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?

Patrick H


Temptation disproves God
The evil we do consciously and intentionally starts with a temptation. Where did the first temptation come from? It had to come from God - if there is one! That is so simple that its importance can be dismissed when you see the power of religion which functions so powerful despite being based on obvious lies. The only hope is to say that temptation in some incomprehensible way is our fault and thus a sin! But no religion says that!
Do Christians worship God as tempter?
The Christian states that the Devilís chief obsession is getting people to sin against God. He is the tempter, the one who attempts to seduce us into rebellion against our maker.
The Christian states that we are sinners - sin touches everything we do in some way. Some believe that makes all our good works fake. Others believe that it makes them imperfect and that God is working through them to help the doer become a better person.
All agree that we do not love God perfectly. When evil exists and God is forced to tolerate it, believers argue that in theory you could have to endure torture forever at the hands of the Devil if it somehow helps save others. If God asked that of you you would not do it. Thus your love for God has limits. Jesus commanded that God be loved without reserve, with all your heart. You are even to do good to others all because of God. Doing good for others and praying is how you love God. This is an extremely tough demand. It is one reason why Christianity does such a good job at making people bad. The best way to put people off doing good is to make the standards too high, too scary and too demanding.
Saying that God is perfect does not mean you see him as perfect. You can think you do and be wrong. Given that we are so fond of our own way, could it be that we see God as ultimately responsible for the temptations we experience and worship him nevertheless BECAUSE we see him that way? The only reasonable assumption is that the answer is yes. In so far as you fail to love God you love sin instead. If you love God 99% you still love sin and therefore temptation to sin 1%. If sin pollutes your love for God even a little, then it is easy to think you love his goodness when you actually mistake some temptations and some sins for his goodness. You are not perfect so you are not an expert on perfection and you will look at God with an imperfect standard, your standard. You can only look at the personal representation of the perfect standard through the prism of your own standard which has its share of errors and badness disguised as goodness. The standard that makes you applaud God is yours so you worship your own values, and those values will endorse both good and bad. In short, if you like the goodness of God you also like imagining that some of your temptations and flaws that you project on to him are part of what you adore him for. You adore this God who represents and honours the temptations and sins you love.
Christians worship God as the tempter. They use the reviled Satan as a scapegoat and a distraction from this. The person who worships a god as perfect who tempts them is far worse than anybody who worships the Devil himself!
Suppose there is a God of pure peace and love. If he would not approve of evil it does not follow that the perception of God we get by our faith is as noble. The problem could be faith in God not God. Faith filters God so faith in God can lead to violence and evil.
Temptation - part of God's plan?
Temptation is part of human experience. I feel my desires and my need for them to be fulfilled. Nobody else can feel them for me. Desire necessarily tempts me to favour my desires rather than somebody else's. Desire is temptation.

If God is infinitely good, it would seem to some he can cause one sin to prevent more but unfortunately circumstances prevent this. Christians believe that in theory or hypothetically God could cause a sin if it was the only way to avert worse sins. But as we have free will to sin because of God and not in spite of him it follows that would never be necessary. He is almighty and has control over all things - needing sin to stop sin would imply a loss of control.
Could God encourage a sin to avert worse sin? That implies that he knows both what will happen in the future and what will happen if the future is different. I mean he knows exactly what you would be doing now in a future that will not happen. This is logically impossible.
God sees the future but does not determine or fix it so he cannot do things over a future that will not take place. He cannot cause any sin in the guise of causing it to stop far worse sin. So God seeing the future does not give God any practical advantage.  That is because the present makes the future and you cannot change the present moment if you don't like the future it will lead to.
Suppose he can work in the past to make the future turn out his way. Sin is in the will so you can do wrong without sinning. It depends on the intention. He needs only to create the illusion that you sinned and put that in your head so he never needs sin. Also, he hates one sin as much as a million for every sin is an infinite insult and an infinite affront to his authority. Sin is by definition what is useless and need not be. The Epistle of James is philosophically correct when it says, ďLet no one say when he is tempted, I am being tempted from God; for God is incapable of being tempted by [what is] evil and He Himself tempts no one. But every person is tempted when he is drawn away, enticed and baited by his own evil desireĒ (James 1:13,14). Though Christians say that God lets demons tempt us so that we will be good (page 92, Christian Answers about Doctrine) one wonders on what logic God creates death and cruel diseases and will not tempt us to keep us on our toes which canít be as bad. The implication is that even the least sin is worse than death and the greatest suffering! This is extreme doctrine.
Is Satan the problem?
Satan cannot tempt us unless God has given us the faculty to be tempted. Even if Satan suggests a sin to you and you find it attractive, it is not him that made you find it attractive but you or the way you were made. The notion of Satan being tempter is slanderous and therefore implies hatred for the Devil. It is about trying to relieve your own guilt by laying the blame on the Devil. Calling Satan tempter is a sin. It is in fact wishing that the Devil was your tempter and seeking to let his power and evil into your heart.

God is to blame more than Satan!
Suppose Satan is tempter. When God lets Satan or anybody tempt us he is as bad as they are. He supplies them with the power to tempt which is the same as doing it himself. It is actually worse when he gives Satan the telepathic power to cause sin which we do not have for then that power is not necessary at all. It follows that if God cannot tempt then he cannot be an accomplice in it. Temptation to sin refutes the existence of God. It is mistaken to imagine that God would not tempt but would become a willing accomplice in it. The intent is still the same despite the outward differences.

Can God justly let us be tempted?
Some forms of Christianity say we are not entirely selfish beings but good beings who have a bias to doing evil.  They call us fallen beings.  Calvinists say we are more than just fallen - nothing we do is really good in the eyes of God.  It is argued by many that if we were really that bad then we would not be experiencing temptation to sin.  There would be no need for temptation. 


But in fact if we are totally fake we could still be tempted.  We are not tempted to rebel against God but we are tempted in how we will rebel. The arguments we have seen want to justify why temptation happens.  They want it to be needed!!  That is revealing!  It does not change the fact that their own Bible says their attitude is evil and temptation is not needed for God has nothing to do with it.


Perhaps God has to let us tempt because of his respect for our free will. But he can enable temptation when caused by another person to have no effect such as by rousing revulsion. People should be able to tempt themselves and not others if temptation should exist at all for that is better than tempting somebody else which is two evils instead of one.

If God tempts or enables someone to tempt then God cannot be trusted at all. He does not love us but is like a policeman waiting for us to fall to have the pleasure of punishing us instead of hoping that we will be good so that punishment will not be necessary and who punishes reluctantly.

God forbids tempting anybody. He says it is as serious as murder to make anybody want to commit murder. God has no business condemning any person when he was behind their sin.

It is thought that there would be no virtue unless we had to struggle against temptation to be holy. Temptation is supposed to be an indirect call to holiness as well as a direct call to ungodliness. The stronger the temptation to overcome the greater the holiness. If we have free will then no temptation is too mighty to be resisted. The fact that temptation is not that strong a lot of the time proves that there is no God. God has no excuse for letting us have mild temptations when the pull towards good is better for they are not necessary. We forget nearly all of them so they might as well not happen.

If the weaker temptations build us up to resist stronger ones then why donít we have them all the time? Also, the habit of resisting mild temptations is of little value in the face of a mighty one.
When you do wrong, it is not the wrong that attracts you but the good in the action. Your actions may be wrong but you canít intend them to be. It is the good you intend. If doing wrong is sin then God is doing something to me to make sinful so that I must intend the evil. He is changing my nature so that he can accuse me of sin. Such a God would tempt. And indeed he must.

The Bible promises that God will use his supernatural power to strengthen us against temptation. Sin is a free act so nobody or nothing can make you do it. What does this help entail? If God is going to help me realise that a temptation should not be followed then he shouldnít bother for it wouldnít be a temptation to sin if I think I should give into it. Does God do something to my will to make it more likely for me to obey him? If he does then he has taken away some of my freedom. If he does that he does it all the time for being perfectly good he hates sin. This makes it a mystery why we sin so much. Or more likely, it would be a contradiction, for a God causing sin beyond just enabling our freedom to exist so that we can abuse it, is a sinner himself. If God strengthens my feelings against sin he is pushing me into the sin of avoiding sin for the sake of feelings and not for his sake which is selfish and sinful. We prefer the desire for food or a personís happiness and not the food or the person so we canít love goodness or God. The free will defence teaches that God made us free so that we could love him of our own volition so evil is our fault not his. Temptation refutes the free will defence even though it is necessary for the defence so the defence is incoherent. The free will defence as stated by believers in God who need it as an excuse for human evil cannot be true if there should be no temptation. And temptation started with the Devil. God must have tempted the Devil for the Devil committed the first sin. And God says the Devil should not have been tempted or sinned. The Devil had the intelligence to know that if God tempts to sin then it is not a sin to succumb for it is Godís will. The Devil could only sin if God had no control over him and if God never made him and he always existed meaning that God did not make the temptation that first misled the Devil.

If God assists me in combating a strong temptation then he should give me a weak one to fight all on my own. What is the sense in a strong one when God does most of the fighting for me anyway? The doctrine of a good God allowing strong temptation infers that he is a crank or non-existent.
The "problem" of suffering and God
God allowing temptation to happen implies that he does so for a good purpose. But this still implies that he is pro-suffering and exploiting us. Temptation is exposing us to danger and to say a loving God lets that happen is to say that the exposure has a loving purpose.
God believers say that God lets suffering happen because it can be good for us if we let it be. The believers may also say that he lets it happen for a purpose that justifies him allowing it to happen.
To tell the world that it suffers so that it can find this suffering good for the soul is disgusting and unfeeling. It means, "You would not develop goodness so now God has to send you suffering to force you develop goodness through it. You made him make you do it the hard way." It would therefore be punishment.
To say that God allows suffering for a purpose is really just saying the same thing: its given to us so that we may grow in holiness and virtue as we endure it.
The notion that God gave us free will so that we might freely love him and each other implies that he gave it to us so that we might sin too. He hoped we wouldn't sin but he intended us to do one or the other. You cannot give a being the power to do good of their free will without also giving the power to do evil. God gave us the power to hurt so that we might use it to love instead. What we have to remember as plausible as that sounds that plausibility is a false veneer. A God who gives the power to inflict evil and suffering even for a noble purpose such as making it open for us to love is a manipulator. A manipulator for good ends is still as much a manipulator as one for evil ends. A manipulative God cannot be really loving. His professions of love for us are hypocrisy.
A manipulative God whose plots make us at least reasonably happy seems to be better than a God who manipulates us to make us unhappy. Is this perception correct? One God is using evil to make us happy. The other uses evil to make us unhappy.

Temptation is the simplest and the clearest proof that God cannot exist or be good if he does.