Chapter One - Love in a Unloving World
1 If God created the universe; then who or what created God?
2 If God is a God of love, as claimed by Jesus in the Bible; then why do we live in a world of suffering?
Religious people have no clear answer to both of these questions, but of course atheists do. As they will claim that there is no God and the universe was created 13.8 billion years ago in the Big Bang. When the universe exploded out of nothing. They also claim that life on Earth was created by a process of evolution. Which forces different species to compete against each other, to survive. So it’s the struggle to survive that causes so much of our suffering. While pain, fear, and hunger are simply warning signs to protect our bodies from injury or death.
Although most atheists will admit that neither the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution doesn’t actually prove there is no God. But claim that these two theories are more sensible and logical ways for the universe to be created and life to appear on Earth. Than it being created by a God. Likewise, there are many religious people who accept both the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution, but claim it was God’s way of creating the universe and life on our planet.
But the two questions atheists ask about God, are still a problem for religious people. Who have no-idea about who or what created God, accept to suggest; God is eternal. While the only reasonable explanation for the second question is that God gave us free will and that causes suffering. Which might be true, as it is free will that causes so much suffering. Like the free-will to bully, insult, assault and murder others, or go to war and commit genocide. It’s doubtful that there has never been a time in history when there hasn’t been a war being fought in some part of the world. But that begs the question of why would a God create a creature so insane that it wants to fight wars? How insane humans can be, was shown in the Cold War in the 20th century. Since 1945 with the test of the first nuclear bomb, we have all lived under the threat of nuclear annihilation ever since. During the Cold War between NATO countries and the USSR they had something called M.A.D. which to quote from the internet:
Mutually Assured Destruction is a nuclear deterrence theory where two opposing sides possess the capacity to destroy each other in retaliation for a nuclear attack, a concept that helped prevent direct nuclear war between the US and the USSR.
This means mankind has now the ability to commit global suicide and finds it hard not to do this. Because nuclear arms countries, even today, are still threatening each other with nuclear weapons. There is also insane ideas like using; battleground tactical nuclear weapons; or discussions about how a nuclear war can be won. Both ideas if implemented, would start a nuclear war. Any sensible person must be aware that making, deploying and threatening each other with nuclear weapons is total insanity. Yet, governments all over the world are unable to get together and ban these weapons. Simply because they don’t trust each other, to honour any agreement to destroy their nuclear weapons. As they fear countries might hide some of these weapons instead of destroying them. Or some rogue state might build them in secret and then conquer the planet by using them on a defenceless world, that no longer has nuclear weapons.
So if we are created by a God, then why would he create a creature that has the intelligence to invent and produce nuclear weapons? Yet at the same time, is so insane, that it used them to destroy two Japanese cities? Then later other states produce them and deploy them to threaten other countries with them. Although is has to be pointed out the people who start wars and fight in them, are men. Very few women get directly involved in fighting in any wars. So are all the problem of suffering caused by men? Not completely, because women in their own way, also exbibit strange behaviour, but in a different way, as I’ll explain later.
So this is a powerful argument for atheism because what sort of God creates a world where there is conflict, violence, wars, genocide, poverty, illness and pain? It doesn’t make sense, and that’s why so many people believe there cannot be a God. But atheism is not a much better option, as it suggests we live in a world of no morality. Richard Dawkins a British evolutionary biologist and zoologist wrote a book called: The Selfish Gene. Where he explains that the only purpose of life, is to pass on our genes to the next generation. Which is a depressing concept. To quote, Douglas Futuyma, a evolutionary biologist:
By coupling the undirected, purposeless variations to the blind, uncaring process of natural selection, Darwin made the theological or spiritual explanations of the life processes superfluous.
In other words, according to atheists we live in a pointless and meaningless world. But it gets worse, because the theory of evolution created; Social Darwinism. Where the rich used the evolutionary concept of the “survival of the fittest”, to justify their wealth and power at the expense of the working class poor. Where they claim they are rich and wealthy because evolution has made them more intelligent and competent than poor people. It’s also from Social Darwinism we get; eugenics, racism, imperialism and fascism.
But since the 1940s, Social Darwinism has been discredited by the behaviour of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party. Because they were big supporters of it and used it to justify war and the holocaust, with the genocide of Jews, Gypsies and disabled people. But Social Darwinism still survives in the form of neoliberalism economics, which is the economic system of all Western countries today. How it works was explained in 1987 film, Wall Street starring Michael Douglas whom played the character Gordon Gekko, who said in the film:
Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.
It’s true that for billionaires greed is very good. But it’s not so great for the millions of people living in poverty. Unfortunately, the huge gap between rich and poor has been around for thousands of years. Ancient Greece and Rome were both slave societies. But even when the people protested against slavery, it then evolved into serfdom. Then when both slavery and serfdom was finally abolished in the 19th century, employers then resorted to wage slavery.
Karl Marx explained it perfectly: All wealth comes from the manual labour of working people. So in the capitalist system for an employer to make a profit, he has to produce his products he makes, as cheaply as possible. But sell it at the highest price, he can get away with. As most things are produced by workers, then the more an employer can push down wages of his employees, but get the same amount of productivity from them. The greater are his profits. So even when you have a employer who does care about the welfare of his workers. And pays them a decent wage and gives them safe and amenable working conditions. This will mean the cost of the products, he produces, will be more expensive and his profits will decrease. Then as the result; he cannot compete against a competitor who exploits his workers. So the caring employers will end up going bankrupt, while selfish and uncaring employer will thrive. So the exploitation of workers is embedded within the capitalist system. Because the more successful an employer is in exploiting his workers, the more wealthy he becomes. (Although this might be changing now with the increase use of robotics and computers, where few workers are needed to operate a factory).
The well-known quote that sums this up capitalism is: Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that: The Nastiest of Men for the Nastiest of Motives Will Somehow Work for the Benefit of All. (Some people claimed it was John Keynes who wrote this, but others dispute it.)
This is a rebuff to the concept of the “invisible hand”. Which is a metaphor of Scottish 18th century economist Adam Smith. Who claimed the incentives of the free market, causes self-interested people to accidentally act in the public interest, even when they don’t intended this. Although there is some truth in this, it only works when there is fair competition between businesses. But in the capitalist system there is unfair competition, where businesses will use unscrupulous means to put rivals out of business. The most well known trick is for a large business to sell its products at a loss, knowing that its smaller rivals can’t afford to do the same. So although the large business is losing money, it’s big enough to absorb the losses. But it’s smaller rivals cannot afford the same losses and they will go bankrupt. Then without any competition, the large firm is free to put up the prices of his products to the maximum price of what the public can afford.
Another criticism of capitalism by Marx, is that a free market will eventually result in monopolies or cartels. The most well-known cartel is OPEC, which sets the price of oil and gas worldwide and so oil companies no longer compete against each other over price. Which is why oil companies are some of the most wealthy companies on the planet. And why oil rich countries like Saudi Arabia are also extremely wealthy.
So this supports the selfish gene theory. Because it seems selfish people are the most successful people in our world. Whereas if we were created by a loving God, then surely he would design a world, were loving people are successful and rule our world. While selfish people will gain nothing from their selfish behaviour. But the opposite seems to be true; where the worse types of people end up ruling the world and are extremely wealthy. We see this in the huge gap between rich and poor. Where the rich selfishly hoard their wealth, and are contemptuous of the poor whom they regard as “losers” or “useless eaters”. For that reason, it’s no wonder some Christians claim our world is ruled by the Devil. (There are many passages in the Bible that seem to suggest this like: Isaiah 14:12–14, Ezekiel 28:11–19, John 12:31, John 14:30, John 16:11, 2 Corinthians 4:4 and Ephesians 2:2.)
Although it doesn’t mean that atheism automatically leads to Social Darwinism, Fascism and neoliberalism. It can also lead to communism which is also a atheist doctrine. The success and failure of communism is mixed. The worse example of communism was the insane Khmer Rouge government of Cambodian in the 1970s. Which resulted in a genocide of about two million people. This government was overthrown by the neighbouring communist Vietnamese army. While the best example is; “communism with Chinese characteristics”. The Chinese communist took over and ruled China since 1949. And although they did make some big mistakes at first, like the great famine of 1959 and 1961, resulting in the deaths of millions of people. As well as the Cultural Revolution that also caused widespread suffering. But they did learn from their mistakes and with a change in leadership they did somehow made the communist system work. By taking hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. While China’s economy has continued to grow, so it’s now the largest economy in the world.
Which demonstrates that the success or failure of any system is more to do with; “the singer and not the song”. Uncaring, incompetent and insane rulers can destroy any country they rule, no matter what system they use. While caring and intelligent rulers can bring prosperity to all the people of their country, irrespective of what type of government they have. Which begs the question; why don’t we have more governments of competent, intelligent and caring people? Why does it seem that the worst types of people, mostly end up ruling our world?
But neoliberalism and communism are not the only alternatives there is also Keynesian economics. Which brought prosperity to the Western world after World War Two, up until the late 1970s when it was replaced by neoliberalism. But that’s another story. However, the economic system that is totally opposite to neoliberalism, is the gift economy. Why the gift economy is radically different to any other type of economic system, is that it doesn't use money or any form of barter system. Instead people give to each other without any expectation of anything in return. The idea is our needs will be provided by the exchange of gifts. Many people assume this type of economy would be totally impracticable because some people would abuse the system and make it unworkable. So it is interesting that the strongest advocates of it, are women. The only way a gift economy could possibly work, is if everyone in the community was to love and care for each other. This means loving people will look out for others and give to each other what they need, without selfishly abusing the system.
This is not a unrealistic fantasy, because underneath the capitalist system, the gift economy does work in communities where people know each other and help others who need it. But although most people would think the gift economy is a wonderful idea, they would claim it cannot work in practise as a main-stream economic system. Yet they accept neoliberalism, which has been around since the end of the 1970s. So why do we assume an economic system based on love is impracticable? But an economic system based on greed and selfishness is more likely to work? We would find that answer to this, in the book; The Selfish Gene, which suggests we are all selfish, but the problem is; not all people are like that.
In many British villages they have “honestly boxes”. Where people in the country sell fruits and vegetables by simply putting them out near the road, unattended. With a box to put the money in, for people purchasing the produce. This seems to work in small villages, because most people are honest and won’t abuse the system. But it’s less likely to work in larger towns or cities. The reason for this, is that where there is a higher population, it is more likely to find people who will steal all the money and produce. Unfortunately, although criminals make up a small minority of the population. It’s because of them, we need to lock our doors, have policemen, lawyers, courts, prisons and laws.
But there are loving and caring people all over our world, so why isn’t it possible to have governments of these types of people? If we live a country where there is poverty, wide-spread homelessness and beggars on the streets. You know that the government of that country is either extremely incompetent and/or cares nothing for the people they rule. So why is it so hard to have governments of sensible and intelligent people who actually care about the people they rule? Because with modern technology there is no excuse for any government not to eliminate poverty, provide decent jobs, housing and healthcare for all it’s people.
So we live in a world, where both loving and unloving people live together in the same community. The problem with being a loving person, is that it’s great if you live in a loving neighbourhood where everyone loves each other. But that neighbourhood can be ruined by a few selfish and vicious people coming to live in it. It’s even more of a problem when abusive people form relationships with loving people. This is highlighted in the song; Stand by Your Man, sung by Tammy Wynette in 1968. Which starts of with:
Sometimes it's hard to be a woman
Givin' all your love to just one man
Unfortunately, I cannot reproduce all the lyrics of the song here and discuss them, because of copyright issues, but they are available on-line. It’s said that; Tammy Wynette wrote the song in about 20 minutes with her producer Billy Sherrill. But then had to defend the lyrics of the song, for the rest of her life. An example of this criticism is what the singer Jeannie C. Riley said of the song:
It sounds like you should take anything he dishes out.
So Tammy Wynette was forced to defend herself, as she tried to explain:
Nowhere does it say be a doormat and let this man walk on you. And: The women I knew--my mother, my grandmother, my aunts--they stood by their man.
But Tammy Wynette didn’t, “Stand by her man,” as she was married five times and divorced four of her husbands because she suffered abuse by them. Yet, it has to be admitted her song has withstood the test of time. It’s still a well-known song, eighty years after it was written. Even the gay community love the song and has been sung in gay clubs by Tammy Wynette impersonators. She was also invited to sing it for gay audiences during her lifetime. But what Tammy Wynette wrote is what many women do, all the time. They give unconditional love to men and children, who don’t always appreciate it.
Before the Women’s Liberation Movement in the 1960s, psychologists claimed that all women were masochists and many women agreed with this. But feminists attacked this idea, pointing out that psychiatrists only see mentally ill people and these women do not represent all women. So a lot of feminists were angry with Tammy Wynette as she publicly seem to be supporting what the psychiatrists where claiming at that time. But it’s a fact many loving women are abused by the men they live with. To quote from the internet:
Based on Office for National Statistics (ONS) data and Femicide Census reports, an average of 80 women per year are killed by a current or former partner in England and Wales.
In 1971 Erin Pizzey opened the first women's refuge in the UK. In her book, Scream Quietly or the Neighbours Will Hear. she reported that psychiatrists told her she was wasting her time, because the women she was trying to help, were all masochists. At the time, she strongly resisted this suggestion. But after experiencing helping too many women escape from their abusive partners. Only for them to return to these abusive men at a later date. Changed Erin Pizzey’s beliefs completely. She began to distinguished between what she called; "genuine battered women” and; "violence-prone women," who provoke violence from her boyfriend or husband. She then moved to the USA and ended up going from one extreme to the other. As she is now the editor of an anti-feminist website called, A Voice for Men. The Founder of this web-site is call Paul Elam and he wrote a article called; Jury Duty at a Rape Trial? Acquit! Where he wrote:
Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.
So Erin Pizzey who started off as a feminist and did her best to save women from abusive men. Has now switched sides, to now associating with men who seem to think that men raping women, shouldn’t be a crime and made legal. But she is not the only woman like this.
The Pitcairn Island in the South Pacific is unique because it’s population consists of the descendants of the HMS Bounty mutineers, Tahitian women and a few Tahitian men. They occupied the island in 1790, but soon conflict between the mutineers broke out resulting in the deaths of nearly all the mutineers and some of the Tahitian men. So that by 1800, only one mutineer, John Adams remained alive. Later, the island was taken over by the British Empire. Then in 2004, 6 men living on the island were convicted of 55 charges relating to sexual offences against children and young adults. What is surprising about this trail, is that many of the island’s women tried to organize a defence of the men accused of child sex abuse. Claiming that this was the custom of the island going back to when the Bounty first sailed to the island. (Although, not all the Pitcairn Island women defended the men, there were women on the island, who did want them imprisoned).
But women protecting male child abusers is not unusual. Some victims of child sexual abuse have complained that their mother’s turned a blind eye, when their fathers have abused them. It’s true in the past, a wife would be helpless to do anything about this, because she could be beaten up if she protests. But in the 20th century laws were passed against this behaviour, yet it still goes on. So why will some women not try to protect her children against abusive men? It seems that some women love abusive men more than they love their own children. While other women fall in love with criminals.
I first came across women’s love for criminals, when as a young man and I listen to a radio play called; On The Spot, by Edgar Wallace. This was the story of a Chicago gangster boss and his Chinese mistress. The contrast between these two couldn’t be more extreme. The gangster boss thought nothing of ordering people to be murdered. While his Chinese mistress was a very loving and caring person. Yet, when the gangster boss decided to dump her for another woman, she became so distraught, she committed suicide. At the time of listening to this play, I admit I found this story disturbing. Because why would a loving and caring women, fall deeply in love with a brutal gangster? To me, it didn’t make sense. But later on talking about it to a educated female friend of mine, she did confirm to me it’s not unusual for women to fall in love with brutal criminals. Which at the time seemed crazy to me.
This behaviour was confirmed more recently, when I discovered that some women write love letters to criminals including serial killers. It has been claimed that the worse the crime, the more love letters these criminals receive. Some of these women even marry these criminals when they leave prison and end up being abused and even murdered by them. Psychologists call this behaviour hybristophilia and suggest these women must be masochists.
Psychiatrists claim masochism is caused by an inferiority complex, or a lack of self-esteem. But women are known for something else, and that is their maternal instinct. Which drives them to not only love and care for their own children but everyone else. Some women deal with maternal love, by not loving themselves and putting the needs of others before herself. Because it’s easier to do this. So this may be why psychiatrists claim women suffer a lack of self-esteem. As the result, these women become doormats and can demonstrate extreme masochistic behaviour. But then, it’s really hard, to give unconditional love for everyone, but also love yourself, at the same time. This is a problem for both sexes. The reason why men find it so hard to learn to give unconditional love, is that they do have self-esteem and do love themselves. This means, for men unconditional love becomes sacrificial love. This is less a problem for women, but even they can find it difficult.
There has been books written about this, like: Women who love too much, by Robin Norwood. (It’s a sad refection of our world, when loving too much, is seen as a problem). Men Who Hate Women and the Women Who Love Them, by Susan Forward and Joan Torres. And: Women Who Love Men Who Kill, by Sheila Isenberg. The reported behaviour of the women in these books is so extraordinary, that many people assume these women must be crazy. Because, anyone who has a relationship with a violent and abusive person is going to end up being mentally damaged. For that reason, it’s certainly sacrificial love. The people who try to explain this unprecedented conduct are generally psychologists and psychiatrists, who attempt to understand this behaviour. But end up just giving these women labels, that mildly suggest; they must be mad. Then attempt to persuade them to stop this strange self-destructive behaviour. Yet, these women claim they are trying to save these men. But mental health professionals state that; this is an impossible, quixotic quest.
But to be fair, although in most abusive relationships it’s mostly men who are the abuser and women are the victims. There are relationships where the opposite is true. There are women who are the abusers and men their victims. This happens when we have a loving man who will not hit a woman, has a relationship with an abusive women. Who then take advantage of this and will hit him with impunity, knowing he would never hit her back. So women who have learnt to hate men because of their abusive behaviour towards women. Express their hatred and anger, by attacking loving men who won’t retaliate. Because if these women did try doing this to abusive men, they would hit back, even harder. Which means, these loving men have become the scapegoats for the behaviour of abusive men. It seems that there are loving men, who are attracted to cruel and selfish women, in the same way loving women are attracted to cruel and selfish men. But they are far fewer in number compared with women who do this.
It has to be said; very few men are murdered by women. Violence by men against women is far higher than violence by women against men. It’s hard to get exact figures on this, but looking at crime figures, men commit far more crime that women; to quote from the internet:
Due to the higher severity of crimes committed by men, they constitute 95% to 96% of the prison population and receive longer average custodial sentences than women.
Therefore, were early 20th century psychologists right, when they claimed all women are masochists? There could be a evolutionary explanation for this. Men are bigger, stronger and more aggressive than women and throughout history, women have been on the receiving end of male violence and rape. Because of this, the sensible thing for women to do, is keep away from men. But women who do this, are unlikely to become pregnant and so wouldn’t pass on her genes to the next generation. So evolution would favour female masochism, of women forming relationships with men and accepting male abuse. So these women will have children and pass on their genes. But there is no such an easy explanation for female masochism, if we believe that a loving God created the world. Because surely a loving God wouldn’t allow women to be abuse by men.
Then there is also the question about why are men more aggressive and violent that what women are? Again, atheism and evolutionary theory has the answer to this. We can see how different male and females are, in the mating season, in animals like; stags, rams bulls and gorillas. Where the males fight each other every year for access to females. So the biggest and strongest males end up with a large harem of females, while the losers in these fights, don’t get a chance to mate with any female. This means the biggest, strongest and most aggressive males are most likely to pass on his genes to the next generation. The females don’t fight each other and when they give birth, they nurture and care for their young. So the competitive males have no intention of sharing the females with other males, so this tends to make males not only competitive and aggressive but selfish as well. Whereas, through nurturing her young, will make females more caring and loving creatures.
It’s true, men are not so aggressive that they fight each other over access to women, like stags or bulls do. But their bodies still produce testosterone which makes men’s bodies stronger and mentally more aggressive than women. This is the atheist explanation for male aggression, but religion doesn’t have a better explanation for it. Except to vaguely talk about good and evil and claim it’s the work of the Devil. This is the common excuse for many religions; it’s the Devil’s fault. The problem is that they can’t explain why a loving God would create men with competitive and violent instincts, that causes them to fight in wars and commit murder.
Yet, in the New Testament we find Jesus in his Sermon on The Mount, teachings, he advocates for the exact opposite of male aggression. As he seems to promote either extreme masochism or unconditional love, depending on your point of view. To quote:
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’
39 But I tell you, don’t resist him who is evil; but whoever strikes you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also.
40 If anyone sues you to take away your coat, let him have your cloak also.
41 Whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.
42 Give to him who asks you, and don’t turn away him who desires to borrow from you.
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’
44 But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you,
45 that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same?
47 If you only greet your friends, what more do you do than others? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same?
Matthew 5 38 – 47 The World English Bible.
So although Jesus might be teaching unconditional love, but when women do it, they can be accused of masochism. Not only did Jesus teach these very masochistic teachings, he practised them as well, as we see at the time of his crucifixion. At the last supper he washed the feet of his disciples and overruled the objections of Peter for doing this. He allowed himself to be betrayed by Judas, who led the Temple guards to him. Then made no attempt to defend himself when accused of blasphemy. Nor did he make any attempt to plead for his innocence, when brought before the Roman governor Pontius Pilate or King Herod. He was then humiliated, tortured and whipped, before he was nailed to a cross and crucified. Yet, while he was dying on the cross he is reported as saying; forgive them; for they know not what they do. Luke 23: 34. American Standard Version.
So Jesus practised what he preached, and didn’t give into hatred for those responsible for this betrayal, persecution, torture and crucifixion. He went to his death like a lamb to the slaughter, no wonder he was called; the lamb of God, as we read in the Bible: Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. John 1: 29, American Standard Version.
But a lot of Christians don’t like Jesus’s teaching on the Sermon on The Mount and prefer to ignore them. While many far prefer the Bible teachings like: Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. Colossians 3:18, Webster's Bible Translation. Or Ephesians 5:22 which says the same thing. In the USA there is something called; Christian Domestic Discipline. Which encourages husbands to spank their wives. It seems that these men think that, “turning the other cheek,” should only apply to women’s bottoms. Although this behaviour has been criticized by other Christians who called it Christian BDSM and claim these people use the Bible to justify sadomasochistic behaviour.
But up until half-way through the 20th century, this may have been acceptable behaviour for many people. We can see this in some Hollywood films where actresses have been spanked in films. The most well know is the 1963 film McLintock! Where John Wayne spanked Maureen O’Hara. But John Wayne also spanked Elizabeth Allen in another film; Donovan’s Reef. Even Elvis Presley spanks Jenny Maxwell in the film; Blue Hawaii. While Lucille Ball was spanked four times in her TV show; I Love Lucy. There are many more Hollywood films where this has happened.
So the word, masochism, muddies the waters, by turning unconditional love, into something kinky, perverted or neurotic. The way women’s unconditional love is more acceptable, is in the story of Edith Cavell who was execution by German firing squad. She was a British nurse during the First World War working in German occupied Belgium. As a nurse she was nursing both German and Allied troops but then became involved in helping Allied troops escaped Belgium. She was then betrayed and arrested by the Germans. Again like Jesus she made no attempt to defend herself during her trial and admitted to helping allied troops escape. So the Germans went ahead and executed her. But what made her famous, is what she said, to a priest, the day before she died:
I expected my sentence and I believe it was just. Standing as I do in view of God and Eternity, I realise that patriotism is not enough, I must have no hatred or bitterness towards anyone.
Which is in total contrast to the way her story was used as anti-German propaganda during the First World War, to stir up hatred against the Germans. Whereas Edith Cavell’s message is of universal compassion. It’s claimed she said this because of her strong Christian faith. But another reason might be because she was a loving and caring woman. Because Edith Cavell is not alone being able to give unconditional love. Women are frequent victims of male assault, rape and murder. Yet women are still able to love men. So clearly, women know all about; loving your enemies. They even; sleep with the enemy. The extremes of this we can see in Pakistan. Where to quote from Wikipedia:
According to Women's Studies professor Shahla Haeri, rape in Pakistan is "often institutionalized and has the tacit and at times the explicit approval of the state". According to a study by Human Rights Watch, there is a rape once every two hours and a gang rape every eight.
Apparently, there has been cases in Pakistan where women have gone to the police to complain about being raped and then have been arrested by the police on the charge of adultery! (Adultery is a crime in Pakistan, where a woman can be put into prison for up to five years). Yet in spite of being treated like this; women will still give men unconditional love. And according to Jesus in the Bible, so does God, who also gives us all unconditional love, to quote:
For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust. Matthew 5: 45. World English Bible.
This teaching is a lot different from what many “God-fearing” Christians believe, who think that when we die, God will judge us and if we have sinned, we will, “Burn in hell”. Which is not the behaviour of a loving God, as taught by Jesus. Another problematic teaching of Jesus is:
For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Don’t even the tax collectors do the same? If you only greet your friends, what more do you do than others? Matthew 5: 46. World English Bible.
For most normal people, to love other people who love you in return; is the sensible thing to do. But Jesus is suggesting that loving those who love you in return; is too easy. If you really want to know what true love is; then try loving people who don’t love you in return, or even hate you. Yet, anyone doing this is modern Western culture, would be accused of masochism. Yet reading what Jesus taught two thousand years ago, he seems to be in support of anyone who gives unconditional love to others, even if they receive abuse in return. Like we again see in Matthew 5.
10 Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye when [men] shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven
Matthew 5: 10 – 12, American Standard Version
The behaviour that Jesus is praising and encouraging, is not a lot different to that of women who love abusive men. But it’s doubtful if any of these women think that by loving these men; their reward will be in heaven. But this is also true of loving men, where being a kind, loving person is not always rewarded in our world. So clearly the reward for being a caring person has to be in heaven because it’s certainly not on Earth. That’s why we have well known saying like; “nice guys come last.” and “no good deed, goes unpunished”. These saying are exaggerated because being a nice guy is not a barrier to be successful. While there are people who do appreciate good deeds. But when it comes to extreme wealth and political power these saying do seem to be true. We know this because if we had loving and caring people in positions of power. Then we wouldn’t live in a world where there is a huge gap between rich and poor and have poverty and homelessness. Because a ruling elite of caring people would want to share their wealth and do their best to eliminate poverty.
Jesus’s teachings would also make no sense to atheists because they believe in; “the survival of the fittest”. So they would assume a person like Jesus, by turning the other cheek and allowing people to steal from him. Is unlikely to survive for long and so less likely to pass on his genes to the next generation. The same is true of people who believe that God is a man. Even if they believe in a loving male God, they would think Jesus’s teachings are too extreme. They would also think Jesus comes across as weak and effeminate and not a “real man”. Jesus’s teachings is all about unconditional love, which is inappropriate teachings for any masculine God. But it makes perfect sense if these teachings come from a loving, feminine Mother God. Which means Jesus’s teachings is more feminine than masculine. So it would be more appropriate if these teachings came from a woman, rather than a man. But that wouldn’t be allowed in a patriarchal society and certainly not in a Jewish country two thousand years ago.
We also find women who although don’t go as far as wanting to have a relationship with criminals or abusive men, are still attracted to damaged men, either physically or mentally. With whom they want to nurture and care for. This suggests that for many women their love for men is totally maternal, and love men in the same way they love children. So they are attracted to the type of man whom women call a “man-child”. Whereas sensible and responsible men whom act like adults, doesn’t trigger maternal instincts in these women. Although some women will marry sensible adult type of men for the sake of her future children. As they know a decent and responsible man, will be a good father.
It has to be said; that it is far easier for women to follow the extreme loving teachings of Jesus than it is for men. So why are we living in a world where some people, (mostly men) do not know how to love? While other people, (mostly women), cannot stop themselves from loving others? It doesn’t make sense. Atheists would claim that; because there is no designer of our world, we would have strange anomalies like this. But if we believe in a God, and believe God is a woman, as the title of this book, implies. Then why would she create a world where loving women fall in love with men, whom to quote Lady Caroline Lamb are; mad, bad and dangerous to know? (She said this about her lover Lord Byron). Or why would she allow men to rule planet, if they start wars, commit genocide, create inequality and poverty and also abuse women and children?
It suggests that if God is a woman, she is more on the side of men than women. But this might only be a mystery to modern people, because we have been cut off from our past. I’m sure in ancient Goddess religions there would have been teachings explaining why women give unconditional love and why there are so many men incapable of love. But most of the knowledge of ancient Goddess religions have been deliberately destroyed by later patriarchal religions. So we now only have fragments of these teachings; like we find in Jesus’s teachings in the New Testament. Which only seems strange to us, because it doesn’t tell the whole story. Jesus’s teachings is only part of a much larger Goddess theology. Which I have been attempting to rediscover.
But atheists can explain the whole insanity of the human condition, as another proof there cannot be a God or any sort of guiding intelligence. To quote Richard Dawkins in his book, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life.
In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
So I agree, it seems unlikely a loving God would create a crazy world of conflict, violence and suffering. Because logically if a God did create the world, it suggests he not a loving God, but a cruel sadist. But I do believe in a loving Mother God who does love us all unconditionally. So why would I believe that? To explain why, I have to establish the fact there is a God and explain where she came from. Before I can move on to answering; why would a loving God create a world of suffering.
Comments
Post a Comment