THERE IS A LACK OF FEELING WHERE YOU LOOK AT TERRIBLE SUFFERING AND SAY GOD STILL KNOWS WHAT HE IS DOING
Religion says God is the truth. Christianity points to Jesus who it considers divine as saying, "I am the truth." This is worrying for it means religious truth, specifically the Christian version of what that means, takes priority. Atheists as well as believers know that truth is not about you or what you want to be true or what you think. To fight it is to fight a losing battle. You cannot change truth and it will always be bigger than you. Truth in that sense is force and threatens force. Atheists then are dangerous even if they don't mean to be for truth is God and they deny God. They need to be stopped. That only a few believers would jail atheists, speaks of how hypocritical theism and religion are.
Implications:
Even if God does not like anybody being forced even he cannot do anything about how truth compels. So any forcing he does is not his fault.
The view that miracles are acts of God in which he shows his loving presence which invite us rather than pressure us collapses. No believer says the resurrection of Jesus is provable. They say it is just likely to be true. So miracles without hard evidence are definitely false. Miracles from a heavy-handed God don't happen. The gospels cannot be more convincing than just plausible or probable. That is simply because they drunk on untruths.
No religion but the Christian is valid.
Whoever says that suffering should not happen even under God is harming for the truth is that evil is being dealt with. Also, it is evil then and damaging to object to, "God wants us to love him freely and that means there is the risk of us doing evil." So for a God who cannot be harmed people must be put at risk! I know where the real evil is!
Forcing critics to silence is necessary for the sake of the vulnerable.
The road is opened to those who like Christianity not because it is true but because you can use the truth as a weapon to force. It is the force that comes with the truth that matters to them not the truth.
There are probably more implications than that but that will suffice. For now we will observe that the teachings are intolerant. No truly caring person can weep for suffering while internalising those implications.
If is true that evil gives way to good under God's care, then evil turns against the person that made it. It seems manipulative that free will does not matter then. Why are you allowed free will to hurt babies now and not allowed it in time when the evil attacks the will and you who made the evil?
God by definition is that which knows me better than I can know myself. I have opinions about me and opinions are not that special. I can believe that I sinned in murdering a village of people. But there is nothing stopping me from thinking that God loves me and my view of me is wrong and he excuses what I did as some kind of mistake rather than a moral evil. Just because I think I wreaked evil on purpose does not mean I am right. Again this is only my opinion for God knows me better than I do. That faith can open the door to me thinking that is enough to condemn it.
And it is a fact that even if I think I did grave evil, I can also think deep down that maybe it was neutral or even good or near-good. We all have a part of us that doubts anything we think. So the door is actually opened and by me apart from faith. I use faith to fling the door to the wall.
Remember how Jesus and Christianity counsel that our sense of God's unimaginable and perfect love should be stronger than our sense of sin. The Church knows these things fine well
Loving devotion then to God hides a deep evil. God and faith then are overrated as forces for true goodness. Seeds are planted that can grow into thorns.
A God that has no real power to defend good and crush evil is obviously only being twisted into an excuse for innocent suffering happening by the churches. They say God has to tolerate such horrors out of love for our free will and plus he can turn evil around and make good come of it. Faith is no excuse for condoning. It is an evil itself. To trust a doctor who only gives you sugar pills will only lead to diabetes.
God by definition is perfectly good and maker of all and thus the only thing that really matters. This accuses people who don't put him first of being stupid, having something wrong with them or just being evil. This tacit insult should not be stomached.
Because of that and for other reasons, it is time we got offended when somebody tells us that God uses evil for a greater good. They may say that the evil should not happen. And that it is just that out of respect for our freedom that it happens at all. When it does, God works to overthrow it and let good take its place.
Read that carefully. They are saying that a lot of the good purpose has already happened. If it is good that I should be able to do wrong because of the power God gave me and this is about respecting my freedom that is a good purpose by itself. Is it enough for them? YES! It makes no sense that God should stand by and let me harm because he respects me but only do this if my evil will backfire and a greater good will come. That is respecting what he can get out of my actions not me.
To say that God should stand by for he has a good plan and is taking care of it is one thing but to say that he should just let you go and harm another is not the same thing.
Nobody wants to believe in a "mind my own business" God. They find hope in evil turning into something good. That is the real attraction. It is about evil self-destructing and not God. They say like God they respect free will but now we see that is not true. The whole argument that God should endure us doing evil for his loving plan will take care of it is in fact based on lies.
That aside they maintain evil only happens under God's care for good will overcome.
That is what THEY say. Now God is not telling them to say that in each individual situation. I mean that when you see somebody maimed in an earthquake no heavenly voice or sign is appearing there and then to tell you that it is for a greater good.
They will answer that God does not have to assure us every specific time something bad happens that it will be okay and good will come. They assume it is enough that he simply says he will deal with whatever happens without being specific.
You need direct clear orders to justify speaking for him. If God was text messaging you, and you got a text it would not be enough. He'd need to have checks in place to make interference or impersonation very unlikely. Why? Because the seriousness of what is happening to the other person needs to be acknowledged. You are not the one suffering so you cannot speak for that person. To say, "God has you close to his heart and is actively by your side", is speaking for God but also telling the person that they know this. It is also speaking for them. You have no business whatsoever and it is easy for you to say that. If you could magically swap places with that person you would not so who do you think you are?
Even if God might tell people to preach about his plan against evil and suffering in a Bible or whatever, it does not follow that they have the right to speak for him.
You cannot ask anybody to think this is about God dealing with evil and not about you trying to feel better about the horrendous. You need a genuine mandate from God.
People say that if unjust suffering and evil overthrow the idea of a loving God, then you have no reason to hold that evil is really important. You would have to say that something happens and it is not really evil though it is not enjoyable. This can be a painful thought and many seem genetically ordered to be forced or programmed into a type of faith. I mean faith in the love of a God that wars against evil. They are trying to deal with the horror of there being no real evil by turning to faith. The fact remains that feelings are nothing compared to the truth. It is not about you wanting to feel better but about the truth. If there is no true evil or evil is not that terrible then we must be trying to worsen things and make evil where there is no evil.
Consider how we are told that we cannot say evil eliminates God for that is eliminating evil as well and how that contains a process of elimination, though an elementary one. "Evil refutes God. But we have to believe in God in spite of that for if there is no God there is no real evil or true immorality".
There are two processes of elimination. One is emotional. The second and last is intellectual.
Both demand that you ignore how, "If evil refutes God then it is evil and a lie to say it does not." They are thus "immoral".
They are also violence against yourself being a rational creature. Your real goal is to validate evil. God is just a prop for that.
