A Journal for Western Man-- Issue III
Part III
G. Stolyarov II
There may be several rational explanations for such behavior by God, which the author will relate here now.
Number one: A Creative Entity does not exist. Perhaps the flight of the Israelites was horribly exaggerated, since no written records of the Exodus existed before the reign of Solomon some three centuries later. Having been passed down by word of mouth, the story was twisted and hyperbolized by every generation until it became a myth of divine power instead of a simple tale describing a journey of a small tribe of exiles. Since we cannot yet fully comprehend the nature of our world's creation, we cannot state with certainly that our universe did not form because a singularity exploded on its own, without any external help, or that the universe as a whole had existed indefinitely back through the ages, and that the sole acts of creation were the explicable reconfigurations of structures formed by its matter. Some may then question the means by which the advent of life came about due to a more than minuscule chance of a one-celled organism developing at random. Yet one must understand that the first life forms on Earth appeared some two billion years after it was created, and in such a lengthy period of time it is not unlikely that this small chance of an organism forming was realized at least once. Thus, since a Creative Entity does not exist, it could not have saved a people who had the misconception of being its "chosen tribe." (Which in itself is a contradiction. Why would the Lord of All attach Himself to a small tribe when he could have worked to aid all of his "children?")
Number two: The Creative Entity is cruel and enjoys not only seeing human suffering but giving them hope that they will be saved while in reality augmenting their miseries instead. Or it may be something similar to the Aztec Huitzlopochtli, who was said to have required human blood to rise every morning. Perhaps saving the Holocaust victims was not part of "God's grand scheme of things," but think about it. What is the purpose of a scheme that does not value so sacred a concept as human life?
Number three: The Creative Entity is dead. Herr Nietzsche would explain this with much greater clarity than the author of this piece. That, however, explains why the number of God's miracles gradually decreased as time progressed and disappeared altogether sometime around the 970s AD, when the caliphs of Arabia, supposedly spiritual descendants of Mohammad, had become secular rulers of fragmented states increasingly practicing the tenets of their faith in name only. Even assuming that all events from Late Genesis to the last of the Letters to the Last Testament of the Koran had actually taken place (which is doubtful), there is nothing that would invalidate the theory of God's death. Quite the contrary, had He remained alive, there would have been a Super-New Testament relating His most recent miracles to the masses.
Number four: The Creative Entity is alive and functional, but he is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. Just like we humans sometimes do not understand the mechanisms behind our wristwatches, neither does God comprehend the events of our universe in their entirety and complete detail. After all, it may very well be that a vast world of superbeings exists out there and that a certain watchmaker sells His wares, the universes that He creates for a living, to customers who may not be enlightened in the technicalities of universal creation and upkeep. It may very well be that the Creative Entity has limitations when it comes to fiddling with matters so small as those that concern our species. There is even a scientific possibility that the Creative Entity dwells within black holes and other singularities (that is a possible means of explaining their power of attraction and lack of adherence to the Laws of Physics, but their very existence, as well as this theory, remains on shaky footing at best), but since we do not witness the effect of such natural phenomena upon our planet, we can conclude that God's sphere of influence does not encompass the domain of Homo sapiens sapiens.
Number five: The Creative Entity is both alive and omnipotent, yet He is neither merciful nor forgiving, since He imposes inexplicably harsh punishments on anyone who violates even the least significant of His precepts even once even by accident (i.e. every single human being who had ever lived, lives, or will live).
No matter which of these five variations of rational thinking about the Creative Entity the reader sides with, they will understand that it is simply not possible for God to be at the same time living, omnipotent, and merciful, despite whatever dogma the Bible wishes to bludgeon into people's minds. Of course, adherents of the Monotheist faiths will attempt to contradict the author's arguments by stating that God is indeed merciful and grants even moderate sinners a place in Heaven after death. The author, however, will reply that not only are such beliefs the most ridiculous fairy tales (once again, no proof-- no acceptance) but that they are possibly one of the most harmful concepts to humankind.
Let the reader think about the following: if a commoner is presented with an illusion that they would be guaranteed eternal bliss after death if they but followed a set of dogma, would they attempt to improve their position in the world that actually exists during their present life? It is doubtful, since the primary intent of any religion is to grant influence and authority to the priests while preserving the conditions characteristic to a Neolithic agricultural village, where such clergymen would have the amplest chances to enhance their own material well-being through tithes, taxes, and overt confiscations and marauding during “holy wars” in the present life through spreading tales about the next. These tales may have morals, but those morals are not necessarily the most beneficial to the ideal of technological progress, for, as the reader may recall, Adam and Eve were banished from heaven after having tasted a fruit from the Tree of Knowledge.
Of course, if the populace remains ignorant, they become more susceptible to being herded as sheep are, their wool used to warm the pastor's bulky hide and its meat occasionally used to supplement the bulk of that hide. Is that, most esteemed reader, the proper way to exist, as a pawn of men while believing oneself to be a pawn of God? Is it even proper to be anyone's pawn at all? Fear, hatred, and pointless symbolism, the hidden essences of any major faith, have been holding back advancements in technology for millennia now. If those could be rid of, then the author would see no problem in even the most outlandish theories about a Creative Entity, since those certainly have a right to exist in a world of free thought, but only in a world of free thought. If a religion persecutes those who are not of it, how can its followers be certain that they will not someday be persecuted by the next dominant set of dogma that comes along? As long as one uses reason and common sense to guide his actions, it does not matter which deity or absence of deity he believes in. That is included in the primary principle of virtue that governs the deeds of right men. With it, we may someday attain a blissful salvation. Without it we are doomed to a true Hell, a Hell on Earth.
