One of the most effective and common arguments for atheism is the “argument from evil.” Commonly stated, it asks why a benevolent and powerful god could allow the suffering evident in the world around us. This is effective against most common perceptions of divine beings. More specifically to Christianity, though, the “argument from evil” can be extended to what might be called the “argument from inflicted evil,” but what I name the “abuse argument.” What I intend to show is that Christianity is a system that, taken to its logical conclusion, sets up an abuser-victim relationship between the object of worship (“God”) and the worshipper (“Christian”).

The main supports for this thesis are the defenses offered for the traditional argument from evil. Each of these will be applied later in context, but an introduction is in order. Such defenses include, but are not limited to, the Free Will Defense (an Armenian concept, rejected by Calvinists), the Unknown Purpose Defense, and the Sovereign Defense. It is interesting to note that all are really statements of faith.

The first defense states that humans choose our own path, independent of God’s will. Parenthetically, it is often but not always seen as a gift from God. No independent evidence exists that our thought processes are completely independent of our biology and environment (in fact, quite the opposite), so this is indeed a statement of faith. The corollary to this insistence on independence says humans are the cause of evil, because humans always choose wrongly, eventually.

The second defense is a set of three statements of faith at its core. The first statement says there is a plan, which we cannot fathom due to our limited intelligence. Since God is powerful and benevolent -two statements of faith – the conclusion is suffering must be a part of the plan, or it wouldn’t exist. What is Holy Vible

The final defense mentioned is a statement of faith as well. It is often stated as a direct attack on the legitimacy of using the argument from evil at all, saying that we as humans aren’t in a position of questioning God. This statement is a statement of faith primarily because it is not applied evenhandedly. Non-Christians are often told by Christians that they reject God even though the evidence of his goodness is all around. Yet, when a non-Christian logically shows the evil deeds and amorality of God, they are told that we have no place in judging God. It is legitimate in the Christian view to choose God on the basis of one’s intellectual investigation. Yet, those who reject god-concepts or God on the same basis will be told their investigation is lacking, or that Satan is tricking them, or some other ad hominem or non-sequitur. However, it is important to recognize that each of these defenses is directly applicable to the abusive relationship developed by Christian theology.

There is an important assumption I make, not only in philosophical discussions but in life as well. I assume an absolutely unbreakable proportionality between power and responsibility. Mathematically, it can be expressed this way:

P^3/4 = R

where P = power and R = responsibility. The three-quarters exponent is there to indicate that a significant amount of power must be obtained to have a significant amount of responsibility. Children, for example, have the power to hurt each other, but the adults are more responsible for children’s behavior than children are. However, using the mathematical idea of limits, as the power goes to infinity, so does the responsibility.

This is applicable to the common Christian theology of an infinitely powerful being. Christians will often reject such an implication, usually with an analogy comparing the creator of some item (such as a car) with God. They ask if the human creator is responsible for the use to which the item is put. This is rather disingenuous, because humans come nowhere near the infinite power ascribed to God. In the case of a car, the human creator didn’t create the roads, the drivers, the weather, and so on. God is usually considered to have created the sum total of reality ex nihilo. I find no a priori reason why the above relationship between power and responsibility is suspended for God. Rejecting the relationship outright seems to me to be morally bankrupt. Therefore, I will use it to insist that God, under common Christian theology, is responsible for all that occurs, even if there is no direct manipulation of human will. He is certainly responsible for everything that happens that is beyond human capacity to control or prevent.

PARALLELS OF ABUSE

In the following comparisons, I will use the shorthand “perp” for perpetrator or abuser. The victim is the abused. The format is as follows: the first part is a statement of the typical characteristic of human-human abuse. The second is how common Christian theology fits the characteristic. Note that I will use the violent male perp/female victim case for my examples, though this is not by any stretch the only form of abuse.

1. The perp faults the victim for the violence. For example, a perp will get mad, hit the victim, and then tell the victim “now look what you made me do.” The victim will eventually get into this mindset as well, believing that it was the victim’s fault violence occurred. (“I made him mad.”) (Ref 1, p. 58)

If something bad happens to a Christian, the Christian will often blame him/herself, saying something like “I sinned and didn’t repent, and God is reminding me.” Alternatively, s/he may say that Satan did it, and that their faith wasn’t strong enough to stay spiritually out of his realm/control. In the latter case, the theology that God created Satan, and has the power to utterly destroy him, is conveniently forgotten. For example, a friend of mine, already legally blind and whose thumb is not opposable, lost his hearing. He says God is testing his faith, which had started to waver just before he lost his hearing. This form is usually seen in sects that believe in ongoing intervention by God. Even those who don’t believe in such intervention will often, when pressed, use the justification that evil is caused by a sinful world, brought about by human sin. As previously mentioned, this is a direct consequence of God’s actions (i.e. the form of the creation).

2. The perp will constantly insist s/he loves the victim. However, his actions demonstrate his definition of love is complete obedience. (Ref 2, p. 8) Violence can occur when the victim disobeys the perp (often unintentionally – sometimes merely inconveniencing the perp is enough to trigger violence), even though the victim never displayed any lessening of expressions of love. The victim never knows when violence will occur. (Ref 1, p. 18)

The Christian insists that his/her god loves the Christian (and everyone else). Yet nearly the entire Old Testament is dedicated to the concept of obedience. The New Testament is similar, in that there is still the insistence on obedience (1 John 5, 2 John 6). The requirements have merely been simplified. Now, instead of a book full of laws, there is only one – believe in Christ, be a slave to God , and have eternal life (Romans 6:22-23). Reject Christ, and the result is everlasting death.

3. The victim loves the perp, making it difficult to recognize the abuse. (Ref. 1, p. 27 and Ref. 2, p. 33)

Christians insist that we should love God, (and they say they do) even though (according to many Christians) the violent thing imaginable (eternal torture) is handed out to the majority of humanity. Many other Christians talk about eternal separation. This is equivalent to “I’ll leave you/disown you if you don’t do exactly as I say.” (Ref. 2, p. 6) See also the Book of Job.

What sort of love does the Christian have for his/her God? The following statements are common from Christians:

* Without him (God), I have nothing to live for, and I am nothing (John 15:5).* (Contrast this with the statement “He wants me to feel good whether I’m with him or not.”) * I just want to be with him, forever, in Heaven. * He can’t abide sin, and unbelievers will never be with him as I will be. * I could never love anyone else the way I love him. * I only see the best in him. * He’s so awesome, and I’m a miserable sinner, but he loves me anyway. * He knows everything about me, and everything I do. I’m secure in his undivided attention. * I know what I love about him.* * He keeps me on the straight and narrow away from sin.* * God will never leave me — I can always trust him. The idea of God leaving is ridiculous and unthinkable.* (Contrast with “If there were no God, I’d be just fine.”) * He brings out the best in me.* * He has all the qualities I value, and I would like to develop them in myself.* * I like to hear about the salvation of others.*

Many of these statements compare well with what is called “romantic” and “addictive” love. (Ref. 2, p. 31-35) While some statements humans make about human love don’t apply at all (God isn’t normally seen as “dating”) the comparison is instructive. It is interesting to note that, of the statements in the list that relate to nurturing love (with asterisks), there is an even split between nurturing and anti-nurturing ideals. An analysis to show the origin of the face-value positive statements isn’t necessary to show that the Christian concept of God’s “love” is indeed flawed.

4. The perp will maintain a stream of ego-reducing invective. This is sometimes couched in apparently loving terms, yet will invariably reiterate the lack of worth of the victim. (“Here, let me help with that. You know you’re hopeless when it comes to machinery.”) It can also be brutally direct. (“You are a stupid lazy shithead. Get your lardass moving and get me a drink.”) The abused :

* doubts his/her own worth, and feels punishment is deserved * is very susceptible to criticism * lets others give him/her direction because s/he feels without purpose and/or feels incompetent to fulfill goals.

The Christian insists that his/her god loves everyone, in spite of the fact that the Christian Holy Vible constantly tells us we are unworthy of such love, that we are all miserable, wretched sinners, who have all fallen short. (Genesis 6:5, 1 Kings 8:46, Romans 3:23, Proverbs 20:9, Isaiah 53:6 and 64:6, 1 John 1:8)

6. Normal socializing by the victim may be seen as a threat to the perp’s control. The victim’s same-sex friends are viewed with deep suspicion, and there usually are no opposite-sex friends. If there are, contact with them without presence of the perp usually provokes violence. This social battering occurs when extreme possessiveness and jealousy cuts the victim off from activities not involving the perp. (Ref. 1, p. 22) The abused thinks that s/he isn’t complete or successful or secure alone. (Ref. 1, p. 59)

Christianity tells you God is all you need — that without him, nothing is possible, with him, everything is possible. The Christian god is very jealous of his followers (Exodus 20:5), and they are strongly discouraged from marrying outside the faith. (2 Corinthians 6:14) According to literalists, he is exceptionally harsh on those who give any indication they like another god, even if it is just some platonic respect. (Note that everyone except Jesus, to this sort of person, is an agent of Satan. Moderates of course ignore this idea, and can appreciate the teachings of Buddha, for example, even if they don’t agree with everything.)

CONCLUSION

Some may argue that I came up with a conclusion, and then made this list to fit. This is only partially true. I have long seen the parallels between the Christian notion of a “relationship to God” and a standard abusive relationship (man-woman). I did indeed try to find as many parallels as I could in writing this list, but I know that I have missed one or two. However, I did not have to force the parallels.

I understand that some people will say that anything bad is Satan and not Yahweh. This is theologically unsound, as far as I can tell, because Yahweh is supposed to be sovereign over everything from start to finish. Some will say that we are not fit to judge him as abusive, but that is merely a “might makes right” argument, which is the most obvious characteristic of an abusive relationship.

Some will say that since I haven’t “taken the Holy Spirit” into myself that I can’t see the love of Yahweh. This is the very same point I made above, where the victim insists that there is a love relationship, while an outside observer can see the pattern of violence. There may be love there, but it is strongly overshadowed by a perverse hate.

Finally, some will erect the knee-jerk “free will” defense. However, in this case (according to Christians) we do not have the free will to be sinless. Many try, but none succeed. We merely have the free will to accept or reject Yahweh. In the case of an abusive relationship, the victim can reject the perp and leave.

In Christianity, there really is no place to run, because Yahweh will get you and toss you in Hell (whatever that means to each individual). The only real escape for the Christian from mental abuse inflicted by this theology is to reject it completely.

https://holyvible.food.blog/2022/03/31/sex-and-what-is-holy-vible/