I became a lapsed Catholic a number of years ago for a variety of reasons, but this particular epiphany was one of the biggest:

God cannot be both omnipotent and all-loving.

The example which "proves" the above is that of a 3 year-old girl dying of what is essentially throat cancer. The girl is completely innocent and yet slowly (over a period of many years) drowning in her own saliva. She experiences a massive amount of pain over her short life, likely more from the treatments than the cancer, and then dies before reaching her sixth birthday.

Now, I could envision a benevolent, all-loving God knowing that the girl was dying a tremendously horrible and painful death, but being otherwise powerless to ease her suffering. I could also envision an omnipotent God that knew the girl was dying, but chose not to interfere for whatever reason. I cannot, however, see both an all-loving and omnipotent God letting a little girl (and by extension, anyone) die from this form of cancer (and by extension, die painfully at all).

I could not explain or otherwise rationalize this contradiction, and lapsed a short time later. If omnipotent and all-loving are two mutually-exclusive qualities of a deity, who would want to worship any deity? Worship an all-powerful god that does not care about his followers, or worship a god that loves his followers but is incapable of doing anything... a choice I have found to be impossible (and intellectually dishonest) to make.

-Red Raven

quote:Originally posted by Red Raven:

I became a lapsed Catholic a number of years ago for a variety of reasons, but this particular epiphany was one of the biggest:

God cannot be both omnipotent and all-loving.

The example which "proves" the above is that of a 3 year-old girl dying of what is essentially throat cancer. The girl is completely innocent and yet slowly (over a period of many years) drowning in her own saliva. She experiences a massive amount of pain over her short life, likely more from the treatments than the cancer, and then dies before reaching her sixth birthday.

Now, I could envision a benevolent, all-loving God knowing that the girl was dying a tremendously horrible and painful death, but being otherwise powerless to ease her suffering. I could also envision an omnipotent God that knew the girl was dying, but chose not to interfere for whatever reason. I cannot, however, see both an all-loving and omnipotent God letting a little girl (and by extension, anyone) die from this form of cancer (and by extension, die painfully at all).

I could not explain or otherwise rationalize this contradiction, and lapsed a short time later. If omnipotent and all-loving are two mutually-exclusive qualities of a deity, who would want to worship any deity? Worship an all-powerful god that does not care about his followers, or worship a god that loves his followers but is incapable of doing anything... a choice I have found to be impossible (and intellectually dishonest) to make.

-Red Raven

THANKYOU.

I thought I was the only one who thought that way!

The only difference of opinion I have is that it would still be reasonable to worship an all loving God that was not all powerful.

I would think that such a god would likely work through is followers.

Letting a little girl die of cancer doesn't seem quite as harsh as condemning somebody to eternal torture in the sixth ring of hell for "being a giant" or "giving bad advice".

quote:Originally posted by Trippy_McGee:

Letting a little girl die of cancer doesn't seem quite as harsh as condemning somebody to eternal torture in the sixth ring of hell for "being a giant" or "giving bad advice".

Where the Hell does it say that?

Dante says that. I don't think he has much Christian scripture backing him up but he does borrow alot of Greek and Roman mythology for his description of Hell. Inferno is a pretty good read if you find a good translation.

quote:Originally posted by Trippy_McGee:

Letting a little girl die of cancer doesn't seem quite as harsh as condemning somebody to eternal torture in the sixth ring of hell for "being a giant" or "giving bad advice".

The giants were the corrupters of humanity (pre-deluge), and giving bad advice is one of the worst things you could EVER do, because you are leading someone else astray.

quote:Originally posted by Trippy_McGee:

Letting a little girl die of cancer doesn't seem quite as harsh as condemning somebody to eternal torture in the sixth ring of hell for "being a giant" or "giving bad advice".

Exactly. Although I didn't specifically mention it in my original post, I think it is quite obvious that an all-loving God would never, under any circumstances, create a Hell.

You can have either an all-loving God that forgives and accepts believers, thieves, child molesters, murderers, and terrorists equally... or you can have an omnipotent tyrant God not worth worshiping. There is no middle ground.

-Red Raven

Actually there is, and the solution and compromise is free will.

Therefore you are wrong.

gwned.

quote:Originally posted by aTribeCalledSean:

Actually there is, and the solution and compromise is free will.

Therefore you are wrong.

gwned.

No, because that would mean that he:

1. In effect created evil, therefore not "All-Loving"

2. Lets evil happen, therefore not "All-Loving"

Letting evil happen is a result of letting everything happen.

Most would argue that it would be meaningless and worthless to live a life controlled by god, because he is the mover.

Therefore, him letting you do your own thing, letting everyone have free will, is more loving because you still get a chance at life.

Also, ones momentary suffering and pain is obscured in the light of eternal paradise.

Means to an end maybe?

No, becuase if he is omnipotent, then he has the power of not letting evil happen, and at at the same time, for people to retain their free will.

Uh huh... so... a baby born with Harlequin fetus syndrome that dies pretty quickly from infections did so because they chose it?

just playing devils advocate.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

No, because that would mean that he:

1. In effect created evil, therefore not "All-Loving"

2. Lets evil happen, therefore not "All-Loving"



At the highest metaphysical level, there is no difference between good and evil. Both are merely aspects of the dualistic fallacy.

For a detailed treatment of this concept, see Soul Loss and Retrieval by Sandra Ingerman.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

No, because that would mean that he:

1. In effect created evil, therefore not "All-Loving"

2. Lets evil happen, therefore not "All-Loving"





You are starting from the wrong starting point. Yes, He even said that He created evil. But "Lets evil happen", is a temporary thing.

You're looking at things from a "God doesnt exist, didnt create" perspective. With that POV, death, disease, corruption, etc. always existed. But from a "created by God" perspective, the answer to the question(s) reguarding evil/not Loving God, are from "after the fall of mankind/God's curse" and before God fulfilling His promise of Grace.

quote:Originally posted by xtreem5150ahm:

You're looking at things from a "God doesnt exist, didnt create" perspective. With that POV, death, disease, corruption, etc. always existed. But from a "created by God" perspective, the answer to the question(s) reguarding evil/not Loving God, are from "after the fall of mankind/God's curse" and before God fulfilling His promise of Grace.

The frame of time is irrelevant. The point is evil is happening now, and a omnipotent god, if he exists, is letting it happen. He therefore cannot be called "All-Loving"

Or is the word "Loving" have a limited definition as well? Geez.

You might enjoy reading about Open Theology

Whos Dante where can I read more about him?

[This message has been edited by madamwench (edited 10-13-2004).]