Why did God create me if he knew I would spend an eternity in hell?

[greylorn]

I joined today to specifically respond to this thread, and appreciate a forum by which we can start a dialogue.

The discussion of omniscience and eternal damnation is the largest obstacle for me to accept religion. While faith may provide the answer, I am unable to entertain it unless I accept the concept of salvation as is, ignore it altogether, or hope that the interpretation is incorrect.

The problem with knowing everything is…you know everything. This must include knowledge of the future. If it doesn’t, it’s not omniscience. When your creator is omniscient, free will is irrelevant. You will end up where it was known you would end up. This knowledge was present before the creation, during the creation, and throughout your existence. This knowledge exists regardless of our ability to make independent conscious decisions. It does not matter if those choices were free for us to make, as the ending was known at all points from creation through death and beyond. These are the unfortunate side effects of omniscience.

As an outsider attempting to entertain religious belief, it becomes very difficult to reconcile an omniscient creator coupled with the concept of eternal damnation. I struggle to accept that the most intelligent entity in the universe would design a system knowing that billions of its creation would spend an eternity in damnation. I am unable to recognize how this can interpreted as kind and loving. I cannot accept that people in eternal damnation chose to be there, or more pointedly, deserve to be there. Given a true choice, and implicit understanding and evidence of the consequences of the choice, I find it implausible that intelligent individuals would choose to spend an eternity in damnation. The single greatest evidence will be provided upon death, as we will all eventually experience it despite our differing belief systems. I do not comprehend a system that provides for such a short physical existence, offers the possibility of eternal pain and suffering, and does not provide a choice at the moment of clarity, death itself.

I struggle with this issue because it is at the core of why I have lost my faith. I could amend my understanding of damnation, of the creator’s omniscience, of the requirements of salvation, or any number of other caveats that would have me focus on certain tenets while completely ignoring others. I often wonder what it would take for me to accept the basic premise of religion again, what evidence would need to occur for me to truly believe, or even if it is possible based on my current perspective. I accept that in death I will have my answer because I will be experiencing it. Unfortunately in death, if I am to believe religion, it will be too late.

The solution to your problem is simple. Don’t believe in any religion that makes no sense to you. This would sell out your mind.

If you accept the idea of a Creator, fine. There is plenty of excellent evidence that this universe could not have come into existence by itself. (You might appreciate Darwin’s Black Box.) But religions are mostly in the business of inventing things about the nature and motivations of the Creator, and few of these make sense. You have identified examples.

So, ignore what makes no sense. If a religion tries to pitch nonsensical ideas with the right hand, why would you imagine that the gun in the left hand is loaded?

For example, many religionists believe that what God wants are individuals who dutifully followed various religious rituals, like Sunday mass and Saturday confession, or bowing to Mecca 5x daily. What if God is more interested in those who looked at religious doctrines, found them illogical, and had the personal courage to go his own way— especially if in the face of agreement pressure to believe?

I recommend belief in God. If doctrines about His properties and motivations do not make sense to you, search for some that do. Trust that the universe has purpose, as do you. Pursue understanding about whatever engages your curiosity. It won’t be easy, because bogus beliefs abound everywhere, in religions and sciences alike. Your mind seems to be working fine, so feed it good knowledge, and watch it grow and change. Trust the logic of your mind above the opinions of others, and if it should fail you on occasion, keep your mind but correct your hypotheses.

These are only my personal opinions, offered with tacit consent of a Church responsible for an excellent, open, and intellectually free forum for discussions which often challenge its own beliefs.

 

[benedictus2]

The solution to your problem is simple. Don’t believe in any religion that makes no sense to you. This would sell out your mind.

Good advice to a certain point. Not all that is true is apprehended by the mind.

If you accept the idea of a Creator, fine. There is plenty of excellent evidence that this universe could not have come into existence by itself. (You might appreciate Darwin’s Black Box.) But religions are mostly in the business of inventing things about the nature and motivations of the Creator, and few of these make sense. You have identified examples.

Yes, indeed some of these make sense - actually quite a lot of logical sense.

So, ignore what makes no sense.

No. If it doesn’t make sense, dig deeper, ask questions. If scientists ignored what did not make any sense there would not be any advance in science.

Some things make sense immediately, some take time to understand.

If a religion tries to pitch nonsensical ideas with the right hand, why would you imagine that the gun in the left hand is loaded?

That would only make sense if what makes sense to you is all that will ever make sense. But that is not true. To follow this advise would be to cement ones self in ignorance.

For example, many religionists believe that what God wants are individuals who dutifully followed various religious rituals, like Sunday mass and Saturday confession, or bowing to Mecca 5x daily. What if God is more interested in those who looked at religious doctrines, found them illogical, and had the personal courage to go his own way— especially if in the face of agreement pressure to believe?

As you have said WHAT IF? Conjecture. So therefore, why should those who go to Sunday Mass and go to Mecca believe your advice when you are equally uncertain as to God’s preference for personal courage and to go ones own way? And yet here you are pontificating on the greater desirability of the latter.

I recommend belief in God. If doctrines about His properties and motivations do not make sense to you, search for some that do.

I would simply say “search”. Seek the Truth and you will find it. But it require a huge amount of humility because the Truth just might lead you to something you may not be prepared to accept. Honesty and humility are two virtues necessary for this search.

Trust that the universe has purpose, as do you.

Why should he? How do you know that the universe has a purpose. If Creator-God is all God is why should the universe have purpose? For all we know He could have created it for no reason. Maybe boredome.

Pursue understanding about whatever engages your curiosity. It won’t be easy, because bogus beliefs abound everywhere, in religions and sciences alike.

How do you know a belief is bogus considering you are not even sure what God is like? Until you are sure what and who God is, you’d be hardpressed to prove the bogusness of a belief.

Your mind seems to be working fine, so feed it good knowledge, and watch it grow and change. Trust the logic of your mind above the opinions of others, and if it should fail you on occasion, keep your mind but correct your hypotheses.

Partly true. I would say judge the opinion of others by their logic.

These are only my personal opinions, offered with tacit consent of a Church responsible for an excellent, open, and intellectually free forum for discussions which often challenge its own beliefs.

Yes, the Church is not afraid of healthy, honest debate. It is confident of its stand. As Father Barron said: Catholicism is an intelligent religion.

 

[Nimeniton]

Why should he? How do you know that the universe has a purpose. If Creator-God is all God is why should the universe have purpose? For all we know He could have created it for no reason. Maybe boredome.

I would say that boredom is a reason but presumably you mean that God could have created the universe without any purpose for us rather than for Himself.

PS I understand that you give this only as a “what if” example.

 

[benedictus2]

I would say that boredom is a reason but presumably you mean that God could have created the universe without any purpose for us rather than for Himself.

PS I understand that you give this only as a “what if” example.

I mean more along the lines of the universe not having a purpose because god may not have created it for a purpose. In the same way we doodle when we are bored (or do things for no reason) perhaps the universe is just a doodle of god.

And this is to address these two statements of greylorn :* “**If you accept the idea of a Creator, fine. There is plenty of excellent evidence that this universe could not have come into existence by itself. (You might appreciate Darwin’s Black Box.)” *and “trust that the universe has a purpose”
**
If we accept a god on simple deistic principles as in the above quote - without ascribing any attributes to him - then there is no reason to assume that we can trust that the universe has a purpose.

We can only say that the universe has a purpose if we accept that there is something more to God than “just” Creator ) although some may argue that the word “create” itself implies purpose but I don’t think it does).

And one need not read Darwin’s Black Box (which I personally think is a wonderful book) to come up with Creator-God since in the end, it is not a question of science but of philosophy. Darwin’s Black Box still needed to apply philosophy to the science since one can’t prove a Supernatural being from simple natural causes.

 

[benedictus2]

A Catholic from another forum gave me this Biblical reply to a similar question.

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

*“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, *
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

*22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? *Romans 9:14-24

In my mind it is a curious response to the question to whether God is just or not.

The basic response seems to be, “Who are you to question God’s wishes?” and Paul gives the example of the Potter being free to use the clay for whatever purpose he wishes.

Some , in response to you, have implied that giving people free will is more important to God than never having them born even if it means they “choose” hell. However, it is interesting that this verse seems to indicate predestination and not free will. "he hardens whom he wants to harden." and* “For who is able to resist his will?”*

Then St Paul gives this What if in verses 22 and 23 as reasons to prove God’s justness

I was going to post a summary on predestination but my internet connection is terrible so instead I give here a link to a rather thorough discussion we had of the topic on this thread

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=469776&page=9

I posted a summary of the two main positions within the Catholic Church on post 126 on this thread

Regarding the verses cited above, so many people quote these to justify predestination and excuse the injustice inherent in their position and yet not a single one of them says that God damns these people (e.g. pharaoh) to hell or that he predestines anyone to hell.

The verse “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy” in no way implies that God is selective in His granting of mercy. All it means is that it is His prerogative to be merciful as He pleases. In actual fact, in most instances, they question the mercy of God for its prodigality and not for its miserliness.

God may have hardened pharaoh’s heart but where is it written that pharaoh was therefore being consigned to hell?

So in short, these verses don’t quite support what some people want it to say.

The subject of predestination always involves grace, free will and God’s omniscience.l

I think we discussed predestination pretty thoroughly on the link I gave above so the OP might find this helpful as well. I found that the most enjoyable thread I have ever participated in.

 

[Nimeniton]

God may have hardened pharaoh’s heart but where is it written that pharaoh was therefore being consigned to hell?

Nowhere but then in Exodus (1445 BC to 1405BC) even the notion of a hell fire existing is nowhere mentioned. The doctrine of hell develops later as does the idea of people going to heaven.

For the living know that they will die,
but the dead know nothing;
they have no further reward,
and even their name is forgotten Ecclesiastes 9:5 (935 BC)

I certainly get the impression that in Exodus that the author believed that nothing happened without God willing it which imo is why he says that God hardened Pharoah’s heart. Pharaoh is not sent to hell because the concept of an eternal hell did not exist for that author.The ideas of The Judgment, heaven and hell may have developed during the Babylonian exile (586–538 BC) when there was contact with Zoroastrianism who certainly preached these concepts.

 

[benedictus2]

benedictus2;8308324:

God may have hardened pharaoh’s heart but where is it written that pharaoh was therefore being consigned to hell?

Nowhere but then in Exodus (1445 BC to 1405BC) even the notion of a hell fire existing is nowhere mentioned. The doctrine of hell develops later as does the idea of people going to heaven.

*For the living know that they will die, *
*but the dead know nothing; *
they have no further reward,
and even their name is forgotten Ecclesiastes 9:5 (935 BC)

I certainly get the impression that in Exodus that the author believed that nothing happened without God willing it which imo is why he says that God hardened Pharoah’s heart. Pharaoh is not sent to hell because the concept of an eternal hell did not exist for that author.The ideas of The Judgment, heaven and hell may have developed during the Babylonian exile (586–538 BC) when there was contact with Zoroastrianism who certainly preached these concepts.
I will have to read up on the possible encroachment of Zoroastrianism on Judaic belief but even within Judaism there are camps (Sadducees) who do not believe in the after life.

Re Exodus: While it is useful to understand the writer’s intent and understanding, Scripture cannot be limited to the writers’s intent (e.g. the Prophecies of Isaiah and the Psalms that relate to Christ).

So while the writer may have thought that what happened was “actively willed” by God we now see this as “allowed”. I will write a more thorough explanation of this tonight as my lunch break is over.

 

[Nimeniton]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=469776&page=9

Hi Thanks benedictus2. I am not familiar with the Molinist position. The Thomist one does sound similar to Calvinism

 

[PRmerger]

The solution to your problem is simple. Don’t believe in any religion that makes no sense to you. This would sell out your mind.

If you accept the idea of a Creator, fine. There is plenty of excellent evidence that this universe could not have come into existence by itself. (You might appreciate Darwin’s Black Box.) But religions are mostly in the business of inventing things about the nature and motivations of the Creator, and few of these make sense. You have identified examples.

So, ignore what makes no sense. If a religion tries to pitch nonsensical ideas with the right hand, why would you imagine that the gun in the left hand is loaded?

Well, yes and no. Nonsensical ideas ought to be dismissed, of course.

However, as St. Augustine posited centuries ago: *Si comprehendis, non est Deus
*
[SIGN1]If you understand him, he is not God[/SIGN1]

What if God is more interested in those who looked at religious doctrines, found them illogical, and had the personal courage to go his own way— especially if in the face of agreement pressure to believe?

Then this god is a god who enjoys men who create a god in their own image, rather than conforming their image to the One True God.

I recommend belief in God. If doctrines about His properties and motivations do not make sense to you, search for some that do.

Again, yes and no. Seek that which is Truth; yet if you pursue the above paradigm to its fullest degree, then you will have created a god in your own image, rather than to the Truth.

 

[greylorn]

Well, yes and no. Nonsensical ideas ought to be dismissed, of course.

However, as St. Augustine posited centuries ago: *Si comprehendis, non est Deus

If you understand him, he is not God

Then this god is a god who enjoys men who create a god in their own image, rather than conforming their image to the One True God.

Again, yes and no. Seek that which is Truth; yet if you pursue the above paradigm to its fullest degree, then you will have created a god in your own image, rather than to the Truth.*

As with most replies derived from doctrine, yours make no sense to me and are not worth further reply. My opinions are based upon a different understanding of God than yours, one derived from the physical universe constructed by God, instead of the scriptures and opinions written by man.

I understand from your comments that you prefer intellectual befuddlement. I prefer to strive for understanding. I figure that since God gave me a mind, He did not expect me to use it to practice stupidity and maintain a high level of ignorance about the universe He created, or about its implications for mankind’s understanding of God himself and His purposes. (c.f: Matthew 25:14) So, you should not bother replying to anything I write, even if you think you can understand it. I will probably reply to honest questions, but not further assertions of dogma. There are plenty of others who will be happy to reiterate doctrine with you.

 

[Nimeniton]

However, as St. Augustine posited centuries ago: *Si comprehendis, non est Deus
*
[SIGN1]If you understand him, he is not God[/SIGN1]

.

This quote seems to come up whenever God’s goodness is questioned regarding the sufferings in the world.

Even in their bewilderment and failure to understand the world around them, Christians continue to believe in the “goodness and loving kindness of God" Deus Caritas Est (38).

However, I would say that there has to be some understanding. Let me explain. I know very little about Merger except some of the things she has chosen to reveal to me. I know her gender for example. I know she is a human being etc. So I have a little understanding if not a very deep understanding.

Likewise with God there has to be some understanding. If there was no understanding at all how could you define God. Catholics understand this about God. He exists, he is a person and not a force, he is omnipotent, omniscient and all good. And you have to have some understanding of the word “good” to know if someone is good or not.

However one of the problems of deciding whether a person is good or not is that goodness is not just recognised through actions but through motives. And motives are not always obvious. Motives are the reasons we do things. So when people quote “Si comprehendis, non est Deus” I take it that they mean that God’s reasonings for allowing or causing suffering in the world are withheld from them. Faith is therefore required to believe that God’s motivation is good.

In my Buddhist days I saw a similar type of faith. The group I was in was founded by an Englishman who many of his followers thought to be a Buddha or as near to a Buddha as possible. For them in particular, it was therefore a great shock, when the Guardian newspaper printed a story claiming that he used his position to entice young men into bed
with him. Some people left this Buddhist group, I was one of them. However, many chose to stay.

These are the reasons the most loyal followers gave:

He had sex with these young men for spiritual reasons that mere worldlings like you and I cannot understand. It is not possible to understand a spiritual being more developed than ourselves. Then these people would point out all the good things the leader had said and done and say that this gave them faith that his motives were always good and ultimately for our benefit. And in this way, they stayed in the group and continued to work for it.

Whilst it is not illogical to say that a seemingly “evil” action can be done with good even wise motives, I tend to be cynical when I hear words to the effect of “beyond our understanding” as an explanation. People invest a lot in their beliefs emotionally and also for some people it is their livelihood and they know no other trade. For others they have family and friends in the group and they do not wish to be alienated from them by leaving the group. So I tend to assume that psychological rationalisations are being used in order to avoid the painful business of re-evaluating their belief systems rather than assume that their is a hidden good motive for what would otherwise be seen as evil.

 

[PRmerger]

As with most replies derived from doctrine, yours make no sense to me and are not worth further reply.

This is peculiar.

It’s like saying, “As with most replies derived from truth, yours make no sense to me.”

:whacky:

But I will continue to discourse because, firstly, I think you actually like my replies. And secondly, my replies are not only for you but for the many, many lurkers on this thread (current number of views: >7900!)

My opinions are based upon a different understanding of God than yours, one derived from the physical universe constructed by God, instead of the scriptures and opinions written by man.

Fair enough.

But again, that’s like saying, "My opinions on immunizing against polio are based upon a different understanding than science, one derived from my own "

Ok. But I defy you to let your un-immunized anti-scientific self enter a polio ward in the 1950s and see what happens.

I understand from your comments that you prefer intellectual befuddlement. I prefer to strive for understanding.

And I understand from your comments that you have never read St. Augustine. :sad_yes:

I figure that since God gave me a mind, He did not expect me to use it to practice stupidity and maintain a high level of ignorance about the universe He created, or about its implications for mankind’s understanding of God himself and His purposes.

This is quite Catholic of you to say, greylorn!

I will probably reply to honest questions, but not further assertions of dogma. There are plenty of others who will be happy to reiterate doctrine with you.

If you are against assertions of truth then you ought not be posting here on the CAFs, greylorn.

 

[benedictus2]

As with most replies derived from doctrine, yours make no sense to me and are not worth further reply. My opinions are based upon a different understanding of God than yours, one derived from the physical universe constructed by God, instead of the scriptures and opinions written by man.

And that is about as illogical as one can get even though it has the pretensions of rationality.

Your opinon even though arrived at from observation of the physical universe is no less opinion than Scripture if you want to label Scripture opinion.
.
You cannot arrive at God-creator based on science. You still need to apply philosophy to science to come up with Creator-God, so there is no way of telling whether your conclusions about the attributes of God are better than those of scripture, based on scientific data alone.

It is also arrogant in its stance because it has “itsy bitsy you” as the sole determiner of the rightness of your “doctrine” - yes, your own self-declared dogma.

I understand from your comments that you prefer intellectual befuddlement.

Is that as opposed to your intellectual irrationality? One cannot even attach the word “intellectual” to that.

I prefer to strive for understanding. I figure that since God gave me a mind, He did not expect me to use it to practice stupidity and maintain a high level of ignorance about the universe He created, or about its implications for mankind’s understanding of God himself and His purposes.

Well there has not been any evidence that you have indeed used this gift since your posts point to the fact that you have preferred to maintain a high level of ignorance than exert effort to pull yourself out of it and yet here you are blasting others for their supposed ignorance.

So far, every post you have made has been pepperred with illogicality and yet you have the temerity to ascribe this ignorance to other posters.

Mind you, there has been pretensions of this in your post but pretension as you know is not the real thing.

(c.f: Matthew 25:14) So, you should not bother replying to anything I write, even if you think you can understand it.

There is absolutely nothing to understand considering that it is non-sensical.

I will probably reply to honest questions, but not further assertions of dogma. There are plenty of others who will be happy to reiterate doctrine with you.

Hear ye! Hear ye! The magisterium that is greylorn has spoken!

 

[PRmerger]

This quote seems to come up whenever God’s goodness is questioned regarding the sufferings in the world.

Even in their bewilderment and failure to understand the world around them, Christians continue to believe in the “goodness and loving kindness of God" Deus Caritas Est (38).

However, I would say that there has to be some understanding.

It appears that at least 2 readers on this thread have taken St. Augustine’s quote to mean: we are commanded to be intellectual goobers.

Perhaps the fault is with my exposition of this quote.

Thus I will clarify: Si comprehendis, non est Deus ought not be interpreted as a license to density.

I recommend reading the great theologians of Catholicity: Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm, Teresa of Avila, Edith Stein…to see how an understanding of God can be apprehended, but not comprehended.

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Thanks benedictus2. I am not familiar with the Molinist position. The Thomist one does sound similar to Calvinism

I think Molina has a more sound presentation than St Thomas which he borrowed from St Augustine.

The Church has not declared either as doctrine. She has however given guidelines within which theologians should work when coming up with theories on predestination.

 

[greylorn]

If you are against assertions of truth then you ought not be posting here on the CAFs, greylorn.

FYI this is a philosophy section, not a dogma discussion group. Philosophy is about searching for truth, not asserting that you’ve found it.

Since you are already certain that you have the truth, why are you posting here? My guess is, just to interfere with others, dog-in-the-manger style. .

 

[greylorn]

Hear ye! Hear ye! The magisterium that is greylorn has spoken!

And another pretentious nit has burped up his customary thoughtful, articulate, cogent reply.

 

[benedictus2]

FYI this is a philosophy section, not a dogma discussion group. Philosophy is about searching for truth, not asserting that you’ve found it.

Correct. So stop doing it.

Since you are already certain that you have the truth, why are you posting here? My guess is, just to interfere with others, dog-in-the-manger style. .

To enlighten those like you who are equally dogmatic about their own self-declared dogmas and pretends not to be so.

 

[benedictus2]

And another pretentious nit has burped up his customary thoughtful, articulate, cogent reply.

Thank you. You’ve just proven my point.

 

[benedictus2]

This quote seems to come up whenever God’s goodness is questioned regarding the sufferings in the world.

Even in their bewilderment and failure to understand the world around them, Christians continue to believe in the “goodness and loving kindness of God" Deus Caritas Est (38).

However, I would say that there has to be some understanding. Let me explain. I know very little about Merger except some of the things she has chosen to reveal to me.
v
v
However one of the problems of deciding whether a person is good or not is that goodness is not just recognised through actions but through motives. And motives are not always obvious. Motives are the reasons we do things. So when people quote “Si comprehendis, non est Deus”** I take it that they mean that God’s reasonings for allowing or causing suffering in the world are withheld from them. Faith is therefore required to believe that God’s motivation is good. **

Yes, that is exactly what we mean.

It does not mean though that God’s reasonings are entirely withheld from us. Because we are mere creatures, we cannot by ourselves know the workings of an infinitely Higher Being. For us to know Him, He Himself has to bridge the gap. God has to reveal Himself i.e come down because we by ourselves cannot make the ascent.This Self revelation comes in many and varied ways and we do not say that God reveals Himself only to Catholics. We do say however, that in Christ is the fullness of God’s revelation. While in large part belief in this Truth is given through faith, reason to a certain extent supports this faith.

To say that we cannot fully understand God is to simply acknowledge that we cannot fit the ocean into a bucket although the bucket can hold some of the ocean.

My niece was born with a huge growth on her cheek. The doctor recommended that they operate on her while very young ( I think before she was one year old) so that there will not be any scars left when she grows up.

The first thing that they did for the operation was to strap her into a strait jacket which absolutely terrified her. Her anguished cries truly broke her parents’ heart. She turned to her father with fearful and grief stricken eyes begging to be released from the straps but of course her father could not do it. The operation was successful but when she woke up you can tell that she “hated” her father. Every time he came near she tried to move away and she would not let him hold her. In her little heart, she must have felt betrayed and abandoned. On top of that she would have been in pain for some time after the operation. So her little heart and little head must have struggled to make sense of this suffering.

She is now a beautiful young woman with beautiful unblemished skin and is very thankful that what needed to be done was done.

I think it is the same with the seemingly senseless suffering in this world. God continues to create and any construction site will tell you that there is always chaos before the work is complete even more so when some construction workers fail to follow the plan of the Engineer and Architect.

We say that God is the Sum of all Goodness. If so there must be a reason beyond our comprehension why evil has been allowed to happen. Even in common parlance we have phrases such as “blessing in disguise”.

God can bring good out of the most miserable situations. And I think this shows His greatness even more so.

In my Buddhist days I saw a similar type of faith. The group I was in was founded by an Englishman who many of his followers thought to be a Buddha or as near to a Buddha as possible. For them in particular, it was therefore a great shock, when the Guardian newspaper printed a story claiming that he used his position to entice young men into bed
v
v
. So I tend to assume that psychological rationalisations are being used in order to avoid the painful business of re-evaluating their belief systems rather than assume that their is a hidden good motive for what would otherwise be seen as evil.

I would concur with this because it is clear that the “god” in this case is the active agent of evil. Also, a quick check would have revealed that he is not God, so his motives can be questioned and shown for exactly what they were – evil.

This is why I think, no matter how brilliant or holy a person may be, we must not invest our lives in them.

And I know, one can ask what about Christ?

I think everyone is agreed that Christ is a good person. So at the very least we all concede that He is a wise and good person.

However, conceding that and not accepting His claim is not quite logical because if He is not who He claims He is, then He is neither good nor wise. At the very least He is probably demented at worst He is a charlatan and thus an out and out liar. So Christ always forces a choice – either we accept that He is who He claims He is or He is not what we believe Him to be a good and wise but otherwise ordinary human being.