Euthypro Dilemna

This isn't really a question about anyone of your posts in particular, but about the general trend.Essentially we have that:
Good is that which is aligned with God.
God in his goodness created us and gives us the choice to choose to between God's good path or our own evil one.
If God had just made us predisposed to choosing the good path, then we would be without free will. This would not be good, so God didn't do it.
What we are left with is making the I understand that man cannot be created to choose the good path, since this would make us automatons. However there is an example of a being who has free will and always chooses the good path, God itself.So my question is why didn't God create equals, other omnipotent beings with the capacity for good and free will? That way everybody would be saved. Surely it is within God's power to create another God? Why did he create lesser beings?

This essentially answers my query. I was wondering at first why wouldn't God want more beings who were saved. As you said however those who are punished are also satisfying God's will, hence it is good.I'm only left with this query and perhaps this is not the place to discuss it, but you say the following: Here we come to one of my major problems with theology.What you have said above would not be what most Christians would say. Most churches believe in our total free will. You however disagree with them on this point.Let us take it as given that God exists.Essentially we have what they are saying and what you are saying. My only difficulty is that there seems to be no way to decide who is correct or not. You are stating the above as if it was certainly the case, however I know several theologians who would disagree with you. There seems to be very little in the way of some agreed upon standard where we can see who is closer to the truth. We can't ask God directly, ultimately you are interpreting the scriptures with no way of knowing if your interpretation is becoming increasingly more accurate.This is in essence the problem, I'm not actually sure what Christianity is. Two different people could give me two totally different answers as to:
(a)The nature of Christ
(b)The nature of sin
(c)The nature of humans and their free willAlmost to the point of them being quite different religions and yet both will say "this is what the Bible says", "this is Christianity" and both will have reasonable arguments for their case.Maybe I have this wrong though, maybe there is some obvious way of telling who is closer to the truth, but I can't see it.To sum up:
Even if God exists, how do I know* that your personal theology isn't just completely wrong. I don't intend this in an insulting way.*By know I mean within reasonable doubt, I don't mean 100% certainty.

Hey iano,Thanks for that post. The brevity of this section of my post is because you have answered my questions clearly enough to require no more. This is basically what I was looking for.The only question I have remaining is the following:
Let us imagine that a Muslim had given me as good an answer to my theological questions about Islam. That is he had convinced me of the internal consistency of what he was discussing.I am now faced with two internally consistent belief systems. How do I go beyond this to the point of actually believing? How do I move beyond this acknowledgment of two sensible "meta-stories" into an acceptance of the truth of one of them?Is this component faith? How do I justify this faith? And how do I know which one I should have faith in?I realise that I may be asking unanswerable questions or asking questions which require you to write a personal theological guide for me. If so, don't worry about it.