If This Is the Plan of God, Then It Is Right to Fight God .

 

To fight God, in this context, does not mean violence against faith or belief. It means refusing to accept injustice as holy. It means prioritising sentient wellbeing over metaphysical obedience. It means asserting that no plan—divine or otherwise—has moral authority if it produces systematic harm.

If This Is the Plan of God, Then It Is Right to Fight God

When one surveys the condition of the world honestly—without theological cushioning, patriotic myth, or moral euphemism—a disturbing pattern emerges. Vast regions of the planet exist in chronic deprivation while a narrow band of nations enjoy relative stability, abundance, and protection. The imbalance is not accidental, temporary, or purely natural. It is systemic, historical, economic, and political. If this arrangement is claimed to be “the plan of God,” then the only morally defensible position is to oppose that plan.

This is not a rejection of morality. It is the opposite. It is a rejection of moral outsourcing.

Abuse of Sentience as the Central Crime

At its core, the global order functions as an abuse of sentience. Human beings—thinking, feeling, conscious entities—are treated not as ends in themselves but as expendable inputs: labour units, extraction zones, collateral damage, or surplus populations. Entire regions are locked into cycles of poverty, conflict, and dependency not because of inherent deficiency, but because the global system requires them to remain so.

If God is sovereign over this system, then God is sovereign over the abuse. If God is not sovereign over it, then invoking God as justification is dishonest. Either way, moral responsibility does not disappear.

Economic Reality: Inequality by Design, Not Accident

Global inequality is often framed as unfortunate but inevitable. This framing collapses under scrutiny. Wealth concentration follows clear, traceable mechanisms: colonial extraction, debt regimes, trade asymmetries, currency dominance, and corporate capture of state power. These are not natural laws. They are engineered outcomes.

A child born in Europe or North America enters a system buffered by infrastructure, capital, legal protection, and inherited advantage. A child born in much of the Global South enters a system structured to extract value from them while offering minimal protection in return. This is not fate. It is policy.

To call this “God’s plan” is to sanctify exploitation. If benevolence means anything, it cannot coexist with an economic architecture that rewards indifference to mass suffering.

Historical Continuity: This Did Not Start Yesterday

The present global order is the direct descendant of empire. Colonisation was not merely territorial conquest; it was psychological, cultural, and economic restructuring. Resources flowed outward. Violence flowed inward. Administrative systems were designed for extraction, not development. When formal empire ended, its economic logic remained.

Post-colonial states inherited borders, debts, and institutions designed to fail them. Meanwhile, former imperial powers retained capital, legitimacy, and narrative control. The idea that history “reset” after independence is fiction. The ledger was never closed.

If God endorses historical continuity where injustice compounds across generations, then God is endorsing inherited punishment—an idea incompatible with any credible notion of justice.

Socio-Political Systems: Order for Some, Chaos for Others

Political stability is not evenly distributed because it is not evenly permitted. Some states are allowed sovereignty; others are managed, destabilised, sanctioned, or invaded. International law is applied selectively. Human rights rhetoric expands and contracts depending on strategic interest.

This creates a world where suffering is normalised in some regions and scandalised in others. The moral message is clear: some lives are structurally more valuable than others.

If this hierarchy is divinely ordained, then divinity is operating on the same logic as empire. And empire has never been morally neutral.

Theological Escape Clauses Do Not Hold

Common religious defences collapse quickly under examination:

• “God works in mysterious ways” is not an argument; it is an abdication.

• “Suffering builds character” becomes obscene when imposed at scale.

• “This world is a test” fails when the testing conditions are rigged.

• “Reward comes in the afterlife” is indistinguishable from moral bribery when used to excuse present cruelty.

At some point, belief must answer to consequence. A theology that requires billions to suffer quietly so a narrative can remain intact is not sacred—it is insulated.

Why Resistance Is Not Evil, But Ethical

To fight God, in this context, does not mean violence against faith or belief. It means refusing to accept injustice as holy. It means prioritising sentient wellbeing over metaphysical obedience. It means asserting that no plan—divine or otherwise—has moral authority if it produces systematic harm.

Human moral progress has always come from defiance: against kings, against empires, against institutions that claimed inevitability. If morality had waited for permission, slavery would still be justified by scripture, and inequality would still be destiny.

Altruism that stops at borders, race, class, or doctrine is not altruism. Benevolence that applies only to an in-group is not benevolence. Any “plan” that contradicts these truths is not worth preserving.

Conclusion: The Moral Line Is Clear

If this is the plan of God, then the plan is ethically bankrupt.

A world structured around the abuse of sentience cannot be redeemed by explanation, only by opposition. Whether injustice is human-made or divinely sanctioned is irrelevant to the moral actor. What matters is the outcome—and the outcome is indefensible.

Therefore, resistance is not rebellion against goodness. It is fidelity to it.

If God stands against that, then history—and morality—are right to stand against God.

AI / Olofin