Evil

Would it be immoral to solve the problem of evil?

rabbit hole.jpeg

Maybe evil is not a problem to be solved

A question.  I’m just playing with this idea but….join me as I go down this rabbit hole.

Life and death are bound up together.

Suffering and creation are bound together. 

Good and evil are bound together. 

Without death, we would have no life.  If our bodies did not kill off cells daily, we would die.  If nature was not one huge machine recycling death into life and back into death again, there would be no life.

If there were no error on the genome, there would be no evolution or adaptation – and thus no life.

Isn’t this one of the messages of the crucifixion? 

Isn’t that the whole, “in order to live you must die” message?

So my question is this.

Would it be immoral to solve the problem of evil?

Maybe evil is not a problem to be solved.  Maybe nothing is.

(btw - I see that calling it immoral is setting it in the category of evil. So, there’s that contradiction…. )

To comment, click on the header of this post “Would it be immoral to solve the problem of evil?”

Meaningless, meaningless

when-is-good-friday.jpg

Today, god affirms the meaninglessness of all evil…

“Today god affirms the meaninglessness of all evil and the shitty randomness of all that is shitty and random. Today is for the countless victims of the unfair trial, today is for the needlessly downtrodden, today is against the lynchings and pogroms carried out in the name of this crucified messiah. Today there is no deeper meaning to your depression, to your divorce or to the death of your child The death of the Christ affirms what you knew in your gut all along, that your trauma is utterly meaningless. Today there is no grand plan. Today, guilt lies firmly at the feet of the abusers and injustice remains wholly unjust. Everything that is random remains divinely…. random” Adam Dawkins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0cefepgtGs&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop