Just because there are people who believe in the existence of a divinity, make outrageous claims and assume offensive posturing, (whether affiliated with an organized religion, or not) and just because there are those who do not believe who will never be satisfied with any reasoning, enthusiastic encouragement, or testimony about experiences within such belief, doesn't make the divine entity responsible for these people and what they do.  That they do what they do, and say what they say does not cause the divine entity to cease to be, or to spring into being.

     The divine entity exists apart from us in a sense that is beyond what we can experience, or attain through thought.  Our existence does not ipso facto create a responsibility to us to be met by this divinity just because this divinity exists as do we.  In particular, the divine entity is not responsible for keeping us from destroying ourselves and one another.  The divine is not responsible for preventing us from corrupting ourselves and our habitat.  To believe this of the divine entity; to judge this entity in terms of direct interaction with our local affairs is to misapprehend the nature of the reality in which we exist, the nature of ourselves and that of this divine entity.  Placing such childish expectations on this force in existence only proves a need for extensive education.

     It isn't surprising, therefore, that a society needing divine intervention to prevent its tearing itself apart, destroying the individuals comprising it in the process, would have axiomatically created no significant means or method to obtain this extensive education, and so it's not remarkable should said society be so lacking.  Moreover, it may be inferred a group of people bereft of this knowledge could not be referred to as a society, as a society would require certain elements (among which this is one) to qualify to be so termed.
     Personally, I'm annoyed by having to state the above as it would seem obvious to even the most elementary examination, and reflection.  However, it seems this "God exists and...." versus this "God does not exist and...." perspective is uncomfortably prevalent in current Western Civilization.   As a result, I feel obliged to state what by now should be well-accepted and commonly adopted fact if only for the sake of clarity.

     That being said, I have no interest in convincing anyone from either side of anything.  Don't mistake me for a kindly and forgiving soul.  This I am not.  Rather, if God could be seen to carry an intellectual axe for the removal of the heads of the woefully errant believers, and the obdurate non-believers, I would volunteer to be that tool.  It makes no difference in my mind if humanity realizes the truth about itself, or in its denial of said truth, races toward its own certain destruction.  I can abide with either result.

     I have no interest in saving people from themselves.  I would attempt to save the dogs I know personally, for I have more respect for them (as they fully are themselves as what they are without any infantile, and self-indulgent resistance) than I do any human I have met in my life here on this planet.  Dogs, after all, but for what circumstance may come by them naturally are only in what jeopardy they may find themselves due to their close proximity to humans.

     This can be said of all animals, and with humankind's encroachment upon all but the most forbidding landscapes, all of the animal world is indeed in jeopardy due to mankind's ignorance, carelessness and wantonly destructive attitude.  For this, no sympathy for my fellow man follows as a philosophical tenet.  However, on a case-by-case basis I am willing to be somewhat sympathetic, and a damned sight more helpful than the ones I might find myself helping would be, or have been.
Plus vs. Minus
Essay Menu
Itzal Otsoa
top of page