In Dog We Trust. But Should We?

 

If a dog poops on the beech, we don't call that dog a "Chef".

If a vague entity
that we've never seen
but which we deduce "must surely exist" because "something" or "someone" "surely most have" pooped out this universe, ...
us microorganisms aught not call it a "God".

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus

---
If a man robs a bank, ...

while a Parent functions as a silent enabler and defender of that man's right to rob that bank,...


but then reasons "But if my child DOES rob that bank, I plan to sit and watch. I won't even call the cops. I won't even bother to discourage him. Nor will i offer testimony in court against him. BUT I would be unhappy with him for using his free will in that way. And I just might hurt or kill him later when I get around to it, if I'm still unsatisfied with him. someday. eventually, maybe.", ...

That parent is complicit in the act.

They too are a bank robber.

They too robbed that bank.

Substitute bank robbing with sexually assaulting a child.
Same principal.

If the elder parent just sits and watches it happening,
and relies only on rumors from their OTHER kids that "Daddy will be mad" as the only form of discouragement or intervention in this lifetime, ...
the elder parent is complicit in the sexual assault(s).
They are guilty of it too.

Every evil,
every tragedy
to ever transpire
was co-committed by the entity you believe "must surely exist";
-if they do actually exist.

This is why Jules Renard said
"I don't know if God exists.
But it would be better for his reputation if he doesn't".

---
With great power comes great responsibility.

Moral responsibility/culpability scales UP with power; not down.

"If I could prevent a child from being raped, I would.
That's the difference between me and your God".
-Tracie Harris.

So it doesn't matter if a Super-Being created this world, or our species.

If none did, then religions (or "faiths") like Christianity are based entirely on wrongly imagined "fact".

If some did create us, then religions (or "faiths") like Christianity are STILL based entirely on monstrous anti-ethics.
And then the existence of the psychopathic universe-pooper only makes these points all the more necessary.

And then at least Deists aren't making excuses for him;
which means they aren't mentally training themselves and others to grossly lower their moral standards. 

 For them, Universe-Pooper just "is". 
They don't say crazy things like "and is perfectly loving", randomly favors specific humans, and "wrote a book". 

It does none of us any good
to enable a monster.
It would only make him worse.

Consider:

Video title "How God Favors Evil".
 
------
Also:

Video. 

The world-renowned scholar of Hebrew religious history (Christine Hayes; of Yale University)
explains how the God of Abraham (all throughout the OT era) relied on humans to help him grow morally; to help him keep up with the moral growth and needs of his people.

He helps people grow.
People help him grow.


This stands in stark contrast with the way Christianity portrays their version of him as beyond the reach (and beyond the need) for human counsel.

If such a being exists, Christianity is making him regress into a worse God;
putting us all in ever more danger.