“YOU WHO HATE”
By David G Hanger
November 27, 2017
While in the first instance I had no need because I already know the definition of the term “plausible deniability,” it remains the fact that a quick use of your basic search engine would promptly provide you with a very adequate background on the term. From Wikipedia, “Plausible deniability is the ability of people to deny knowledge of or responsibility for any damnable actions committed by others in an organizational hierarchy because of a lack of evidence that can confirm their participation, even if they were personally involved in or at least willfully ignorant of the actions.” Or, as a legal concept “it refers to lack of evidence proving an allegation.” In about ten minutes you can get yourself a real solid background on the subject.
The subject was not the denial of the existence of God, but rather the plausible deniability of God for responsibility for the evil acts of man, but even more the continued irresponsibility, and hence evil of certain individuals (many of whom should know better), in ascribing to God mass slaughter, and otherwise rather than a whispered prayer in the wind not doing a damned thing about it. More to the point you use God as an excuse not to do anything.
Then you go off on an amazing rant of circular non-logic that concludes with the notion that we are all equally responsible for mass murder and mass murderers, and then accuse me personally of a hate- filled heart that is equally sinful to this mass murderer in the eyes of God because (and what an incredible punchline this is) in your words I “make demand for change.”
For that alone I would tell you to go to hell, but you are already there, guy; a self-made hell of grandiose delusion wherein you are the arbiter of both truth and faith, where all of us must kiss your ass and follow your one way, or we will be consigned to hell or even worse to perpetual non-existence. How convenient for you to define in this world all those destined to disappear into nothingness in the next. Quite the arrogant load you are taking on there, Mr. Tim Livingston.
So let me give you a quick lesson in manners, for in the course of your drooling you are quite the obnoxious thing. I am an honorable man who has been in business for more than 40 years. I do not lie, cheat, or steal, nor do I tolerate anyone who does. I am decent and honest and kind in all my dealings with other people, unless attacked, then I am the tiger. I am a non-practicing confirmed Episcopalian.
I know three things about religion that are fact:
Beyond that is speculation, thousands of years of the stuff, and the Augustinian model of God and evil is far superior to the hate-filled, sin-filled silliness you are selling. Theodicy is a complicated subject, so get some grounding in it before you spout off.
I pity you for living in a world where no moral relativity exists whatsoever. Fortunately, it is your fantasy world; yet a warning, nonetheless, that there are among us incredibly hateful, self-righteous individuals who use God as a weapon to degrade and disparage all of us who do not believe precisely as they do, and who deploy this hatefulness in the political realm in an attempt to halt even the consideration of rational change.
To equate a traffic violation as sin equal to that of mass murder is absurd. To assert that the 18-month old victim of this misbegotten piece of slime shares equally in his sin is an obscenity, in this world and the next. To insist that even cheating on your taxes is such an equivalent sin is personally directed at me; hence I will personally respond. Cheating on taxes is not something that I do; it is not something I am paid to do. My job is to ensure that my clients are paying the absolute least amount of tax legally permitted. Nothing else; and I have not been in business for more than 40 years because I cheat. Your abject snide-ness has not been missed.
Nor do I concede that cheating on one’s taxes is necessarily a sin. “You cahn’t condemn a man for fiddling with his taxes,” so said the late David Niven in any number of his movies; but it is, of course, illegal.
Which brings into clear focus that one word you have so meaningfully avoided: Law. Your view of human nature is horrific. You think people are inherently evil; I that they in most instances are inherently good. It is through law that the bindings of society and what society will tolerate respective individual behavior are established, and the law very intentionally moved beyond religion several hundred years ago.
It is religious absolutism like yours that kills people en masse, not the law; and respective the true issue at hand here it is the failure of the law to rationally deal with a readily identifiable societal problem that is costing way too many lives for no good reason.
You in the meantime have established yourself as an individual who can plausibly deny anything because you don’t have the guts to stand for anything. In that regard you are indeed complicit, but I do not share in your sin, or your hate. Those are yours alone.
David G. Hanger
Received November 26, 2017 - Published November 27, 2017
Viewpoints - Opinion Letters:
Representations of fact and opinions in letters are solely those of the author.
E-mail your letters
& opinions to firstname.lastname@example.org
Published letters become the property of SitNews.