Why am I always your scapegoat?
Wait, are we assuming you’re real, or not? My answer may change accordingly.
Curious. Just for fun, let us assume I am not real.
In that case, it is to satirize believers who claim that you are the source of good things but not the bad. A sort of dramatization of the problem of evil, if you will. Mixed with a healthy dose of pointing out the absurdity of the story.
Do you think you change any minds?
Probably not, if I’m being honest.
So why do it?
Blowing off steam, I guess. Against an institution that shaped me in so many ways, many of them negative. A way of working out some old issues.
Does it help? I mean, you have been doing it for all of these years. Have you gotten anywhere?
Maybe it is time for a new tack?
Okay, so what if we assume I’m real?
Then it is a direct attack on you.
That doesn’t seem wise.
I have yet to be struck by lightning.
There is, however, the matter of your immortal soul.
A lot of bad things have happened; the pain and suffering have been immeasurable. If you’re willing to put up with all of that, I suspect you can handle a little criticism that no one pays any attention to. Furthermore, I don’t want to be on the good side of someone who allows all of the things that go on here.
But is it not possible that there are reasons for . . .
Stop. I’m not interested in that sort of speculation. There is no humanly recognizable reason to allow this much misery. If there is some reason, it has nothing to do with us.
That seems . . . uncertain? . . . at best. It certainly deserves more discussion.
So which is it? Do I exist, or not?
The jury is still out, though I suspect it’s a different option altogether. You do exist, but not like so many believe you do. Thus the real you isn’t my scapegoat at all. My target is those who mischaracterize you.
That seems like a dodge.
Does it? Maybe it does. Maybe I’m just avoiding taking a side. Still, the truth is almost never so cut and dry.