Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


IS GOD DEALING WITH SIN OR IS THAT ANOTHER MAN-MADE LIE?

God if he is loving and good will deal with sin if it is true that it works like a disease on the sinner and then there is the victimised to think about as well.  So he has to just because sin is bad.  But there is another reason.  He is the one giving free will and letting sin happen so his responsibility is huge. The idea is that the free will defence gives light here.  It says God lets us suffer and die for he has to let us do wrong if we so choose for he hopes we would use our freedom to do good instead.  Dealing with sin then demands speed for there is double pressure on him.  Nobody sees much being done about evil people.  God must be asleep like everybody else.

God condemns sin seriously.  Yet he lets it happen.  We are told we are never tempted beyond our strength but how do we know?  We cannot be accused in general or in any individual case.  That is totally unjust.

God allegedly permits you to sin.  We are told by Christianity that this in no way implies approval or that God will leave our sin unchallenged.  Permit means, "did not prevent though could have."  So under the circumstances God approves of the sins you commit.  Tolerance is approval in the sense that one is not being intolerant.  It is a reluctant approval denying it is approval at all.  To say that God cannot stop you for he gave you free will or is allowing the sin for a purpose is to deny under the circumstances that he should act.  And to make out sin is for a purpose turns it into a reluctant blessing.  Whose purpose are we talking about?  God's purpose for your sin.  But what do you say to a person who says, "I want to do this dastardly thing for God will make use of it anyway"?  Sin by definition is to be punished except when it is forgiven.  What if you say permit where God is concerned means, "To permit sin is to refuse to punish it"?  God allegedly delays punishing but delaying itself is just another way of enabling sin.  It is a good excuse for letting the person get worse so you can punish more!

To preach free will is only justified if you are sure God does retaliate against sinners.  Otherwise you end up being irresponsible when the doctrine allegedly tells you to take responsibility.  This shows another contradiction in the free will defence.

The free will defence says God risks us not using free will to be the most loving and charitable we can be.  Persons who endure hail and fire to get a doctor for a critically ill stranger are  said to show more charity and commitment to helping than persons who merely have to lift the telephone.  But nobody thinks they love the stranger more because suffering had to be done in order to assist.  They love the same whether they suffer for the stranger or not.  You only face the hail and fire and you only pick up the phone for you love in the first place.  The free will defence undermines the truth in its desperation to excuse God's part in evil.

Jesus said that if you love your ones you deserve no praise for they love you - he said no praise, get that?  For you then there is to be no praise for there is no love.  You have to love those who do not care about you implying you need more danger of suffering not less in order to be truly loving.

The worship of this God of free will is worse than Satan worship.  Satan is cursed for asking people to sin when God has more to do with sinning than he does!  Satan does not create the feeling, "Oh I have this urge to give into sin."  He is not the creator.  All he does is somehow tell you to give in.  He is more bad intention than anything else for the alcoholic with the glass of vodka gives into the urge and he cannot say the person telling him to take the drink is in any important way to blame.

The free will defence is unintelligible.  It is not a defence.  Its nothing.  It is self-refuting nonsense.  It is evil to dish such nonsense while people bleed and suffer at the hands of human beings.