deadk
4th September 2006, 01:10
I have an overwhelming issue with the Christian idea of suffering. It is said by the Catholic Church and many other Christian institutions that God, in addition to creating the world and humanity, is both good and omnipotent- this is, however, an irreconcilable paradox. Through the alledged omnipotence of God, it is made clear that God foresaw all the suffering that humanity would endure before he created the world and humanity. He is therefore responsible for all suffering.
Bernard Russell points out that, "if I were going to beget a child knowing that the child was going to be a homicidal maniac, I should be responsible for his crimes." The obvious extrapolation is that if God knew of the sins that Mankind would commit before he committed them, he is clearly responsible for all those sins through his creation man. Religious leaders have constructed several feeble arguments over the years which fall well short of reconciling god's "goodness" with his "omnipotence" in light of the suffering that exists in the world.
One such attempt is the idea that suffering is the result of humans misusing their freewill to sin. However, this begs the question: do rivers flood or volcanoes erupt because of sin? It would seem that most rational individuals would concede this is not the case. The typical Catholic argument for suffering is that the world and its injustices act as a purification process for humans. It is through this process of purification that suffering comes to be understood as good. This argument, of course, is sadistic in nature and unfounded.
To subscribe to such a paradigm, one must witness an innocent child dying of aids and think him deserving of such a "test." Indeed, to belief this one must first strip themselves of all the natural empathy they possess in relation to other humans. To explain in the most general sense, an individual who believes that all suffering on earth is in some manner a good thing cannot have an ethical standing, because he is always having to excuse pain and injustice as divine goodness. At the end of the day we are left to observe that if God is omnipotent- he created suffering; and if suffering is not good, God cannot be both good and omnipotent.
Bernard Russell points out that, "if I were going to beget a child knowing that the child was going to be a homicidal maniac, I should be responsible for his crimes." The obvious extrapolation is that if God knew of the sins that Mankind would commit before he committed them, he is clearly responsible for all those sins through his creation man. Religious leaders have constructed several feeble arguments over the years which fall well short of reconciling god's "goodness" with his "omnipotence" in light of the suffering that exists in the world.
One such attempt is the idea that suffering is the result of humans misusing their freewill to sin. However, this begs the question: do rivers flood or volcanoes erupt because of sin? It would seem that most rational individuals would concede this is not the case. The typical Catholic argument for suffering is that the world and its injustices act as a purification process for humans. It is through this process of purification that suffering comes to be understood as good. This argument, of course, is sadistic in nature and unfounded.
To subscribe to such a paradigm, one must witness an innocent child dying of aids and think him deserving of such a "test." Indeed, to belief this one must first strip themselves of all the natural empathy they possess in relation to other humans. To explain in the most general sense, an individual who believes that all suffering on earth is in some manner a good thing cannot have an ethical standing, because he is always having to excuse pain and injustice as divine goodness. At the end of the day we are left to observe that if God is omnipotent- he created suffering; and if suffering is not good, God cannot be both good and omnipotent.