A Merciful God

[RichDellaValle]

Sir David Attenborough had this to say during a 2008 BBC interview:

 

“'When they say there is evidence of God, people always quote beautiful things such as orchids, hummingbirds, butterflies, and roses. But I always have to think too of a little boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa with a worm boring through his eyeball, burning him blind before he is five. So I reply, 'Well, presumably, the God you speak about also created the worm, and I find that baffling to credit a merciful god.'”

[TheRedneckProfessor]

The problem of suffering has been an insurmountable obstacle for theists since Epicurus first framed it 300 years before christ even allegedly existed.

[TABA]

22 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The problem of suffering has been an insurmountable obstacle for theists since Epicurus first framed it 300 years before christ even allegedly existed.

But not for our current Christian guest, aik, who waves it all away because sometimes suffering leads to good, guys!  
 

If only Thomas Aquinas had seen how simple it is after all!

 

 

[TABA]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The problem of suffering has been an insurmountable obstacle for theists since Epicurus first framed it 300 years before christ even allegedly existed.

Polytheism actually makes more sense given the problem that suffering poses to the notion of one all-powerful, loving God.  The Greeks, Romans and other polytheistic cultures understood that often terrible things happen to good people.  They believed that none of the gods was all-powerful.  Sometimes my preferred god would prevail and bring me good fortune.  Sometimes the Prof’s favorite deity won out and brought him prosperity and victory at my expense.  C’est la Vie, as the Gauls would say after they invented French.

 

In the end, the appealing idea of a father in heaven, combined with the power of newly-Christian Rome, won out and monotheism prevailed, to the chagrin of philosophers and people of reason ever since.  

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 hours ago, TABA said:

Polytheism actually makes more sense given the problem that suffering poses to the notion of one all-powerful, loving God.  The Greeks, Romans and other polytheistic cultures understood that often terrible things happen to good people.  They believed that none of the gods was all-powerful.  Sometimes my preferred god would prevail and bring me good fortune.  Sometimes the Prof’s favorite deity won out and brought him prosperity and victory at my expense.  C’est la Vie, as the Gauls would say after they invented French.

 

In the end, the appealing idea of a father in heaven, combined with the power of newly-Christian Rome, won out and monotheism prevailed, to the chagrin of philosophers and people of reason ever since.  

 

 

One of the glaring weaknesses of christianity is that it starts out with a mysterious, unfathomable god whose ways are not our ways and can neither be understood nor questioned... and then attempts to explain him in a way that is relatable, convincing and even, shall we say, marketable.  

[older]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

One of the glaring weaknesses of christianity is that it starts out with a mysterious, unfathomable god whose ways are not our ways and can neither be understood nor questioned... and then attempts to explain him in a way that is relatable, convincing and even, shall we say, marketable.  

  

Marketable. Lots of money to be had in the business. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

4 hours ago, older said:

  

Marketable. Lots of money to be had in the business. 

 

And gives the religious police a job for life.

[Wertbag]

I liked the response to "God has reasons to allow suffering to allow greater good down the track", which was to ask "Could an all-powerful God not achieve that intended good without murdering babies?"

Is baby murder somehow a requirement for this good?  If the Christian believes in objective morals, would not baby murder be an objective moral evil?

If you were told by murdering a hundred babies you'd get the cure for cancer, would you be horrified or would you say "Hand me the knife, this is for the greater good"?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

The word "dilemma" comes to mind.

[♦ ficino ♦]

Quote

Sir David Attenborough had this to say during a 2008 BBC interview:

 

“'When they say there is evidence of God, people always quote beautiful things such as orchids, hummingbirds, butterflies, and roses. But I always have to think too of a little boy sitting on the bank of a river in West Africa with a worm boring through his eyeball, burning him blind before he is five. So I reply, 'Well, presumably, the God you speak about also created the worm, and I find that baffling to credit a merciful god.'”

Well, its good for the worm. There have to be worms actualizing their essence in order for all levels of Being to be actualized and for God's creation to be complete. So there's that. [Calvinists might add that the little boy ain't seen nothin' yet ... just wait till he is being bored by "the worm that will not die" in Hell. Our God is a sovereign God!]  /s

 

Catholic apologists really can't function without their version of the theory of Act - Potency. I think that theory rests on several assumptions, one of which is that Being is a perfection (or predicate). That assumption, as far as I can see, leads to bad philosophy, starting with undermining now-classical predicate logic.