Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 



The Church says we have infinite value for God values us infinitely. But when God alone is to be loved we cannot care about that. We cannot insist that we get the infinite blessings of being valued infinitely. The notion of God infinitely loving us is just one of the things the Church uses to bait us. Plus God only cares about his own dignity. If it is true that God values us so much then he only values us for himself so it is really himself that he cares about. We might be valuable all right but this value is only an evaluation and it does not mean that anybody or anything should value us. It is like 2 being a value but that does not mean that anybody values anything as two though they do do it.
 
Rome gives one of her kisses of spiritual death in ordering her slaves to agree that they can love God for some selfish reason and also for his own sake Ė a mixture - and calls it imperfect love. Can they?
 
If you really love God selflessly you can drop the other motive. It is a sin to offer imperfect love when you can offer better. God gives all his people the power to resist sin (1 Corinthians 10:13). You havenít true love for God at all when you claim you love him and love something else as well.
 
How can the Church of Rome be capable of genuine love for God when it advocates untrue love for him? Is her perfect love a sham Ė mere self-delusion? To really love God you have to make sure you arenít doing anything he despises which she does not do. She is not giving the message. The message is that anything but selfless love for God will not do. Thus those members she has that claim to love God perfectly are lying because they would not support the Church policy if they did.
 
God religion teaches that the love of God and love of one another go together. If you donít love God, you oppose the one entity that others need which is not consistent with loving them. God is infinite love which means he hates sin infinitely. God hates sin with all his power so to sin is to offend him as much as you can. If you donít love your neighbour you donít love God for he loves them and wants you to do the same (1 John 5:1-3). Christianity says we are all sinners so we love nobody and nothing. All we are doing when we think we love is pretending. This teaching is enough to have anybody foaming at the mouth and put in a straitjacket. The doctrine of love for God which Christianity advertises as a healthy one is our in-doing.
 
We canít say we love God in loving ourselves alone on the grounds that it pleases him for that is too easy. Any egoist could say the same. There would be no need for God then and people believe in him because they think the belief will comfort them and restrain them from moral degeneration. Loving God cannot mean we love ourselves alone. That is like saying black is white.
 
You canít do real good when hostility to good is adhered to. What you do may look good and bring benefit but since it is done with a dark heart it is not really good. We know that to do good while being an impenitent sinner is false and deceptive. For that reason, unconditional love for one person and not another or even for everybody except one person is worthless. It is not love at all for it is willingly defiled by the unrepented sins. It is defiled by your refusal to love everybody else unconditionally too. It is a mimic of the real thing. Only perfect people can have unconditional love. There is something vulgar and convenient and pompous about a person saying they unconditionally love somebody who has not lived that bad a life. It was easy for them. How can you know the love is unconditional when the person has not had the chance to be a Hitler and refused it? The love is just a act of self-delusion.
 
If I love God alone that means that any joy I have that is not completely founded on him is a sin assuming joy is allowed at all. He and only he must be the source of my joy. Thus religion tells you how to feel and who wants to listen to that these days? But God is a spirit being without feelings. Aquinas said that Godís love is nothing like the kind of love we understand. We only call it love for the sake of calling it something. Any descriptive word used of God is vague and not far from empty. From this it follows that anybody who finds their joy in God is not really doing so. They are finding their joy in a subconscious or conscious anthropomorphism or picture of God. They are relating to God in the way they would to a human being though God is not a human being. Though they say that they do not believe that God has human feelings and responses they turn off that idea when they have their relationship with him so they bond with an idol and not the real God. The only way the Church can give meaning to life is by deception such as this. It foments this deception. It gives the world a stale and alien God the world does not want and makes it think it does want it. This drives many critics to say things like that the Church is thieving souls and thieving their money.
 
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that you can commit something called mortal sin. This is a sin that implies total rejection of God. You expel the saving presence of God from yourself. Those who die in mortal sin go to Hell forever. They are separate from God and so can't ever go to Heaven for God lives there. The good works of a mortal sinner deserve no blessing from God. The works are sins themselves for the sinner is only desecrating the good by doing it without reconciling with God. To love a mortal sinner would be then to love something that there is no moral good in. You cannot love sinners and hate their sins for it is not sins we are against but bad people. Those who hate sin because it insults the God of infinite love and so is very serious cannot love the sinner. The evil of failing to see how sin offends God would be a worse one than neglecting a person to love God. The believers claim they can accuse sin of being infinitely and unimaginably bad and yet they say they can love the sinner. They are lying. The doctrine of mortal sin prevents you from looking at the good side of the person. The good side of the mortal sinner is dangerous for it is not really good and the more good the mortal sinner does the less likely he or she will be to see how much he or she needs to correct their sin and make peace with God. The good side cannot be praised by the true Christian. Instead the sinner has to be despised. God has to be loved so much - indeed totally - so hating those who loathe him or don't take him seriously or who don't appreciate him, ie mortal sinners, would be inevitable. You cannot love God and love the mortal sinner.
 
Liberal Catholics say you must love the mortal sinner for it is not for you to judge if a person is such a sinner. So it can't be for you to judge if somebody is a murderer either even if you are a judge. The Bible stresses that bad people are to be avoided and Jesus only bothered with them if they were on the verge of repenting or thinking about repenting. Judgement is necessary.
 
Loving God more than people is bad. Loving God not people is worse.
 
The problem with such attitudes as that you should love God alone is that you end up making people think you care about them when it is mainly or all about God. Its unnatural and can lead to severe psychological problems. It demands doing goodness for the sake of obedience and not for the sake of those in need. We all know believers with a callous righteousness.
 
Another problem is that it will result in a crippling guilt. Nobody can manage to love God first in their hearts or with all their hearts - if you did you would choose to suffer the greatest torment forever because he needed you to do it.
 
It is only by offering yourself and even your entire happiness up as a sacrifice that can end up putting God first. You consent to God destroying you or your happiness if he needs to.
 
Jesus claimed to be the divinely inspired Son of God who repeats only what God told him. Jesusí main teaching that there is no real good without God and loving God with your total being was wrong - for we know by experience that unbelievers can be good people. Hardly any competent philosophers suppose that you canít believe in morality unless you believe in a God who commands it. Then you are just blindly obeying God and calling it morality which is dangerous for you would be doing the same if he commanded murder. That attitude does not foster morality but immorality and it does not foster maturity but immaturity and it does not foster diligence but laziness. Its lazy to take your morals from authority instead simply seeing that the authority is right and obeying it because of that.

 

If God deserves all love then the only sin that matters is refusing to grant it to him.  The ultimate sin is telling God that you do not care that he made you for a life purpose or that his son died for your sins as if you were the only sinner alive and the offer of eternal happiness. This is said to be the only real reason at the end of the day why people go to everlasting damnation.  The command then is extremely passive aggressive and threatening.  You cannot love God under threat of committing the worst sin.  That only leads to fear.  Christians are either hypocrites who do not care about God or they are damaged passive aggressive individuals if they try to care. 
 
Another problem is that it will result in a crippling guilt. Nobody can manage to love God with all their hearts - if you did you would choose to suffer the greatest torment forever because he needed you to do it.
 
It is only by offering yourself and even your entire happiness up as a sacrifice that can end up putting God first. You consent to God destroying you or your happiness if he needs to. Your belief becomes an act of violence against yourself. That might be violence that you think is justified but it is still violence.
 
Some psychologists embrace the dogma that if you seem to be trying to hurt yourself, the reason is because you are angry at somebody else who let you down, who hurt you or who failed you. There is no proof of this claim that you are always just taking it out on yourself. You could be angry at yourself for failing yourself or hurting yourself or another. But it is clear that some people are trying to hurt themselves because they are angry at somebody who hurt them. Imagine how damaging it would be if they believed in God and felt that he failed them or let them down! It would be worse than thinking or feeling that a loved one let them down for God is so much better than any person.
 
If you punish yourself because another person let you down, it is because you feel that they are better than you and must not be criticised. Their evil must be soft-soaped by you. It is easy to see how belief in God can lead to this far more than being let down by any person would. There would be a stronger incentive to denial of the reality. You will suffer far more.

 

A person does terrible things to you or to somebody close to you. Trying to understand does not mean you are necessarily trying to condone them or condoning them. But if God comes first or God alone matters then the only thing that matters is understanding why the person has not connected enough with God to be good. That is in total opposition to psychology as a science.
 
People will not go to a professional with a problem if it involves God. They might go to an unqualified pastor or priest who has no right to playing the therapist role. The drunk in the local bar would be as well-qualified. The doctrine that God alone is to be loved and is to be loved above all things clearly indicates that people should be set up to feel angry against themselves if they perceive that God has let them down.
 
That it is possible for belief in God to lead to that is enough to make the promotion of belief in God irresponsible and dangerous.
 
Loving God and using people to put that love into action is abominable.
 
BOOKS CONSULTED

A CATECHISM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, CTS, London, 1985
A HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY, VOL 6, PART II, KANT, Frederick Copleston SJ, Doubleday/Image, New York 1964
AQUINAS, FC Copleston, Penguin Books, London, 1991
BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL, Friedrich Nietzsche, Penguin, London, 1990
BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, Association for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge, Dublin, 1960
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, Veritas, London, 1995
CHARITY, MEDITATIONS FOR A MONTH, Richard F Clarke SJ, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1973
CHRISTIANITY FOR THE TOUGH-MINDED, Edited by John Warwick Montgomery, Bethany Fellowship, Minnesota, 1973
CRISIS OF MORAL AUTHORITY, Don Cupitt, SCM Press, London, 1995
EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT, VOL 1, Josh McDowell, Alpha, Scripture Press Foundation, Bucks, 1995
ECUMENICAL JIHAD, Peter Kreeft, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1996
GOD IS NOT GREAT, THE CASE AGAINST RELIGION, Christopher Hitchens, Atlantic Books, London, 2007
THE GREAT MEANS OF SALVATION AND OF PERFECTION, St Alphonsus De Ligouri, Redemptorist Fathers, Brooklyn, 1988
HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Monarch, East Sussex, 1995
HONEST TO GOD, John AT Robinson, SCM, London, 1963
HOW DOES GOD LOVE ME? Radio Bible Class, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1986
IN DEFENCE OF THE FAITH, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 1996
MADAME GUYON, MARTYR OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, Phyllis Thompson, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1986
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Joseph Rickaby SJ, Stonyhurst Philosophy Series, Longmans Green and Co, London, 1912
OXFORD DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY, Simon Blackburn, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1996
PRACTICAL ETHICS, Peter Singer, Cambridge University Press, England, 1994
PSYCHOLOGY, George A Miller, Penguin, London, 1991
RADIO REPLIES, 1, Frs Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1938
RADIO REPLIES, 2, Frs Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1940
RADIO REPLIES, 3, Frs Rumble & Carty, Radio Replies Press, St Paul, Minnesota, 1942
REASON AND BELIEF, Brand Blanschard, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1974
REASONS FOR HOPE, Ed Jeffrey A Mirus, Christendom College Press, Virginia, 1982
THE ATONEMENT: MYSTERY OF RECONCILIATION, Kevin McNamara, Archbishop of Dublin, Veritas, Dublin, 1987
SINNERS IN THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GOD, Jonathan Edwards, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, undated
THE BIBLE TELLS US SO, R B Kuiper, The Banner of Truth Trust, Edinburgh, 1978
THE BRIEF OF ST ANTHONY OF PADUA (Vol 44, No 4)
THE GOOD, THE BAD & THE MORAL DILEMMA, G R Evans, Lion Books, Oxford, 2007
THE GREAT MEANS OF SALVATION AND OF PERFECTION, St Alphonsus De Ligouri, Redemptorist Fathers, Brooklyn, 1988
THE IMITATION OF CHRIST, Thomas A Kempis, Translated by Ronald Knox and Michael Oakley, Universe, Burns & Oates, London, 1963
THE LIFE OF ALL LIVING, Fulton J Sheen, Image Books, New York, 1979
THE NEW WALK, Captain Reginald Wallis, The Christian Press, Pembridge Villas, England, undated
THE PRACTICE OF THE PRESENCE OF GOD, Brother Lawrence, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1981
THE PROBLEM OF PAIN, CS Lewis, Fontana, London, 1972
THE PUZZLE OF GOD, Peter Vardy, Collins, London, 1990
THE SATANIC BIBLE, Anton Szandor LaVey, Avon Books, New York, 1969
THE SPIRITUAL GUIDE, Michael Molinos, Christian Books, Gardiner Maine, 1982
THE STUDENTíS CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, Rev Charles Hart BA, Burns & Oates, London, 1961
UNBLIND FAITH, Michael J Langford, SCM, London, 1982