish that the bad old days never
went away.
GOD GLORIFIES WEAKNESS
Catholics observe the Lenten fast and fast days and do penance to
overcome weakness. Protestants practice
self-denial for this reason too. But the
doctrines of God and love being sacrifice tell us that the more useless we are
the better as long as we do our best.
Paul said that people serve God best when they are weak for it is more of
a sacrifice and a struggle then. That is
the meaning of his paradox that when he is weak he is strong inferring that
when he is strong he is weak. God does
not want us to like him. The more God
makes us sick the better for the harder it is to please him. We can find God repulsive and still want the
best for him. Loving is not liking. The more we dislike God the more we will be
able to love him. And God deserves the
best and what is not the best is an insult.
This proves that belief in God is bad for you. It is incompatible with concern for others.
If a person turns up drunk for a first date, his date will never see him
again for that. The Church agrees with
that behaviour and says its God does as well.
It would ask the girl that if the lad would do that the first time what
would he not do later. Then they
consider it okay if he starts dating somebody else. He is good enough for somebody else. This kind of weak and shallow thinking is
condoned by the Church and if people did not attribute the same shortcomings to
the Lord God they would not be worshipping him.
The adoration of a weak model of perfection means your own standards and
tendencies will be bad.
DETERMINISTS – TARGETS OF THEIST BIGOTRY
The Bible says that love is a voluntary thing and you need free will to
be able to do it.
If God exists we have free will and know it – for if we don’t know it, it
is no use – so God must want us to love and have to make us know it. Even if we do not know what is right and what
is wrong we can still act lovingly for we have to do something so we have to
act and hope and mean it to be the right thing to do. It is sectarian nonsense to say that the
denial of the existence of God implies that one believes that there is no
wrong. It is wrong to assert that if God
existed he would tell us what right and wrong are when most people are not
adept in such matters. They are ignorant
of many things. God might not have told
anybody at all what right and wrong are when he lets us do such terrible
things. If he should and has then how do
we know that he might reveal right and wrong to us in a specific way such as
through a Church, Bible or Prophet? Even
if he did reveal, reason could not prove him right for his ways are strange to
us. We don’t understand them.
If you believe in God you have to accuse those who reject free will of
refusing to admit the truth – refusing to admit that their wrongdoing is their
own fault. They would be considered to
be the vilest people around for saying it.
If you believe in free will and say you don’t you are condoning all the
crimes ever committed by human beings by saying that they are not their own
fault. If God exists then we
determinists should be discriminated against and jailed. Nobody could be expected to give us a job
when we have proved ourselves to be devious with our doctrine.
People come before God for God’s existence is less verifiable than theirs
so determinists should not be subjected to scorn and prejudice over God. The tendency in us all to put God on the back
burner shows we know this is our duty.
To destroy faith in God is self-defence for the determinist. Like Atheists are often compelled to revolt
against their conscience and take an oath in court on the Bible in the name of
God, so too are determinists persecuted.
The promotion of belief in God is against the rights of the
determinist.
SINNERS BANNED FROM DOING GOOD
Venial sin is sin that is not a complete rebellion and break from
God. Its serious but not that serious
while mortal sin is hatred for God and total separation from him and is very very serious and takes you to everlasting torment in
Hell. This idea comes from the Catholic
Church. Protestants following the Bible
reject it as nonsense holding that all sin is opposition to God and complete
disdain for his laws.
To do good and refuse to sanctify that good and make it real good by
casting all sin, even if it is only all venial sin you have got, out of your
heart would be a mortal sin and casting ridicule when that good is major. For example, it is a mortal sin to ridicule a
person for saving a life. When you
ridicule your own saving a life or something it must be a mortal sin. By doing a big good work while having any
kind of unrepented sin is mocking that work. It’s a mortal sin.
Anybody could have to do a big good work so not to be ready by repenting
of venial sin as soon as it is committed would be a mortal sin. It is like the malice of refusing to do
something easy and reasonable in order to save others from death. In this case, you are willing to mock the
act. You would desecrate the act and
seek the praise it will bring you. That
means when you save a life, it is only the mocking and the evil of stealing
praise that you want to do. You are
saving the life as a means not an end.
It becomes like a side effect!
So if you have a sin and don’t want to repent does that mean you ought
not to do the big good work? If you have
to save a life and you are in sin what happens?
Is it better to save the life while adhering to the sin? Or is it better not to save the life for by
doing it in sin you only desecrate the act?
Would the evil you adhere to forbid you to do the good work?
Religion says sin is not bad for it hurts people it is bad for it offends
God and is defiance of his law. So
though hurting people can be a sin it is not the hurting that is bad but the
disobedience. Dentists have to hurt
people. So for religion it does not
follow that the life should necessarily be saved. Religion sees sacrifice as better than
happiness. The atheist who painfully
sacrifices his last moment to give away his last whiskey that he would enjoy so
much to a stranger is regarded as doing good and considered better than he
would have been if he had taken it himself.
Religion sees no problem with God hurting a person in order to make them
more patient even though the pain may be worse than any benefit in improving
the person. So if you want to do a good
work and you don’t want to give up your sin, it is better to refrain from it because
you are mocking good.
You are also making yourself feel good about the work you have done
though it has been laced with sin and looks good. You are making yourself blind to the evil of
sin. In such a case, it would not be a
further sin to refrain from helping. The
Church says that blindness and being attracted to your own evil is worse than
any evil even somebody’s death. Then, the more good you do in a state of sin
the worse the blasphemy is.
But some would say that if you repented and then saved the person there
would be no problem. So because you
didn’t open up the door of your heart to love and cleanness you couldn’t go and
save the person so it was a sin for you not to save the person. By not saving you
committing a new sin. You ought
to have saved the person despite the filth you cherished in your heart.
Again if virtue only matters and not people this
is not necessarily correct as we have seen. Also, the repenting is still
considered more important than the life.
They agree then after all that if you are in sin you cannot desecrate
good works by doing them.
Jesus said God comes first so if you have to let somebody die to prevent
yourself separating further from God you have to do it. For Christianity, people exist for God and
not God for people and their welfare doesn’t matter in itself. Even if God commands concern for others the
importance of people’s welfare is still being devalued.
Venial sin in Catholicism is serious sin that does not cut you off from
God such as a white lie. Mortal sin is serious sin, such as homosexuality, that
does cut you off. The venial sinner
should not do good and the less good done the better. God tells us we must never ever sin and that
if saving a life would be a sin for us through conscience or circumstance then
it should not be done. So God would
prefer you refraining from a good action than carrying it out to profane
it. It is endlessly worse if it is a
mortal sinner and not a venial sinner.
GOD WANTS YOU TO HATE
The God concept seems to imply that nobody should hate anybody else for
God would not hold a person in existence unless that person was dear to him
meaning that since God comes first we should not hate anybody for his
sake. Some would say partly for his sake
but these would be renouncing the Judeo-Christian scriptures which forbid this
and say we must give all for him and submit entirely to his will. Religion cannot say it is a sin to wish
anybody would go to Hell or die as long as you have the right motive – to see
God do the right thing. But to be more
concerned about motives than what you would cause if you could is a
mistake. A bad motive for doing
something nice or helpful is not as bad as hurting people severely for a good
motive. It is better to ignore the bad
motive somebody had for doing something than to believe they should go to Hell
if they die unrepentant. Not to do so is
unkind.
God can only love himself for he is goodness itself and we are flawed
underlings so the God concept does not automatically imply that there is no
room for hating. To forbid hate would be
madness for he made us to suffer for him and all he cares about is
himself.
Some say that it can’t be wrong to hate a person who will never die or
who will not be harmed by it. They think
that hate is bad simply because it can result in suffering and murder. But if we live forever then suffering isn’t
very serious no matter how bad it is and death is nothing. If those people are
right, then if you like hating it seems you should for you are valuing yourself
instead of that person which you should do for you are most sure you exist. You will not be able to hate a person unless
you believe in free will. God implies
free will so God is an evil doctrine.
The person who denies free will hates what a person does but not the
person and wishes the imbalance was fixed.
God is a doctrine of hate for sinners.
GOD, GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER!
Religion says that God lets us harm one another because he wants us to
freely choose whether we will do good or bad.
God could stop us from hurting one another badly by simply putting
protective force fields around us. This
is not limiting free will for we can still will evil even if we can’t do it and
besides we are still free to do other kinds of harm. To reject this argument is to say that a
soldier in protective armour is depriving himself of free will not to mention
depriving others. Jesus said that the
man who chooses to commit adultery but cannot is an adulterer (Matthew 5). There is so much evil we would do but cannot
do. So God must let us commit acts of
cold-blooded cruelty for a purpose that justifies it. If God can turn suffering to his advantage it
is hypocritical to condemn the person who mutilates and tortures others so that
they may become holier. It is no reply
to say that it is wrong for it might not work for God faces the same
problem. Loving God alone breeds cruelty
and makes it look like kindness.
God possesses the power to make us subject to illusions, to delude our
five senses. Each of us should be put in
a world that does not exist with people who are just in the head. That way, we have free will and cannot harm
anybody but perhaps ourselves. When he
lets us dream he can do this. If the
people we hurt are real then God simply has to be punishing them and it is not
a sin to treat them abominably.
Since God alone counts the only choice he wants from us is if we will
love him or not. You don’t need to be
able to harm other people to make that choice at all. You just need to be able to harm yourself and
then only in so far as you harden yourself to refuse to love. It is stupid and/or malignant to suggest that
God will enable us to commit murder to see if we will reject him by committing
it because when it is only the decision he is interested in he could do without
enabling us to kill to get it.
All sin offends God infinitely for he hates it that much for he is
infinitely good so it makes no difference if you commit murder or if you just
wish ill on somebody. For that reason,
it is ridiculous to say we need to be able to hurt others. This implies that any wrong we do is
infinitely bad. It would deserve a Hell
of unending despair and torment. How
then could it be wrong to abuse a stubborn sinner?
THE DIVINE AVENGER
The only reason we must suffer if God is good is because God is punishing
us. He is getting his own back because
even if the free will defence doesn’t explain why he sends so many bad
influences to us. We are to do all the
harm we wish for it is God’s will. And
the faster we get down to it the better for it is kindness to get it over with
as fast as possible. Through us, God
judges the world and delivers retribution.
It is only a sin if we hurt people out of malice not a sense of
justice. Hurting them to please God is a
virtue.
Christianity says that we come into existence deserving the penalty of
physical and spiritual death and that our sins deserve endless torment. So whatever harm anybody does to us we
deserve it. It is not so much the
suggestion that God is punishing you that you find offensive but the suggestion
that you deserve it. That this religion
has so much power speaks only of how religion pollutes mental health and is so
manipulative.
We have no free will because we can only concentrate on one thing at a
time. At the point you make a decision,
you don’t know what you are doing so you cannot be free. If I didn’t exist a moment ago and only came
into existence now I wouldn’t feel any different and yet forces from the moment
past have caused my present action. I
couldn’t do any different. God could
control me even if I am still free. But
it makes no sense to say I am free.
The doctrine of sin accuses the human race of what they have not
done. It asks us to approve of the
needless evil allowed by the Lord and to make ourselves as unkind as he is.
If God revealed it and is good then reason is no use in determining what
is good and evil. We must believe that
we are insane and just believe him even when what he commands seems to be evil.
The doctrine of sin comes from the doctrine of God. God is something that is
incomprehensible. The concept makes us
confused. For example, nobody can
explain why he thinks that it is good to let us suffer then it is natural that
his moral rules or some of them cannot be understood. This little monstrosity leads to lots
more. Anybody can make up a cruel rule
and say that it is a mystery. The
monstrosity is the tool for Churches to make slaves of their victims. By asking us to believe in him God is
condoning all of this because he thinks it is all to good for us. Because he can’t or won’t provide evidence he
renders anybody who wants slaves to get them with stupid guesses
unfettered.
Unsurprisingly, the Bible and religion are inebriated with moral
principles that make no sense.
OTHER DANGERS
When God cannot be proved and the evidence for him is dubious it follows
that when people base their morality on a revelation from him and start to
doubt or disbelieve that they will behave badly as well. For example, if your Bible tells you that
eating pigs is a sin and so is stealing and you start to see that eating pigs
is not wrong you might end up questioning the stealing rule as well. And indeed you should. Do you see what harm it all does? When God
goes any moral restraint will go with him unless Atheism is there to give
guidance. Atheists try to find a solid
morality that is independent of religion and so despite their failures at least
they are trying to help the world more than religion ever could.
When people base happiness on God and see the truth they will be
destroyed. Religion tries to condition
people so that they are emotionally programmed to need God and religion at
least to some degree. Religion wants to
make addicts of them.
It is disgraceful that religion tells you to sacrifice for God even when
your faith is weak. It has no right
to.
When God infers that love is sacrifice it follows that it is a sin to
have sex for pleasure. You should have
it just for making a child. Some would
say the baby is more valuable than pleasure for the baby is a special gift from
God so you should forget the pleasure and think only of the baby.
It is shocking that the God belief implies that sin is the worst evil and
that a small sin is worse than a natural disaster like an earthquake. God allows natural evil to happen implying he
prefers it to sin. But God should abhor
sin and evil the same. Evil whether
wilful or not should offend him infinitely.
We do not condone the actions of a tyrant who maims and butchers and say
it was for an understandable but wrong purpose and we can see and feel the
tyrant. We cannot be as sure there is a
God the way we can be as sure that the tyrant exists so we condone the
seemingly evil ways of a being who may not exist in preference to condoning the
similar ways of a real person. But it is
better to give a possible reason for God’s actions than just to say, “Oh God
knows what he is doing – but I cannot explain it”, which is an unimpressive
cop-out. So if a young mother is killed
tragically you should say, “Perhaps if she had lived she would have turned into
a monster that abuses her child so God did right to take her”, if she had been
showing signs of a bad temper before she died which has to be done if there is
a God who comes first, whose honour matters more than the dead woman’s.
Another problem is that to condemn a human being for doing something like
slapping someone on the face and not to condemn God for making things like smallpox
and flesh-eating bugs is terribly unjust.
We can’t reward and praise bad actions even when done by well-meaning
people and God cannot be an exception.
Its worse when the person will suffer from the condemnation and God
cannot for he is out of reach and the Church says nobody can give him anything
for he is perfect and is totally happy.
It is certainly worse to hurt a person you can see and touch for
something minor or fairly minor and let God off the hook for worse when you
cannot be as sure that he is as real as the human person.
(People condemn a human being for
doing something that is harmless like homosexuality or something that isn’t the
worst crime like adultery and then God can do worse and be thought well of. That is disgusting.)
When sin is infinitely evil if you believe in God for he hates all sin
infinitely only a strict Puritanism and fanaticism can follow. Sin has to be kept down at all costs. Love is strict. God sends earthquakes and plagues to
eradicate even sin that harms nobody very much which shows that we have to be
strict and not let anybody away with anything for he is strict. God hates sin though it does him no harm –
which the Churches all agree on - and need not do us much harm either. He could prevent the act of rape from doing
much harm to the victim by making it easier to recover from magically. Some people do recover from being abused
surprisingly easily. Instead of letting
us batter somebody to death he could allow us to commit loads of sins that do
little harm but which eventually add up to being as bad as this but in which
the harm is spread out among many people and over a long time that it has no
devastating effects. All these
considerations suggest that God is rigid and does things by the book and that
we should be the same for he wants us to conform to his image. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that
anybody who merely calls his brother a fool should be dragged before the
Sanhedrin. Jesus was saying that civil
freedom was evil. He said we must be perfect
as God is perfect.
When not one of the solutions to the problem of a good God allowing evil
work and all of them are bad and condone evil it follows that belief in God is
bad and can lead to malice and that when it doesn’t it is in spite of the belief
and not because of it. The belief would
still need to be discouraged for the safety’s sake.
Also, God has the
right to tell us what to do. If we know
God’s will and somebody lives in a wrong way we have to in the name of God
order them to stop. It becomes our
business when God can’t go to them himself.
Laughing at jokes is a sin if you should love God alone because it is
giving yourself more pleasure in a thing than in him. Listening to love songs is a sin for the only
songs should be about loving God. Wish
the believers did practice what they preach so that they would turn everybody
off their God.
CONCLUSION
Belief in a God is anti-human. The
doctrine of God has sinister implications which can please the dark side of
human nature and encourage violence and war.
To preach the dogma is asking for trouble for the risk is unnecessary
and ever-present.
BOOKS CONSULTED
A CATECHISM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, CTS,
A HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, VOL 6,
PART II, KANT, Frederick Copleston SJ, Doubleday/Image,
AQUINAS, FC Copleston, Penguin
Books,
BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL, Friedrich Nietzsche, Penguin,
BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, Association for the Promotion of
Christian Knowledge,
CATECHISM OF THE
CHARITY, MEDITATIONS FOR A MONTH, Richard F Clarke SJ,
Catholic Truth Society,
CHRISTIANITY FOR THE TOUGH-MINDED, Edited by John Warwick
CRISIS OF MORAL AUTHORITY, Don Cupitt, SCM Press,
EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT, VOL 1, Josh
McDowell, Alpha, Scripture Press Foundation, Bucks, 1995
ECUMENICAL JIHAD, Peter Kreeft, Ignatius Press,
GOD IS NOT GREAT, THE CASE AGAINST RELIGION, Christopher Hitchens, Atlantic Books, London, 2007
GREAT MEANS OF SALVATION AND OF PERFECTION, St Alphonsus
De Ligouri, Redemptorist
Fathers,
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Peter Kreeft
and Ronald Tacelli, Monarch,
HONEST TO GOD, John AT Robinson, SCM,
HOW DOES GOD LOVE ME? Radio Bible
Class,
IN DEFENCE OF THE FAITH, Dave Hunt, Harvest House,
MADAME GUYON, MARTYR OF THE HOLY SPIRIT,
Phyllis Thompson, Hodder & Stoughton,
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Joseph Rickaby SJ, Stonyhurst Philosophy Series,
Longmans Green and Co,
PRACTICAL ETHICS, Peter Singer,
PSYCHOLOGY, George A Miller, Penguin,
RADIO REPLIES, 1, Frs Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies Press,
RADIO REPLIES, 2, Frs Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies Press,
RADIO REPLIES, 3, Frs Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies Press,
REASON AND BELIEF, Brand Blanschard, George
Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1974
REASONS FOR HOPE, Ed Jeffrey A Mirus,
THE ATONEMENT: MYSTERY OF RECONCILIATION, Kevin McNamara, Archbishop of
SINNERS IN THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GOD, Jonathan Edwards, Sword of the
Lord,
THE BIBLE TELLS US SO, R B Kuiper, The Banner
of Truth Trust,
THE BRIEF OF ST ANTHONY OF
THE CASE FOR FAITH,
Lee Strobel, Zondervan,
The Future of Atheism, Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett, SPCK, London , 2008
THE GREAT MEANS OF SALVATION AND OF PERFECTION, St Alphonsus
De Ligouri, Redemptorist
Fathers,
THE IMITATION OF CHRIST, Thomas A Kempis,
Translated by Ronald Knox and Michael Oakley, Universe, Burns & Oates,
London, 1963
THE LIFE OF ALL LIVING,
THE NEW WALK, Captain Reginald Wallis, The Christian Press,
THE PRACTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF GOD, Brother Lawrence, Hodder & Stoughton,
THE PROBLEM OF PAIN, CS Lewis,
THE PUZZLE OF GOD, Peter Vardy, Collins,
THE SATANIC BIBLE, Anton Szandor LaVey, Avon Books,
THE SPIRITUAL GUIDE, Michael Molinos, Christian
Books, Gardiner
THE STUDENT’S CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, Rev Charles Hart BA, Burns & Oates,
UNBLIND FAITH, Michael J Langford, SCM,
Saturday, 24 November 2007