Religion says good is true and real while evil is simply a parasite that tries to deform good. Evil is not real but is a twisting of good. To call good a power and say that evil is not a power means it is not a real parasite for a parasite is a real thing. So it is a metaphor. It is obvious that religion is using a word salad technique. It does not have a clue what good and evil really mean. Even if it does, it does not follow that there has to be some way of communicating that correctly and clearly. Either way religion should not be taken seriously as an answer to evil.

And if you take evil as a parasite, then a parasite can have a parasite too. Evil in that sense would not be A parasite but a chaotic mix of competing and overlapping parasites. It would be a mess. This would only empower it for we are told that evil by definition seeks to gaslight and fool.

One reason for the parasite imagery is that evil infects. If it is not real or not a power then it cannot really infect either. But suppose the warning that it infects means something. Does it infect us by us merely seeing it does the evil that is already in us cause us to become an attractant, a magnet? For the evil we behold? Is it both? For now think about that. Ask does it even make sense.

If it is able to change those who merely see it or perhaps may see it but who are not sure then it is very fearsome. It is almost occult.

If beholding evil is able to arrest us because we already harbour evil treacherous desires then to corrupt people we just have to make sure they see us do wrong.

Neither of these concepts is going to help us work together and trust each other. 

Also when Jesus supposedly wanted all to know how the world treated him he is hardly good or sinless.

As evil is a lie, or more accurately a pack of lies, it follows no God can really use it for his purpose.  To let the genie out of the bottle is letting it out and it cannot go back in.  Any purpose cannot justify letting a lie get out there.

Religion has problems when it directs us to avoid evil deeds.

We fear those who say sometimes that if a goal is good enough and important enough we should do what is inherently evil to bring it about. We do not like how they can say you may do this to bring down a tyrant but not justify a genocide say against a sociopathic religion. They have opened the door to just that. They are claiming moral authority that their evil is okay and the other persons is not. But they have no such authority and are stealing it. Another worry is how lying presupposes that there is a truth there. And each evil is a lie and needs lies so you have no reason to believe that it really is about the good goal even if it could be.

People know we fear those who would do anything for a good purpose so they not may, WILL, pretend that they oppose any such rationale.

So when people clearly gain from claiming to be moral we cannot be expected to affirm them as truly moral.

When we see terrible cruel suffering and nothing being done we may blame God.  We may say he is not worth listening to and that his view of evil is worth little.

Religion tends to argue that if God has the same obligations to help suffering as we have then we prove that God cannot be much of a God for evil and suffering should not happen. So it simply denies that God has the same obligations.  Yet if God does not have to take the obligations he can do so.  A plain denial is not an argument.  Religion should admit it does not know either way.  Jesus said he was the word of God in human form and God and man have a common face, the divine image.  This implies that God though different from man can still require himself to send medicine to suffering babies just like a doctor will require herself to do it.  Actually it implies that God wants to be seen as one of us and as relevant to us.

 A form of atheism holds that a maker may be unworthy of worship and respect and in that sense there is no God.

Anyway, according to religion these atheists are trying to argue from our obligations to God’s obligations and that is wrong. Some say that we should be doing more for God left it up to us and so he cannot be blamed if pointless evil happens. Others say that pointless evil is not only possible but necessarily possible. Religion might say that because God wants us to freely love him he can give us free will even if it means we will create pointless harm.  If it is saying in addition to that, that pointless evils such as a disease or something take place that would be very strange.  It would mean God is to blame for it and they refuse to impute blame to him.  They are obstinate.

So whatever an pointless evil is, they say it would be impossible for even an almighty God to prevent it. What about getting rid of it? They strangely argue that God can get rid of evil and bring about a greater good. But how can we be sure when it lets it happen in the first place? There has to be a period of time when nothing is done to get rid of it.  None of this agrees with itself.  And if people started to think that their cherished maxim, "God works ultimately for the good of all" might be dubious they will soon discard God.

Others say that God is like a power more than a person. He is like an energy to the degree that he cannot suffer. So how can our sins affect him? The Christian answer is that they don’t. They cannot cause him suffering. But they warn that you can harm a person without causing them suffering.  This is nonsense in relation to God.  Someone stealing from you is harming you for you are vulnerable like everybody else even if you will never feel a sting of pain over it.  But God is not vulnerable.  Religion is clutching at straws in trying to explain how violating God's will is evil.

Religion does not have a clue about evil.  Take away its platform for it only spouts confused lying word salad nonsense.


No Copyright