Theodicy and Semantics

Posted: January 16, 2013 in Uncategorized
Tags: , , , , ,

imagesCAPKY11SAhh pretty deep topic for a Wednesday right? I apologize and I will do my best to be succinct. Sunday morning came and I dressed myself went to church and the room where my class was usually held on Sunday morning was closed. The lights were off and no one was there. I was informed by someone at the coffee urn in the church lobby that our Sunday School teacher was out sick. This was awful news, I enjoy the Sunday School lessons Joe brings and the laid back open discussion manner he uses to employ the lesson. Because of Joe’s illness our class became visitors in another Sunday school class. The topic for that class on that Sunday morning was Theodicy. Theodicy is a fancy word for why a divine being would allow physical or moral evil to exist in the world that his created beings inhabit.
Yeah so Sunday was deep also. It was odd that this was the subject because earlier in the week I heard a story on NPR in which three clergy were interviewed concerning this topic. The most interesting thing about the interview and the topic in Sunday school is there is really no answer for a divine being to allow his beings to suffer.
The link here and earlier in this post when clicked will take you to the NPR story. At the bottom of the story there are comments and it seems many people have many opinions of this topic. I can immediately think of a prominent historical figures comment on theodicy “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?”

Epicurus (c. 341 – c. 270 BC)
Epicurus was not the first or last skeptic of God,but he was the louder and for me so far most prominent. But if you follow the link and read the comments you will find that many people have an opinion when it comes to God and when it comes to Theodicy. As I read through the comments I began to notice that despite having the opinion there was really no definitive answer some began to even question the idea of right and wrong. One comment read something to the effect that the words moral right and wrong and right and wrong were simply a matter of semantics and the other read they were not and pointed out the difference between a man killing a baby and a dingo killing a baby. The dingo of course did not do a moral wrong but the man being a being in possession of a soul, did commit a moral wrong. I like others do not have the answer for theodicy. I can think of no good reason as to why tragedy should strike. No one does.
What I am sure about though is that life is precious our own and that of others and that if we don’t employ a respect for our own live and others lives we will be accountable.
Yeah I know the succinct part was a lie sorry



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s