IT IS NOT YOUR PLACE TO TELL OTHERS THEIR SUFFERING WILL BE WORTH IT THANKS TO GOD!
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO SAY GOD IS SHOWING LOVE TO SUFFERERS FOR IT IS A CASE BY CASE MATTER AND NOT YOUR PLACE GIVEN HOW HUMAN NATURE HAS A BAD SIDE
Human nature endlessly oversteps and speaks in the context of things that are not their affair. They are not their business.
If somebody can help themselves keep out. Each person is the expert on the hows and whys etc of every moment of their own life. You just don't own their situation. You don't get to risk making things worse, making the person depend on you when they don't need to and you don't need to patronise and pretend you know more about them than they do. And you don't get to interfere for you ban many from interfering with you.
Don't decide how somebody is suffering and why. Let them tell you if they want to. Wait till they ask for help until it is obvious they would ask if they could.
It is simple. Know your place. Just know. But there are other reasons why god-washing or whitewashing the horrors creatures endure to make it fit your loving God is repugnant.
People of faith condone terrible things or pretend not to notice. This is to stop themselves seeing that any god that would let them happen is a disgrace. They want to feel secure and protected by this god as if they were special despite seeing that what horrors come on others could come on them.
It is not your place to speak for a God anyway either. Additionally given what people are like, it is not your place to speak for a God and tell sufferers that God knows what he is doing when they suffer. The sufferer should know you are not all light inside and should dismiss you.
The problem of how it is people who condone evil for God
All reasonable people believe that faith in God or religion should help
otherwise they should be dropped. If they don't help or hinder they can be
dropped if we feel like it. If they hinder they should be dropped. The religious
person and the atheist should agree that if we are going to have faith, the
content of the faith must be ideas and material that do no harm if they prove to
be wrong. There should be no harm done.
If you follow those who claim to channel the word of God to you from God or who
simply claim to be the publishers of God's message, then are you following God?
If there is no God you are still following something. It is those people. It is
the God that man has invented. But surely it is you deciding to follow them that
is the problem - you are in a sense following not them but what you think of
them. Ultimately you are following you. Whatever - you are still following an
idol not God. An idol is a false God and if God does not exist then God is a
false God!
If there is a God and people don't speak for him then the same problem arises. You are following what people say as much as if there were no God.
Nobody gave them permission to speak for a God and that
is appalling whether there is a God or not.
If there really is a God you can still approach him as an idol.
If God does not exist, it follows that man insults us with faith in God. It
follows that we praise nature for dealing with evil when it is not. To worship a
God who does not exist means you worship nature and a figment of your own
imagination. You worship what does not deserve to be worshipped and what does
harm.
If God does not exist then the free will defence is nonsense. It is man then to
blame for the free will defence. And man is blaming free will and man for evil
directly (for example, war) and indirectly - including the cruel deaths of
little babies by disease - all for the sake of a fictitious God. We are not
talking about the fact that man does terrible things. We are talking about the
fact that man is enabled by nature or whatever to do them. That is the problem.
If man causes evil it does not follow that man is to blame for being able to do
it. Evil parents are to blame if they give their children the tools with which
to ruin others.
If God exists and we agree that people should be angry at him for the things he
does and allows, the anger then should be directed at those who invent God if
there is no God and those who invent a God in their heads even if there is a
God. Belief in God makes you direct the blame at those who sin and thus cause a
fallen world where babies are left even by God to suffer and die horribly. That
accusation is horrendous.
Any answers for the problem of evil fail if there is no God. They are themselves
evil for they excuse the inexcusable and see less evil where more should be
seen. If there is no God then because of evil, you are unwittingly (and
sometimes wittingly!) adoring evil when you adore God. A baby suffering is just
evil and purposeless and thus you would be evil yourself for trying to say God
has a plan unless there really is a God.
Man speaking for God and defending him is disgraceful when man refuses to take
responsibility for condoning evil in the universe. If evil cannot be condoned or
reconciled with a good God then man is bad for even trying to.
It is one thing in theory to say that there could be a God and his infinite love
is compatible with the existence of evil. But it is still man’s word you are
taking for it that this theory is plausible and true. Anger against man’s
theology is not the same thing as anger against God. Even if there is a God, the
God worshipped by people is their perception of God not God as he is. That is
why we can rage against Christians condoning evil as God's will and still say it
is not about anger against God. It is they we have the problem with for their
God is in their heads and we are not talking about any real God even if there is
one.
The problem of human schizophrenia
Human nature is very very inconsistent. A worker who exercises brutality in an
abattoir can feel deeply troubled when seeing an unwanted kitten drowned by its
owners. The person who campaigns for infanticide to be allowed on demand may be
heartbroken when a two month old dies. The nun who cares for children even
better than a mother could may turn a cold blind eye when a priest rapes one of
the little girls. The serial paedophile could make huge sacrifices for a
children's charity. Believers saying God has a plan for evil cannot expect us to
simply assume that they are really being good and consistent. They might do a
lot of good for others but if they have a flawed view of the suffering of others
their actions do not disprove the suspicion that their empathy is flawed too.
If you do some forms of evil, it does not matter how much good you do. If you
abuse one child, the way you helped millions of children does not matter any
more. You have thrown away the right to ask people to respect the good you have
done.
Religionists, priests and nuns sometimes seem to be good caring people. But
there is a side to them that is worthy only of condemnation. It is the side of
them that condones and applauds what they see as divine cruelty. The inner
world of each person is a playground where they fill it with an evil they would
not dare act out in the real world.
