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 PROBLEM OF GOD LETTING EVIL HAPPEN IS NOTHING COMPARED TO HOW HE LETS TEMPTATION HAPPEN AND FACILITATES IT

Christian doctrine is that temptation is a grave evil, if sin is the gravest evil then temptation goes with it for it is involved.  So though you can grow when you are tempted you grow in spite of temptation not because of it so temptation remains intolerable.  The notion that God will tempt you for a greater purpose is out.

Christians say that God is pure justice and love and compassion and will not invite anybody to sin or create a power to do that which amounts to doing just that.  So while he allows suffering and lets us do harm for he respects our free will, that does not mean he can tempt us or create temptation.  Christians noticeably never talk about the problem of temptation.  It is always a deflection, "Abuse of free will and the existence of suffering do not disprove God but prove we need him."  This diversion is itself revolting.  Think and feel and you will see how nauseating it is.

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.

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). Christians say that God lets demons tempt us so that we will be good (page 92, Christian Answers about Doctrine).  That makes one wonder how they reason that God creates death and cruel diseases yes but will not tempt us to keep us on our toes.  The implication is that temptation is worse than suffering and death!  They canít be as bad. The implication is that even the least sin is worse than death and the greatest suffering! This is extreme doctrine.

Believing in such stuff may arise from a temptation.  Maybe that is a temptation we DO need to worry about.

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.

CONCLUSION

God is responsible for creating the desire to sin.  He is evil for he punishes and rejects Satan though he had more to do with Satan's sin in a sense than Satan did.  Satan did not create his own temptation.  He only gave in to it.  When we ignore the greatest evil of all when we say free will being abused and suffering can fit God's love what do we know about love?  What right have we to say evil is hate?  Or that it is "Evil is an abused good but is not a power in its own right" like Christianity does?  Our good is just obeisance to evil of a particular type.  We belong with those who try to fight evil with evil meaning they just oppose the evil they don't like and it is not about evil being evil.