HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!


Chapter 6, The Problem of Evil

The problem of evil is how an all-good God who has the power to help the innocent won't do so. The innocent suffer. Depression as an experience of totally worthless existence and despair exists. It of all things seems useless before God so how can he let it happen? He makes depression - depression is a power.
The sixth chapter of the Handbook of Christian Apologetics proposes a solution to the problem of evil.
It spells out three different arguments against God from the existence of evil.
The first says that any evil refutes a good God which assumes that evil is a thing and God must have evilly made it. The second says that needless evil proves there is no God. The third says that bad things happening to good people refutes God. Atheism, we are told, affirms all three.
Not all atheists regard evil as a thing. God is all good. God has boundless power. Yet evil exists. Is God not able to stop evil or is he unwilling? Evil exists therefore either God does not exist or is not all good.
Religion says the argument errs in assuming that evil cannot be used to bring about a greater good. If so, then it gives us a God who may have to tolerate the evil he hates. Many religionists when talking about this mean evil as in the evil that we freely do. They think God has to put up with us doing evil for he wants us to have free will so that we might love him for when you are forced to love it is not love at all. But in that case, if you take evil to mean natural evil that has nothing to do with human choice such as famine and disease then the argument refutes God. Believers however claim that this evil is needed for a greater good too! They deny that any evil is bad enough to be intolerable by God.
The version of the argument that takes evil to mean evil done by man has a hidden premise. It is saying that an all-good and all-powerful God has the right
The book says that nobody has the right to say there is too much evil. In other words, was a holocaust that saw six million tortured and killed too much or would one that killed six thousand still be too much? Few would argue with me that things don’t have to be as bad as the six million being barbarously tortured and killed and that their reply is callous and shows that belief in God is a curse. They are telling us not to say where the line can be drawn for we cannot know that. Their response is actually evil itself for it is dismissive of the horrendous evil.
Not knowing where to draw the line is not the point. The point is that there is more suffering than there needs to be when most of us will never get the chance to be that evil. Notice too that if you say that God is right to allow things like the Nazi Holocaust with its appalling evil because there is nowhere to draw the line then you are saying that God does not know if it is right to let man be that free and still he does it. This is not the behaviour of a good God. A good God would not take the risk of letting us go that far. We have a right to know why he lets it go that far for it is me or you who could suffer because of it. To say as Christians do that we do not have this right is to say that the thing I am most sure of my own existence and how it is treated (by God and by implication by humankind too) is none of my business and that is fanaticism for I am less sure there is a God and that he can be trusted than I am that I exist. All evil breeds evil so too much evil breeds too much and God cannot allow it.
The reply the book gives to the third problem, the problem of terrible things happening to babies and good people, is that it is solved by the mysteries of original sin (the idea that Adam our first father sinned on our behalf in the garden of Eden and so his sin was passed on to us all at conception meaning we were sinners from the first moment we existed – so Adam sinned for us in our place) and the atonement of Jesus meaning that they show that the innocent can vicariously suffer to help the guilty. This is claptrap for X to suffer for Y is simply not fair. It is unfair to offer mysteries that make no sense to solve concrete problems. Those who believe in a good God believe that he does not want to be offered sufferings or sacrifices but just wants all to be happy.

Page 127 admits that love the sinner but hate the sin is hypocrisy but says that that is why Jesus had to die for our sins so that we would get the mercy from God and him the justice so that it would be possible for us to love the sinner and hate the sin. So we are to love the sinner and the sin is hated and separated from the sinner and Jesus takes the blame for it and the punishment. Nothing could be more absurd than any of this and even many Catholic theologians would laugh their heads off at the suggestion. If the sin is separated from the sinner then the sinner is not a sinner anymore.
What about sinners who haven’t repented and asked for God’s forgiveness? Their sin hasn’t transferred to Christ yet. Are we to hate them? We must.
The failure of love the sinner and hate the sin means that evil refutes the existence of God. A loving God while evil is going on can only be accounted for if you judge the sinner as morally good and the sinner as morally bad and detestable which is so insane that it is impossible.

Then the view of Augustine that evil is not a thing is defended. It says that evil is just a perverted good. But perversion has to be as real as good for good to be perverted. If you see evil as a bad equation like 2+2=3 and all evils are bad equations for they make good add up to less good then you see evil as a real thing for 2+2=4 is as real an equation as the first though it is right and the first wrong. Fear is always an evil thing in itself even when it leads to good for the good is not a part of the fear but a result. Fear is not simply a good thing that has fallen short. There is nothing good in it by itself. The Handbook says that if Augustine could be refuted then the argument that all evil proves there is no God works for it would mean that God did create evil. At least if you say evil is an absence of good then you can say God did not create it but created good only. So if evil is real then there is no God! Hear hear! The reason God cannot make what is evil when evil is not just a falling short and cannot make it even for a good purpose is because it is wholly useless by definition. What is fully evil is fully useless. What is partly evil is partly useless. Evil in so far as it is evil is totally useless. If evil is part of some good it should not be there and is still fully useless.
Suffering is a thing. It is total madness to say that suffering is the mere absence of wellbeing. The defence then must deny that suffering is really evil. That to any sane person proves that the defence and the belief in God it requires are themselves evil. If suffering is not evil then nothing is evil and it is as good to be bad as it is to be good!
The problem with a good God allowing evil to happen is that evil is by definition that which should not be. Evil can be understood by believers as the absence of good or the absence of God. Evil tells us there is no God. It is not that we must try and decide why an all good God might let evil happen but that we must ask why God would let evil exist when it is all about telling us there is no God?
If the defence explains how God can let evil happen then it is saying that evil being misplaced good is perfectly acceptable to God. Otherwise there is no point to the argument. So God is evil after all!
The Handbook of Christian Apologetics defends the excuse that God never made evil so we can't complain about him making evil on page 132. Thankfully it confesses that if evil is a being, real or an entity like a power or force then the idea of an all-good God is decisively refuted. So far so good, but there is this problem. A God who withholds power to let evil happen is no different from one that makes evil forces. He is still trying to cause harm. It follows then that whether evil is a power or not, God is still not all-good.  The point is not WHAT evil is but THAT it is. Belief in God requires us to ignore that so such belief is evil and opens the heart to embrace it. To try and stop people perceiving that the problem is that evil is is really trying to make them water down their perception of evil and its seriousness. To argue that suffering is something okay because it is not a thing is callous and an attempt to condone evil.

The book gives this equation for free will: Heredity + Environment + Free Will = Action (page 137). I am glad it does that because this admits that the three forces together produce the act. So heredity and environment influence the actions we produce. Then why didn’t God make an effort to have stronger influences towards good? Heredity determines or forces certain influences on us so why are there people who hereditarily have bad inclinations? This observation is fatal to belief in God. Free will is presented in this book as a solution to the problem of evil but it isn’t even relevant. It is the evil impulse in us that influences free will that is the problem. The authors deliberately try to deflect us from this and they wave free will in front of us for the purpose of misdirection. Even if we are conditioned by heredity and the environment we grew up in and which shaped us to choose coke instead of orange juice and this conditioning does not determine or fix my choice but I can resist it the problem of bad influences inside us and being allowed to thrive is still there.
If we partly cannot help our sins, then it follows that sin as in utter and final rejection of God is impossible. Catholics call such sin mortal sin and say it exists. Psychology says it cannot for even if we have free will we are not that free. We cannot know that if we reject God that it is fully us that is responsible. There would be other factors such as the programming coming from our genes. People who commit what the Church calls mortal sin should be more pitied than held guilty of such sin. Any other conclusion is at best subconscious hate and an apologia for moral terrorism.

Page 138 as good as tells us that drunk people and insane people are not human beings but animals or machines for they have no free will! Nobody should get away with saying things like that in these politically correct times. That is saying that you should not be respected unless you are normal but it is obvious that insane people for example should be treated with dignity.

Page 139 divorces goodness from kindness. Kindness is defined as lovingly wanting to free somebody from pain. It says that goodness is sometimes not to be kind. The idea is that if you have to hurt somebody to help them that is goodness but not kindness. This is shocking logic. Surgeons for example hurt people to free them from pain so it is kindness. All helping of others is kindness. Kindness and goodness are one and the same. Then it says that God is good but not always kind which is why he allows evil to happen. Then it says that if God were kind to us he would deliver us from all pain but that would be worthy of condemnation because it would be the same as kindly parents doing their children’s homework for them. But parents doing that is bad because the children won’t learn to get through life because there is no easy way through life for most. So its not kind. If you had an all-powerful father or mother with magic powers they could spoil you completely for then you will have a smooth journey through life. There would be nothing wrong with that for we only condemn spoiling because life is tough and spoiled children only make it worse for themselves and others. If life were easy and better there would be no difficulty. To say that God lets us stand on our own for our own good is to deny his power.

Page 142 says that the abuse of free will is to blame for spiritual evil like sin and that God allows it to preserve free will and that spiritual evil is to blame for physical evil and the end purpose of physical evil is to train us and discipline us. Page 143 suggests the possibility that if Adam had hurt himself before the fall he would have hurt physically but not mentally for pain is ninety per cent in the mind anyway which gives them the notion that the saintly soul does not feel as much pain when hurt as does the selfish and greedy and lustful soul. Presumably this means that Adam would know damage had been done but would not be told by pain for pain only came in after he disobeyed God. It might have been something like a message appearing in his head like a message in a computer telling it that a virus has got in. This is the callousness of much theism again. Those who cry out in agony are to blame for their agony. That is what they are saying.

When we could train ourselves by doing difficult good works it follows that any trials that come from God are just what we deserve because they wouldn’t be as necessary had we disciplined ourselves.
Page 142 says that evils that are not caused by free will, physical evils, such as viruses and sickness bugs and diseases and so on, are allowed by God to exist for they provide training for us and is also a just punishment for sin and a deterrence from sin.
So a baby then that suffers and dies of meningitis is a tool used by God to train those who love her and care for her for the disease cannot do the baby any good. The answer might be that the training is worth the suffering of the baby and its death. Is it really better for a baby to suffer and die so that some people may be more virtuous? Any parent in that situation would be inhuman for accepting this. Nobody has the right to say that a child should suffer and die on religious grounds. That is putting faith before people whereas religion assuming it should exist should be formulated with a firm eye on human welfare. The doctrine of page 142 is so vile that people believing it is a sufficient argument against the existence of God.
It is curious that the book doesn’t mention the Christian idea that even our sins and their bad results are used by God to create a better good (he creates the act of sinning as well for he creates all things so sinners use the free will to sin because of God not in spite of him). Maybe the book sees that if he is doing this then when God is working so hard and the best will still happen leaving it impossible to see anything wrong with sinning. You could beat up a baby intending God to bring good out of it.
If suffering is so necessary as the book says, then clearly if we get rid of AIDS God will have to replace it with another disease or perhaps a worse one so why bother trying to get rid of AIDS? They will answer we should fight it for the training. This doctrine takes the virtue of fighting evil away from us. How could it be a virtue to fight disease when it is only going to cause God to send and devise new diseases? It implies that getting rid of AIDS is not what is praiseworthy but trying when we know our trying is of no importance and isn't going to make a real difference. This tells us not to have goals. It suggests our motive should be, “We are getting rid of this disease for it is training for us as good people not because we want to rid the world of disease. Thank goodness there is such a thing as people suffering so that we can do good for them”. If we don't have goals and don't think much of our efforts we will see little point in trying. To fight means you oppose the evil and regardless of training or any good in it you want rid of the evil EVEN IF THAT MEANS AVERTING THE GOOD RESULTS OF THE EVIL. In other words, to oppose suffering is to oppose God.
Christianity is an evil religion and like all public evil, it has to be cloaked in respectability. The God belief is at the root of this evil. Without the idea that God turns our evil into good, the world would be a lot less amenable to the God idea. It appeals to people who want to put hope before truth. Curiously, the God idea implies that this optimism is sinful. It is assuming we know God works to transform evil when we cannot assume that if it is true that he gave us the power to do huge evil. If he is right to make us free to do evil, he does it so that we might be free and it is not about how much good can be done through the evil or how it can be transformed.
Religious optimism is dangerous. A paedophile struggling with an attraction towards a child may be able to resist it because he sees that it could damage the child psychologically for life. If he becomes a religious optimist he will feel God can bring good out of it and allows the evil for the sake of transforming it and making even better good than the good that was lost. If he is not a religious optimist, then his lack of it does good for he is deterred from hurting the child for he feels that not everybody will eventually experience the best out of life in the midst and because of evil. So if he believes in a supernatural God who makes the unexpected happen easily concern for the child will not deter him for he believes that it is up to God to do something about the damage. If the damage happens it is God's fault or responsibility. Or it is the child's for not letting God heal. The believers cannot accuse him of the sin of bringing bad consequences on the child but they can only accuse him of leaving a mess for God to fix. You see how inhuman belief in God is.
If his religious optimism makes him believe that life will be good for him and not necessarily anybody else this will encourage him to act out his urge to be a child-molester.
The paedophile can commit the sin of molestation and repent and be right with God again. Jesus sternly warned that those who do not forgive will not be forgiven. So it follows that the victim is the one that is most likely to go to Hell and be damned forever for he or she is always unable to forgive though some may manage it eventually. Jesus didn't care if the struggle to forgive and the guilt about failing to ended up being worse than simply not forgiving. He didn't care if the cure was worse than the problem. It is possible to hate in a way that does your life good. He said one must gouge out one's eye rather than look lustfully at anyone. The Church says he meant that though we must not literally gouge out our roving eye we certainly must go to tremendous effort to prevent ourselves sinning with it. It follows then that the same goes for people who may be sources of temptation. They must dress so dowdily that they would be walking passion killers. An insinuation of Jesus' reasoning is that children are partly to blame for being molested for they don't make themselves ugly and wear bulky hideous clothes. You might say beauty is a gift from God and not to be hidden. Then you contradict yourself if you are a Christian by saying a woman with perfectly beautiful breasts should keep them covered if she can't find a husband.

To digress a bit, the book promises that any sceptic who prays for God to show him or her the truth will have the prayer answered. So if Christianity is true God will reveal it to the person provided the prayer was humble and was not unfairly asking God to do a miracle instead of letting him work on you his own way (page 387). I think the logic is perfect. If there is a God and if Christianity is true then this will happen. But millions have prayed this way and still found both to be untrue. Or they have went into a heretical Church like the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Roman Catholics. It is like an experiment that proves that the religion is a pack of lies and errors. If the sceptic will get an answer by praying then so will the sceptic who does not pray for there will be somebody praying for him and Christians pray for the enlightenment of the whole world. Then the sceptic is being accused of knowing what the truth is and turning away from it. This is slander. But at least it tells you that you know if you do not believe in God or religion and know you are sincere then you know there is no God.

Insult after insult is heaped on the suffering of the world just to keep God’s reputation clean. It is those who profess to be the fans of God who are really being served by this.
The Handbook is insulting and shows that attempts to save God from the charge of tyranny don’t work. Those who defend tyrants are tyrants themselves.  They might charm people but that is because they don't have the guts to live up to the inherent evil of their beliefs.


Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
How can an all-good and perfect God allow evil to happen?
Reason Says
Some say that all evil disproves God. Some say that some forms of it disprove God.
Some say that evil proves that if there is a creator then he is not all good and not to be worshipped. Christians need to give us evidence that evil should be allowed to happen. It is not enough to simply say it. You don't want to risk heaping worship on a God who does not really deserve it and who could be laughing at you. Taking the risk is evil in itself. And it is not about you. What about other people?
Some say there is no problem of evil if God is not all-good and has a bad side. Is that correct? No. The problem is why anybody at all would do or tolerate extreme evil. God could be partly bad and still be doing a lot of evil for a good reason. A man who hits his daughter could still be fasting three days a week to save up money for her inheritance.
The believers answer starts with free will - God supposedly lets us do evil for he cannot force us to love him as love is voluntary. But our evil hurts others not him. He is all-perfect and so he cannot suffer.
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 didn’t 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 don’t 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 doesn’t 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 there is too much evil for there to be a God. We reply that how could a holocaust of six million disprove God and not a holocaust of six thousand?
Who is to say when too much evil is allowed?
Reason replies:
If you want to see others happy you will struggle with your faith when see them suffer. The reply says that no matter how much suffering happens we must be no more disturbed by God letting it happen than we would be if there was a holocaust of six. It is saying, “I don’t care how much evil God allows I will still believe.” There is something vile in saying that. Already then we have proved that if God exists he is evil and that the belief encourages evil.
Notice too that if you say that God is right to allow things like the Nazi Holocaust with its appalling evil because there is nowhere to draw the line then you are saying that God does not know if it is right to let man be that free and still he does it. This is not the behaviour of a good God.
If there were no God, Christians would make one that would do these awful things. They prove this by their faith in God. To deny that they would be evil for doing that shows insensitively to human suffering and its horror.
Its easy for you to say that nobody has the right to say too much evil is being allowed by God when you cannot experience the suffering of all those people. Faith in God is evil.


And what happened to the doctrine that even God thinks no evil should be allowed and that it has to be tolerated?  Too much tolerance would be a problem.  And it is a human right to decide or guess that there is too much as it is. We suffer so it is up to us to decide where the line is to be drawn.  The suggestion that it is not our place is itself arrogant and evil.
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.
Page 139 divorces goodness from kindness. Kindness is defined as lovingly wanting to free somebody from pain. It says that goodness is sometimes not to be kind. The idea is that if you have to hurt somebody to help them that is goodness but not kindness. So God is said to be good when he lets us suffer and he is not being kind for to be kind to us and relieve us of the suffering would be worse for us. We need the suffering to be better people devoted to him.

This is shocking logic. Surgeons for example hurt people to free them from pain so it is kindness. All helping of others is kindness.  Kindness and goodness are one and the same. Then it says that God is good but not always kind which is why he allows evil to happen. Then it says that if God were kind to us he would deliver us from all pain but that would be worthy of condemnation because it would be the same as parents doing their children’s homework for them. But that is bad only because the children won’t learn to get through life because there is no easy way through life for most. But if you had an all powerful father or mother with magic powers you could spoil your children completely for then they will have a smooth journey through life. To say that God lets us stand on our own for our own good is to deny his power.
We are not that bad that we need suffering to improve us. For Christians to disagree shows how little they value ordinary life and being an ordinary person. It’s all snobbery. We all know that we are not that bad and most of us are happy with ourselves the way we are.
The principle that any religion that does not put people first tells us to reject any philosophy that does not honour human frailty and efforts to do better and that does not recognise that imperfection is not so bad.
The Church and the Bible and Jesus say that nobody deserves to be saved. God had the right to abandon us and let us all be barred from Heaven. So from this we see that nobody has the right to be loved by God or by anybody. This doctrine contradicts the fact that human rights are based on needs and we have a need or right to be loved. This says then that we have no rights of ourselves. Jesus might give us the right by taking our sins away. What this is saying that our belief in rights comes from religious belief. This is as vicious as holding that the woman that gave you birth is your mother because the doctor says so and not because you have a video of the birth. Morals should be based on knowledge and experience not mere belief. To disagree is to say that belief is more important than treating people right or thinking about their rights.
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 – if you hate evil it makes you hard and negative. When you can’t love it or hate it the only answer is Jesus’ 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 doesn’t 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.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Jesus suffered the pain of Hell on the cross and this pain was the pain of being forsaken by God
Reason replies:
You believe that Jesus was without sin. If so only an evil God would send him to Hell. God cannot reject a good man as a sinner even to save the world and remain a good God. And Jesus wouldn’t be good either if he was devoted to a monster like that!
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Christ really separates the sin from the sinner so that we can love the sinner for Christ gets the punishment for our sin while we get the mercy.
Reason replies:
Nonsense. Nothing can genuinely separate the sinner from the sin. If you do wrong you did it and nothing changes that.  Nothing could be more absurd than any of this and even many Catholic theologians would laugh their heads off at it. If the sin is separated from the sinner then the sinner is not a sinner anymore. Are we to hate Christ then because our sins went to his account?   The sins went somewhere if the sinners are to be loved as if they didn’t do them so Christ must be to blame now.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Evil is not a real force but is simply abused good. If evil were a real power then an all-good God would be conclusively disproved. Even physical evil such as blindness is simply the absence of sight – blindness is not a power
Reason replies:
So good is a force and evil is not! Is not evil the turning of good into something else? If fresh milk becomes sour is not the sourness a thing in itself just like the freshness was a thing? To say the sourness doesn’t exist but is just the absence of freshness is madness. Of course blindness is a power that prevents sight from being possible. Do not insult the blind by saying they are just suffering from the absence of sight.
To argue that if a bomb hits a thousand people and one person survives minus arms and legs that God exists for God saved that person is an atrocious and sick and offensive argument. When you think about it, the doctrine that evil depends on good to exist, is saying the argument is true! The survival is evidence of the existence of good and the others have endured the loss of good.
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
Every human being naturally wants perfect happiness
Reason replies:
No. Imperfect happiness is a part of true happiness.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Praising robots, commanding them or blaming them is absurd so we are not robots, we have free will.
Reason replies:
True in theory. But false in practice. We praise and blame and command for it is necessary for running our lives. It doesn’t mean we are not robots endowed with consciousness. Even people who believe that cats and dogs are conscious machines apportion praise and blame to them. This book is totally out of touch.
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
Happiness today is thought to be feeling happy. True happiness is a state not a feeling and it depends on virtue. Just like you can feel healthy and not be healthy so you can feel happy and not be really happy. True happiness is a permanent state.
Reason replies:
Happiness has to do with your perception and your mind. Being healthy does not for you can’t see all that is going on in your body. You can see what is in your mind if you let yourself. The analogy fails. If happiness is caused by virtue then explain the anguish of a holy mother to be who refuses to abort her child to please the policy makers of the Catholic Church though doctors are certain that if she doesn’t abort it will kill her and her baby?
The Handbook may mean that happiness is not a feeling but a condition. When you realise that everything will be okay in the end, that God will help you through your suffering on earth and take you to Heaven when you die that’s happiness even if you are in the middle of a deep depression. They say real happiness is a permanent state so it must subsist no matter what you feel. The feeling of happiness is spoiled a bit by the fear that you mightn’t feel that way tomorrow. So true happiness then is an unshakeable attachment to virtue and looking forward to God and Heaven. That is how it is permanent the only way it can be.
So anybody then who challenges the faith must be pure evil! They take away happiness. The more faith in God and in the Church you have the more chance you have of being happy. The doctrine seems to imply that happiness depends on faith and that nobody should criticise or refute anybody’s faith. With such a doctrine Christianity would cease to exist as Christianity for it teaches that the whole world must be converted from their religion to Christianity.
The Bible speaks of the happiness of being a believer in Christ here and now on earth. If faith in what God says is virtue and obeying it and looking forward to Heaven is happiness and assuming God wants us to be happy then the following theological belief is true. We can’t obey God or do anything to please him so Jesus has to do it for us and he died in our place for our sins on the cross. All we have to do is ask him and he will save us by this faith alone. From that point our salvation is fixed and even murdering or disbelieving means we cannot go to Hell for Jesus bought Heaven for us. This is the theology of Protestantism, evangelical Christianity. Why is it true then? Because if happiness has to be permanent to be real then theologies that say we can lose salvation by serious sin or loss of belief such as Roman Catholicism are evil faiths.
The state is to make its citizens happy so clearly the state should support the Christian religion and discriminate against any that undermines it.
Religion is based only on faith and faith is made of belief and trust and faith can be wrong and there could be a faith that is more believable than yours. It then is faith that makes one happy not truth for the two are not necessarily the same thing. Just believing in something doesn’t necessarily make it true. Does truth come first in reality? Yes. We need it.  The happiness and faith thing clearly sets religion in opposition to science. If religion uses science then it is being inconsistent.
This “happiness” that the handbook offers us is too abstract and cold. Everybody wants to feel good. We try to look good and succeed at our careers for we want to be happy as in feeling good. If we were so keen on the handbook’s version of happiness why is it that even the Christians among us change their jobs out of boredom and so on?
Handbook of Christian Apologetics Says
God brings good out of evil


Reason replies:
How could you really intend evil if you believe this? You might murder but you will be believe that God only let it happen for a good purpose so it wasn’t really evil but necessary for some good.
If good comes about in spite of evil then evil has no purpose.
If good comes about through evil then evil is not really that bad.
The idea that God is in control and only lets us rebel and do harm because he has a plan to make it worthwhile tells us to trust God. This trust is evil because though we have to trust people for convenience in life, trust is not good in itself unless it is earned first. We trust only those who prove they are trustworthy and we only trust those who can’t because we can’t go through life checking everybody out. The genuine person likes to be checked up on. God has the power to reveal to us that we should trust him when he lets bad things happen to us. We have right to know exactly why. He is silent so he is evil. The good then that comes out of the evil he allows is trust in him but this trust is not good.
So no spiritual good comes out of evil.


Christians spend a lot of time trying to show there is no logical contradiction between God and the existence of evil.


Philosophers say that things such as God preventing the 2004 Asian tsunami were logically possible or that if it did not happen then you can say God helped prevent it and there is no self-contradiction in saying so. But they assert that such actions would be physically impossible. So they are not logically impossible but they are physically impossible.  Would logically possible or physically possible (or if you like logically impossible or physically impossible) be equally important?


If you should hate how God causes people to suffer and even for eternity in Hell then you should hate all that even more than how you hate what the Nazis did. 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.