Faith condones how you would be as unfeeling as God if you could be in his place

Faith in God condones the terrible things that happen to human beings under his watch and "care".
 
A person who claims to detest how people suffer and who decides, "No matter what evil happens I will hold that it is a mystery and fits the love of God completely" is a liar. Condoning necessitates making excuses and starting with the desired answer. It is worse to excuse a tyrant as follows: "He is doing the right thing though it looks otherwise but I have no clue what his reasons are" than to say, "He had those babies murdered maybe because he fears a plague will give them a worse death". Human nature condones a lot of evil and people cherry pick what they want to get upset about. Even if belief in God did not need condoners people would still use it to condone. 
 
Religion blames man not God for evil. Man supposedly misuses free will to bring about evil and God has to let him do it for free will is worth the risk of it being abused. If you believe in free will, it is obvious that believers in prayer pray to manipulate other people's free will. It is a fact that you cannot change another person. But you see believers praying that somebody will come to a better way of life or become holy and religious. This belief is the fundamental drive behind religion and shows that religion is not really based on respect for people and thus has no right to condone a God letting evil happen.
 
Prayer by default condones the divine role in evil and suffering and needs to be seen for the offensive nonsense it is. It does more than condone - it celebrates! It is based on celebrating God as good. Praying to God for help is praising God as good. It may be in the background but it is there.
 
When good and evil happen as part of human nature you have no right to look at the good side and not the bad. That makes you bad. You are a hypocrite if you only see the good in people. You care neither for them or the harm they do. You look at the two together, the bad side and the good side, to work out what shade of grey each person is. And so it is with God. Prayer is meant you make you see the good as the evidence for God but religion surely does not want you to see the evil as evidence for God and what he is like as well?
 
Condoning the evil of the creator would be bad but risking condoning it is not right either.
 
Faith shows believers are the kind of people who would condone
 
Religion says belief in God does not involve you being willing to condone the evil you think he allows to happen. In this study, we will learn that even if it is not necessary to be okay with the suffering of others in order to believe in God, believers cannot expect us to assume that they are not the kind of people who would make themselves feel better about the suffering of others by making out its part of a divine plan. Human nature does not care enough about most suffering that happens. Each person is deeply wounded or upset or compassionate by only a few people such as family or friends or neighbours. Period.

You cannot ask people to believe in your compassion for others if you believe in God when that belief involves accusing others of forcing God to set up a dreadful or partly dreadful plan. What kind of free will to choose good is based on evil? It is bad enough if you theorise that God might let evil happen over free will but worse if you say he did it for definite such as Christianity does.
 
If it is true that evil is not God's fault and God hates it then condoning what evil you think comes from God is the greatest evil of all. Those who condone whether there is a God or not adore their own vision of God but your vision of God is not God and cannot be. It is just your vision. So if God does not want you to condone it means there is nothing to condone for evil is not his doing. But logically that makes God very impotent. Condoning evil may imply disrespect for God. Human nature is indeed capable of disrespecting God in the name of God and religion.
 
What happens if the unbeliever wrongly accuses God of doing evil instead of condoning as believers do? Then the unbeliever is the worst creature imaginable for their attitude to evil as a whole is of extreme importance. God or not you are still evil.
 
If God is falsely accused of being a concept that urges and manipulates people to condone then the unbeliever is a total monster inside.
 
So the lesson from all this is that it is not just condoning evil from God that is an issue but what the person is accused of if he or she should not condone whether he or she is a believer or not. It is benign hostility.

By itself or of itself evil is not needed for evil by its nature is useless. Evil is in itself futile. All it is good is for putting evil people off evil when they get a taste of their own medicine. We tend to think that we are saying that in that case at least that bit of it is good. But as evil is useless it would follow that it is a bad way to handle evil people. It is a bad way to help people become good. It is fighting evil with evil and that is evil in itself. The "good" only looks good and seems good but it is not. Thus the divine plan doctrine that God is trying to contain evil with evil is itself evil and inexcusable. It is running away from seeing evil in its true nature. Evil is seen as producing good and the fact that such good is not good at all for the worst evil is getting evil to pass for good or good to pass for evil.

Believers hold that God can connect to us through grace - his loving influence. God then would have to arrange circumstances so that people can choose more good than evil. But what he has done is arrange things so that we do all the good we do out of the wrong motive. I mean we do all we do to please ourselves and not him which is sin according to him. Even if we do good for others we do it because we feel we should and don't care if he wants us to do it or not. Even if we do more ungodly good than godly it would make him a failure. He would have arranged things better if he were good. To worship him is evil for he is unworthy and he is the tyrant of the human race. If he has been made up then those who have done that and maintain that are the tyrants!
 
The Church may as well worship the Devil because it worships that which allows us to really hurt one another for a purpose. Its God hurts us for an excuse because if evil is necessary to develop goodness in us then each person should be put in a world of dreams which they think is real so that God can send exactly what they need instead of having to let harm befall the person in order to take care of other people’s spirituality. To say that evil serves a divine purpose is to say that God could command mass murder or biological warfare intended to make everybody sick and what disproof is there to shut up anybody who says God is commanding just that? It is different to say that evil serves no purpose but we have to bring good out of it for that is just seeing evil as something that is useless.

How can suffering make me a better person? If it makes me realise that I must not hurt others because I don’t like others hurting me then this problem arises. I’m doing it because I don’t want people to hurt me so I don’t want to promote suffering for that reason. That is actually selfish and selfishness is the cardinal sin in religion. There is no doubt that all who, because of their own suffering, claim to be better friends to others for they want them to avoid any suffering are really acting against suffering for they know if it exists or is enabled it can bite them as well as others.
 
The Church says that evil starts with man not God. God gave us free will and we abused it and caused evil and temptation and sin.  That is an accusation they cannot prove so it shows what they are like

Do people want you to believe in a loving God because they don't love you enough and want there to be a God to value you for them? Do they want you to believe in God because they want to condone their own lack of love? Do they believe in God because they don't really care? Are they willing to condone the evil and suffering in the universe because they do not really care?
 
People alarmingly seem to think that the notion that God tolerates evil as part of lovely plan for his children is a nice thought. The plan might be ethical but that does not make it a nice or comforting thing to believe in. It is akin to thinking World War II was nice. Ethics can be brutal scary stuff.

The truth about evil and suffering and what needs to be done to help is extremely hard to face. Most people have some way of avoiding the full truth. It is too painful and risks terrible fear. Religious people will regard God as wholly good and then say that the evil he lets exist which contradicts goodness and therefore him somehow does not contradict. They water down the truth to overcome it. They try to make truth by denying truth. That cannot be done for truth is truth and is not about us. It is selfish to treat truth as if it is or should be. Faith in God is a vice - even if you don't think selfishness is always bad that type certainly is.
 
Religion comforts itself in present suffering by thinking suffering will help bring better days because God is in control of it all. Good being brought out of evil in the future – what other time will it happen? - by an agent has nothing to do with justifying evil now at all or justifying letting it happen. You have no right to feel okay about current suffering for the sake of a future that does not exist yet and which may be unlike the good future you imagine. You need to be extremely careful and get good evidence before you judge an evil was worth it when it is all weighed up for evil is mixture of good and bad anyway. Evil uses good and to justify it because you think there are good results is practically speaking just being okay with it. It is arrogant how you imply you should be trusted as one who cares about evil when you belong to society and society cherrypicks what it wants to get annoyed about while worse evils than it thrive. Where is the evidence you have that you can be trusted despite all that?