The best way to tell a lie is to tell half of the truth—or enough of the truth to help the lie spread and become believed. You are using the truth to misdirect. So not only do you have a lie, but you have a distortion of the truth. A lie is a fake truth, and the real truth is dismissed and removed from the throne where it rightfully belongs.
One example of the above is how we are told that, "God does not permit evil as in saying we can do it. He empowers us to do it of our own free will, but the responsibility for it is ours alone. He is responsible for letting it happen but is not responsible for its malice and arrogance. So God permits us to sin but does not produce our sin as sin. No, he produces only the faculties we use to make the sin and the circumstances around it."
Religion's approach to innocent suffering under God's loving care is unfair and ideological. Given how prone human nature is to making idols of ideas, you would think it would be careful!
No believer in God thinks that He lets everything be random. It is believed there are many things He determines or sets like clocks. He determines things by His own agency. The rest is left to its own devices because He decrees they are to be free. Either way, you have control. The prisoner in chains who cannot move is completely controlled. The prisoner who is allowed to move his arm is still being completely controlled. He only gets permission from a controller to move his arm. Since God makes random forces what they are, then they only act random but are not really random. God permitting anything does not mean He is a bystander; He is deeply involved. Religion wants you to look at the word permit and think it is the same as a parent forced to permit their child to make mistakes and learn the hard way. There is, in fact, NO comparison.
Free will means I can randomly choose, but we know the random is not true if there is a God. If you believe in God, then you will have to hold that He allows us to make mistakes or be evil. You believe you use your will to create evil. That is what you say. But let us be precise: you are saying you create contained evil. How is the restraining done? You attempt evil, and God contains it. Does He alter it from inside, or does He use external force? Or both? If He can get “into” evil, then that means He is involved in it as a producer. Evil is your choice, but if He has that much control over your choice, then He is involved and choosing with you and through you. He is like a mind controller who gets the person to steal one gold bar instead of two. Stealing is stealing. This is more about consequences than stopping evil. It is affirming evil within limits. It is about cosmetics.
All evil can backfire. All destructiveness needs a framework to contain it. Evil people don't want things to go out of hand beyond a point. To argue that evil is somewhat okay because a God contains it is just to bluntly argue for evil. If we are evil ourselves, then wanting a God who allows evil and ringfences it is consistent with that.
Religion advances the idea of God respecting us so much that He has to let us decide between good and evil, even if it means we will choose badly. Something letting us do harm could as easily be motivated by the hope we will mess up as the hope that we will not. It comes back to what side the believer will take—not reason. It is an act of faith. Religion should not be commanding you to agree with it. It should be spontaneous and up to you. You have the right to feel religion is manipulating. That it won't permit that is a clear sign that it is.
When choosing to do good or bad, it is heavily based on what our instincts tell us could be right or wrong, but that has nothing to do with it being right or wrong. Those who say they regard God or Jesus as their authority, their Lord, are assessing them from the viewpoint of their own authority. It all comes back to what the person thinks. It is a way of deflecting from how you decide they are worthy and that is what you base them on. It is about you investing them with authority you give them, so the authority is really yours. They might have the power, but you give them the authority and make it about you. It is you declaring what evil is and that it fits God. Who made you so wise that you could speak for God?
God cannot give you free will to do His good will when your service of Him is really just another way of serving yourself. For you to say He has is a boast. That boast entails pronouncing on the suffering of others—that is theirs, not yours. It is not about you. Helping them is patronising if that is your attitude.
Religion causes you to think its ideas about God and evil are mysteries, and you are so amazing that you know of these mysteries and have some idea of how to solve them. This needs to be seen for the hugely mistaken claim it is. Sprinkling mystery over the God and free will debate like pepper is a trick to make us doubt ourselves if we see any incompatibility.
The fact that God could be only permitting my evil—not producing it or condoning it—does not mean that is actually what He is doing. To say He is only permitting means nothing, for I should also, in the same breath, say, "He is more involved than that. He is blameworthy." Your half-truth is abhorrent.
To sum up, God has more to do with your sin than you do—and is complicit. And so are those who preach about how pure He is and how terrible we are for violating His will.
GOD - GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT
There are at least two reasons for treating God as a war criminal.
Bias is one. Many take a guilty until proven innocent approach to God simply because their bias blinds them too much. They would see him as better than what he is. They don't discern clearly enough - they cannot put him on trial. Is that fair? If we are biased, why should that mean we have to think the worst of him not the best? The answer is that countless people will always suffer more than us so we cannot risk condoning. So we have to think the worst of him and let that drive us to help others better.
Principle is two. It is because people suffer injustice if we say they did wrong, when they did not, that such a rule applies. Even without the bias problem, the rule inherently cannot apply to a happy spirit being who cannot be hurt.
Lesser arguments could be based around how even Jesus himself seemed to turn against God on the cross and there are examples of spiritual giants who did something similar. The alleged miraculous revelations recorded in the Old Testament may demand that God be seen as holy and just. It does not stop you wondering if the are like the man that protesteth too much?
Concise Summary
Half-truths can hide deeper realities and mislead. Saying God merely permits evil without producing it distorts the truth. If God allows evil but controls or limits it, He is actively involved, not just a bystander.
Human free will isn’t truly random if God exists, and God’s containment of evil implies complicity. Religion asks for faith in this, not logical certainty.
Morality often reflects personal views, not divine authority. True free will serving God’s will is questionable if it serves self-interest.
Religion frames the God-evil relationship as mysterious to discourage doubt. Claiming God only permits evil doesn’t remove His responsibility.
In sum, God is more involved in sin than often admitted, making Him complicit alongside those who preach His purity while blaming humans.