Skip to main content

The Creed of Suffering

By Carl S ~

I remember Albert Schweitzer, but only slightly, for I was only 7 yrs. old when my brother mentioned him. Recently, I came across an old Life magazine article about Schweitzer, whose photo was as unforgettable as Einstein’s. He lived from 1875 to 1965, earned a Nobel Peace Prize in 1952 for his work as a doctor and founding a hospital, saving lives and bringing medicine to native Africans. But most of all, at my young age, I remember what he said about ending suffering, which he regarded as evil.

End suffering? Suffering is “evil?” Being raised as a Catholic, with the hanging corpse present in our home and our church of a man who died in agony, a symbol, we were taught, of a redemption from eternal suffering because of this, the message was, “Look, Jesus did it for you. He set the example. Look how much he loves you!” But the message really is: IT IS GOOD TO SUFFER. The central teaching of Christianity is NOT the life of Jesus, but the sufferings and death of Christ. (And, in case you didn’t know this already, crucifixion was one of the cruelest methods of punishment, as the victim typically suffered for hours in agony before succumbing. So, the crueler the better.) Since Jesus was THE example of ultimate love, we mere mortals could never argue against Jesus’ wonderful obedience and resignation to his father’s will, could we now? Even if this father had forsaken him and ignored his final pleading.

It was all about the will of God; the will of a sadist and the acceptance of masochists. And, perversely, the punishment for “sin” (suffering) was contorted to become something positive and meritorious in itself - became the drug of choice for the faithful. Vast numbers of sermons and theological arguments have been written to explain why God allows and even prefers humans to suffer for the greater good, to include anyone who loves or cares about the sufferer. And, as if there was not enough suffering to deal with in this world already, believers are asked, even commanded, to make themselves and others suffer by their own hands, for penance, redemption, blessings, etc., etc.

Think about it. When we speak of the OT genocides, the Flood, martyrs of all faiths, deaths of mothers and infants in childbirths, circumcisions, female genital mutilation, the trials of Job, we refer to them only and not to the agonies or sufferings of those who helplessly, hopelessly, watch those loved ones suffer or die. We must conclude that if there is a biblical deity, the evidence shows he is a sadist forever and ever, through and through.

We must conclude that if there is a biblical deity, the evidence shows he is a sadist forever and ever, through and through.Sanctioning the sufferings of others, with the write-off that they are God’s unquestionable will, and therefore good, is immoral and inhumane, reflecting an indifference to suffering. To accept suffering as the result of nature, and to manipulate nature to end suffering, is moral. Nature is indifferent to us and this is acceptable, but this God want us to suffer, and that is not acceptable.

It’s interesting to contrast the attitudes and actions of Dr. Schweitzer and another Nobel Peace Prize recipient (1979), Mother Teresa. Both were Christians, one a humanitarian (Schweitzer), the other a strict Catholic. Teresa saw suffering as holy, God’s will, and, though she did relieve it, she did not free up the millions in donations meant to end the suffering as much as possible. She also was against birth control, thus sanctioning bringing more children into a life of deprivation and suffering. Schweitzer dedicated his life to end the “evil” of suffering.

That person who jumps into the river to save a drowning child is greater than God. Time to take the crucifixes down and burn them, to warm the cold people. The creed of suffering is sick.


Popular posts from this blog

Are You an Atheist Success Story?

By Avangelism Project ~ F acts don’t spread. Stories do. It’s how (good) marketing works, it’s how elections (unfortunately) are won and lost, and it’s how (all) religion spreads. Proselytization isn’t accomplished with better arguments. It’s accomplished with better stories and it’s time we atheists catch up. It’s not like atheists don’t love a good story. Head over to the atheist reddit and take a look if you don’t believe me. We’re all over stories painting religion in a bad light. Nothing wrong with that, but we ignore the value of a story or a testimonial when we’re dealing with Christians. We can’t be so proud to argue the semantics of whether atheism is a belief or deconversion is actually proselytization. When we become more interested in defining our terms than in affecting people, we’ve relegated ourselves to irrelevance preferring to be smug in our minority, but semantically correct, nonbelief. Results Determine Reality The thing is when we opt to bury our

So Just How Dumb Were Jesus’ Disciples? The Resurrection, Part VII.

By Robert Conner ~ T he first mention of Jesus’ resurrection comes from a letter written by Paul of Tarsus. Paul appears to have had no interest whatsoever in the “historical” Jesus: “even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, we know him so no longer.” ( 2 Corinthians 5:16 ) Paul’s surviving letters never once mention any of Jesus’ many exorcisms and healings, the raising of Lazarus, or Jesus’ virgin birth, and barely allude to Jesus’ teaching. For Paul, Jesus only gets interesting after he’s dead, but even here Paul’s attention to detail is sketchy at best. For instance, Paul says Jesus “was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” ( 1 Corinthians 15:4 ), but there are no scriptures that foretell the Jewish Messiah would at long last appear only to die at the hands of Gentiles, much less that the Messiah would then be raised from the dead after three days. After his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus—an event Paul never mentions in his lette

Christian TV presenter reads out Star Wars plot as story of salvation

An email prankster tricked the host of a Christian TV show into reading out the plots of The Fresh Prince of Bel Air and Star Wars in the belief they were stories of personal salvation. The unsuspecting host read out most of the opening rap to The Fresh Prince, a 1990s US sitcom starring Will Smith , apparently unaware that it was not a genuine testimony of faith. The prankster had slightly adapted the lyrics but the references to a misspent youth playing basketball in West Philadelphia would have been instantly familiar to most viewers. The lines read out by the DJ included: "One day a couple of guys who were up to no good starting making trouble in my living area. I ended up getting into a fight, which terrified my mother." The presenter on Genesis TV , a British Christian channel, eventually realised that he was being pranked and cut the story short – only to move on to another spoof email based on the plot of the Star Wars films. It began: &quo


By David Andrew Dugle ~   S ettle down now children, here's the story from the Book of David called The Parable of the Bent Cross. In the land Southeast of Eden –  Eden, Minnesota that is – between two rivers called the Big Miami and the Little Miami, in the name of Saint Gertrude there was once built a church. Here next to it was also built a fine parochial school. The congregation thrived and after a multitude of years, a new, bigger church was erected, well made with clean straight lines and a high steeple topped with a tall, thin cross of gold. The faithful felt proud, but now very low was their money. Their Sunday offerings and school fees did not suffice. Anon, they decided to raise money in an unclean way. One fine summer day the faithful erected tents in the chariot lot between the two buildings. In the tents they set up all manner of games – ring toss, bingo, little mechanical racing horses and roulette wheels – then all who lived in the land between the two rivers we

Morality is not a Good Argument for Christianity

By austinrohm ~ I wrote this article as I was deconverting in my own head: I never talked with anyone about it, but it was a letter I wrote as if I was writing to all the Christians in my life who constantly brought up how morality was the best argument for Christianity. No Christian has read this so far, but it is written from the point of view of a frustrated closeted atheist whose only outlet was organizing his thoughts on the keyboard. A common phrase used with non-Christians is: “Well without God, there isn’t a foundation of morality. If God is not real, then you could go around killing and raping.” There are a few things which must be addressed. 1. Show me objective morality. Define it and show me an example. Different Christians have different moral standards depending on how they interpret the Bible. Often times, they will just find what they believe, then go back into scripture and find a way to validate it. Conversely, many feel a particular action is not

On Living Virtuously

By Webmdave ~  A s a Christian, living virtuously meant living in a manner that pleased God. Pleasing god (or living virtuously) was explained as: Praying for forgiveness for sins  Accepting Christ as Savior  Frequently reading the Bible  Memorizing Bible verses Being baptized (subject to church rules)  Attending church services  Partaking of the Lord’s Supper  Tithing  Resisting temptations to lie, steal, smoke, drink, party, have lustful thoughts, have sex (outside of marriage) masturbate, etc.  Boldly sharing the Gospel of Salvation with unbelievers The list of virtuous values and expectations grew over time. Once the initial foundational values were safely under the belt, “more virtues'' were introduced. Newer introductions included (among others) harsh condemnation of “worldly” music, homosexuality and abortion Eventually the list of values grew ponderous, and these ideals were not just personal for us Christians. These virtues were used to condemn and disrespect fro