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?

 


THE HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS CLAIMS A PERFECT GOD CAN ALLOW EVIL BUT THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF LOVING THE SINNER AND HATING THE SIN SHOWS HE CANNOT

The sixth chapter of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics proposes a solution to the problem of evil and there being an all-good God. It amounts to saying we can overcome evil by forgiving and loving.

It is putting a lot of value on our love and our forgiving when babies need to die horribly of diseases so that we can treat their situation as a challenge.  There is no humility at all in such an outlook.

Condemning sin is just hate speech when our goodness is such a mercenary sanctimonious project.

The sinner is blamed for causing diseases to infect people so that the sinner can use that suffering they have to grow and change and be good!

Handbook of Christian Apologetics says

Is God's nature good by some standard or good because he says so? If it is by some standard then good matters and God doesn't. And to say he makes things good just by decree is to say that you would be willing to torture a baby to death if he demanded it and just because he asked. If we have free will then it is not about loving God or otherwise but about good and evil. God has no right to use our free will as an excuse for his letting evil happen. The believers themselves do not understand good and evil properly when they make excuses for him. That makes them dangerous and often has in the past as exemplified by religious wars.

God is perfect. If he didnít create at all it would be no improvement for you cannot improve on perfection. If he creates he is still perfect. So God then does not need us. You donít sin unless you are tempted. Who tempted Satan the first sinner? It must have been God so God must have made evil after all. God must have ceased to be perfect.

We suffer and die on earth to serve a God who being perfect doesnít need any of it. In other words, God has no right to let any evil or suffering happen. Rights are based on needs.

Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says

Some say that bad things happening to the good disprove God. The answer is in human solidarity. If your father was abused as a child he will find it harder not to abuse you. The sins of the guilty harm the innocent.

Reason replies:
This assertion is a disgrace. If God improved human power to heal there would be less people paying for the sins of their ancestors. And to suggest the abused are a danger to others is criminal. Solidarity solves nothing because God set it up. He made sure babies could get diseases from their father and mother.

What their argument really means that in some way the victim lets the evil of the abuser in. Its victim-blaming. Nobody says that something forces you to abuse if you were abused.

Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
When the soul sins naturally the body will be affected to and be prone to sickness and death for the soul kills the presence of God in it by sin and also makes itself morally and spiritually sick.

Reason replies:
This is an attempt to explain that all suffering is caused by sin weakening the body. Since when putting a computer virus that keeps putting pictures up on the monitor so that you cannot use the computer mean that you are damaging the hardware as well? If sin affects the body then God made sure that the body could be affected by it. Since when did sin make the virtues and bugs that destroy our health? Lies, lies, lies, callous tedious lies.

Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
You cannot love the sinner and hate the sin. To love evil or to hate it is to succumb to it Ė if you hate evil it makes you hard and negative. When you canít love it or hate it the only answer is Jesusí and it was to forgive.

Reason replies:
If you forgive everybody you will be trampled on and you will be breaking your heart over people going to jail for what they deserve. God doesnít forgive people until they repent so neither should we. So from what the handbook says we, and he, must hate sinners.

It is not true that hating evil makes you hard and negative. Your programming and the way your brain is made may do that. Hating failure is good for the athlete. If God made your brain and it makes you hard and negative if you hate evil then God is to blame.

Also, forgiving implies that you hate the evil and accept the evil person only if she repents. You accept her now because you hate the evil and not in spite of it. Forgiving is based on judging the person. You judge her as evil but hold that she has turned away from it and is to be judged good now.

Hating sin means refusing to assist in sin in any way and urging the person to abandon it as if the person is in immediate danger of everlasting torment in Hell for it. You act as if you hate the person. But the alleged difference is that the motive is to save the sinner and not to see them destroyed. There may be no outward difference between a person who hates the sinner and sin and the person who is claimed to love the sinner and hate the sin.

Actions speak louder than words. Christians aggressively oppose somebody going to the shop to buy pills to take an overdose and the person committing "mortal sin" gets largely indifference though he is in supposedly graver danger than death - everlasting despair in Hell. Because of its failure to heed its own huge principles, it follows that the Catholic Church is one of the worst religions in the world in terms of its intentions (its actions being a separate matter). Buddhists would naturally be better people for they do not prefer peace and comfort to the eternal wellbeing of others.

The Handbook teaches that you deserve to go to suffer in Hell forever if you die in serious sin.

If you should hate how God causes people to suffer in this world Hell should make you hate him even more. You should love the Nazis in comparison. If you do not then you are a hypocrite. You are pretending to be loving while you prefer an evil God to evil people who were never as bad as he. You are insulting the victims of the Nazis by using their suffering as something to hate so that you can make yourself feel righteous when you in fact are not.

We find that love the sinner and hate the sin is not a sweet teaching but rages with the fury of passive aggressive hate. It totally destroys the argument that evil does not refute God.