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.


No Copyright