God Exists but Is Malevolent: Theodicy Debate Persists

God exists but is a bad person: the most uncomfortable theodicy

The age-old question of the problem of evil returns to the forefront. If God is omnipotent and benevolent, why do the innocent suffer while the wicked prosper? Those who take the trouble to read the Bible without filters find a Yahweh with little in common with the paternal figure of the New Testament. The Old Testament presents an angry, warlike god who orders massacres of entire peoples and punishes children for their parents' sins. This is no minor issue: if the sacred text is the word of God, how can one reconcile the Yahweh who exterminates the Egyptian firstborn (Exodus 12:29) with the God of love preached by Jesus?

The God of the Old Testament: an uncomfortable profile

Passages are abundant. Psalm 78 describes him as wrathful and intolerant; Exodus 15:3 calls him "a man of war"; Deuteronomy 20:11-17 justifies the genocide of the Canaanites, including women and children. Those defending the thesis that God is a bad person point out that these actions would be considered crimes against humanity if committed by a human being. The usual response from believers—"it was another time, another culture"—clashes with the claim that the Bible is a timeless sarracena guide. One sector argues that the Old Testament reflects the violent understanding of a tribal society, and that Jesus came to correct that image. But then, why does the same God of the Old Testament remain the same for Christians?

Deists, atheists, and Gnostics: possible exits

In the face of this contradiction, several escape routes have emerged. Deists maintain that God exists but does not intervene in human affairs—he created the universe and disengaged. This stance explains injustice: God does not act because he chooses not to. Atheists, for their part, consider the issue irrelevant: if God does not exist, there is no contradiction to resolve. And Gnostics, in a tradition dating back to the early centuries of Christianity, identify the God of the Old Testament with an inferior and malevolent demiurge, while the true God is a transcendent being of pure light. This last vision has gained traction in certain circles, fueled by the idea that the material world is a prison created by an evil intelligence.

The theory of suffering as food

One of the most curious circulating hypotheses is that God feeds on human emotions. According to this view, the Creator needs suffering to subsist: every tear, every anguish, is energy that sustains him. That is why he allows war, disease, and catastrophe. The idea echoes certain Eastern theologies and the physics of energy that is neither created nor destroyed. It is, of course, more consistent with empirical evidence than that of a loving God who permits evil for inscrutable reasons.

The paradox of free will and divine compassion

Another recurring argument is free will: God does not intervene because he respects our freedom. But the objection is immediate: if a father sees his son about to be murdered, he does not hesitate to intervene. A God who allows gratuitous violence is not good, or is not omnipotent. Classical theology responds that evil is a consequence of original sin and that God can bring greater goods from lesser evils. However, for those who suffer without consolation, that explanation sounds like an excuse.

The debate over whether God is a good person has no expiration date. As long as there is injustice in the world, victims will ask themselves why an omnipotent being does nothing. And as long as there are those who open the Bible and read Yahweh ordering the extermination of children, the thesis that God is a bastard will not disappear. Theodicy remains, for many, the pending assignment of monotheism.