Thursday, July 08, 2004
Mel Gibson's dad was right. It IS all the jews' fault!
I've also seen those flyers with the deformed children. They were handing them out while we stood in line for Fareienheiht(sp) 9/11.

While Tim seems to have briefly glanced at the flyer, I stared fully at it for quite a while. My flyer had a front and back side. The front was filled with horrific images of deformed children, along with a single picture of a hand holding a spent round of ammunition. The back of the flyer had a place for a stamp and an address. The address was apparently owned by some individual who had control over the distribution and/or use of the ammunition.

The ammunition in question are depleted uranium rounds used by the American military. Why these are better than conventional (non-uranium) rounds is because uranium is the heaviest naturally occuring substance on earth. The uranium tipped rounds have a higher armor piercing capability than any conventional round. Our military is using these in Afganastan and Iraq. The result is radiation sickness in children who live near the battlefields.

For more info on these, click here.

As for the questions this flyer raised in Tim's abnormally large head, I can offer no concrete answers. No one, that I know of, can.

Even the Bible seems to skirt this issue. The only part of the Bible dedicated to the problem of pain is the book of Job. I don't know if any of you have read the book of Job, but it doesn't offer any reassuring answers either. In fact, it is likely that the book was altered by a scribe who felt there needed to be more evidence that Job was somehow at fault.

The problem of pain, in a world supposedly created and controled by an omnipotent and benevolent God has been awarded its own name within Theology. It is called Theodocy. There are some very intense websites that pop up if you google that word, by the way. C.S. Lewis tries to tackle Theodocy in his book The Problem of Pain. This is a pretty good read, but I'm not sure exactly how well it solves the problem. I felt that it raised more questions than it answered.

Many people in this world believe that the universe was created by a being who exists externally. This being is the Creator. A great majority of those who believe in a Creator, attribute to the entity things like omnipresence and omnipotence. These are fancy words that basically mean that this Creator can be everywhere at once and is all-powerful. Some also attribute to the Creator benevolence. Another fifty cent word that means 'all well-wishing'.

The problem is that an entity who is all-powerful and all well-wishing could not possibly lord over a world where extreme pain and suffering exist. If the entity is all well-wishing, then it would not want to allow suffering to exist. If the entity is all-powerful, then it would also have the ability to end this suffering. So, if 'C' (suffering) exists then either 'A' (omnipotence) or 'B' (benevolence) cannot be attributes of the Creator.

A+B=C is not correct.

Many philosophers and theologians who try to solve the problem simply eliminate 'A' or 'B'. They claim that the Creator (yes, also called God, but I'm trying to avoid the connotations of that word) is either not all-powerful or the Creator is not benevolent.

A post-holocost Jewish scholor makes just such a claim. His name escapes me, but I clearly remember hearing about him in my Philosophy of Religion class. He claims that God must be omnipotent, but cannot be benevolent to allow things like the holocost to take place.

Many Christians default to the 'free-will' argument that Tim mentioned. This basically claims that since humans have the freedom to choose their own fates, and are fallible, suffering will inevitably result. This view fails to take into account suffering caused by natural disasters and the like.

There is another alternative, however, that was (to the best of my knowledge) first proposed by a Hindu philosopher by the name of Sri Aurobindo. I was introduced to Mr. Aurobindo's book Rebirth and Karma about a year ago. In it, he argues that the entire purpose of life is to learn. He claims that our Creator sends us to earth many times in cycles of rebirth. The purpose of our coming here is for our souls to grow in experience, wisdom and knowledge. One of the ways in which we learn is through suffering. In fact, he claims that some of the most important lessons are learned through suffering.

Initially, it would seem that he is not solving the Thodocy problem. There is still suffering. C still exists, so either A or B must not. He says 'No'. He claims that we do not understand the equation at all. 'C' is not what we think it is. While we may see suffering as horrible, we are somehow mising the big picture. Our evolution as a species, and our souls personal evolution is dependant upon 'C'.

Do I personally agree? I don't know. I'm not offering answers, just pondering theories. It's something I do a lot. And every once in a while I enjoy sharing. It helps to get these ideas out of my head and into the public forum. I don't want to spark a religious debate or anything, so don't think thats what I'm trying to do. And if one does erupt....Its Tim's fault. He started it. :p

If you want to know what I personally think about suffering. I agree with Mel Gibson's dad. Its all the jews' fault. ;o)

0 Replies:

Post a Comment

<< Home




Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com