David Attenborough and God.

StopS

This is exactly why I asked for your definition.

Mercy, as a category, is separate but not in itself inconsistent with justice.
Mercy is most definitely NOT the opposite of justice. The opposite of justice would be...well, injustice. So your "case against God" would be that he is unjust, not that he has contradicted his mercy.
You were asked for a definition that would result in a "problem of evil", no such definition was provided.

I did not mention justice. Yes, because it is not based on decrees or laws, mercy contradicts justice and a just sentence.
No idea what justice is doing here. I am not in any way bringing up a case against any god. That would be absurd for an atheist. Please use basic logics. I am showing that the concept used by humans is flawed and contradictory.
Wow, you really refuse to use your own braincells. Well, if you need to be spoon-fed, here goes
I did not say anything about "the problem of evil". If that is what you are trying to read into this, you are wrong.
I asked 3 (three) questions. You did not answer a single (of the 3) questions.
I did not use the word mercy.
You assumed something and told me I failed. Based on your faulty understanding.
To be friendly and accommodating, I provided a definition which could serve for any further discussion.
If you have a problem understanding "the problem of evil" I suggest you open a new thread and keep this one for the topic at hand.

The attribute of mercy/compassion requires an object, even if reflexive. God does not need/have mercy on himself therefore it does not apply to God ad intra, but only to creatures.

Wrong! Repeating a stupidity does not make it right. I am unable to show mercy towards my desk. Mercy is exclusively reserved for living beings, not dead objects.

How do you get to that remarkable knowledge about a god? How do you know what a god needs?

Re-read my definition. You're basically saying the same thing.

It would help indicating that you understand something.

Define super-natural? Mercy can be shown only to a living object. Yet the subject must be rational in order for the act to be interpreted as "merciful/compassionate".

Define super natural (question mark)?? Does that mean you don't know what super-natural is or you don't know the expression? You need to be more precise. Now suddenly you contradict yourself and agree mercy can only be shown to a living being. Are you sure you know what you want? What "subject must be rational"? What are you talking about? Is the subject what shows mercy or is shown mercy? Why is any kind or form or rationality necessary?

No such thing was shown, as I will demonstrate below.

Well, I DID show what I claim I showed. If you don't understand it or reject it, that is a different story altogether. So please stop mixing facts with emotional, wishful thinking.

The term "maximum" is ambiguous. The just Judge will punish to the extant that it is required by the law.
If the law demands death and the judge does not provide it, then he is no longer just. He may be compassionate and merciful, but just he is not. For justice requires that the criminal be punished to the extant that the law demands, in principle. If not, then it would be equally "just" to fine a murderer a 100$, when the law requires his life. I think so far we agree.

No, it is not! Why don't you try to falsify your claims? You can't get more, higher, faster, further, etc than maximum. You can't have less or it is not the maximum.
Extant? I suppose you mean extent. Here you are right for a change. And that is why I used the word "heinous". I used that very word to ensure the reader will understand that this entails the worst possible crime without specifying the details. I used that word to make sure that it is the worst possible crime which requires the highest punishment - which is why I used the word "maximum". It's actually quite easy the way I present it.
That is my point. Mercy overrides just. You can't have a just and merciful sentence.

This presumes mercy (i.e. spared hell) must be provided to all. Whereas, if God spares only one, then he is merciful.

No, why?
Showing mercy sometimes is not the same as generally merciful.
The word merciful or mercy appears almost 300 times in the Koran, indicating some importance.
Now I am not using facts, but I am interpreting the usage of mercy and merciful together with "most" or "all" does not indicate the occasional show of mercy.
The Koran starts off with "In the name of Allah, the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful", not exactly saying "Allah, the occasionally Merciful, the sometimes Merciful".
I don't know how well you know Islamic texts, but if you look at the Qudsi Hadiths, the sayings directly attributed to Allah, the first one says 'My mercy prevails over my wrath.'
Humans apply the attributes "just" and "merciful", which can't be sometimes and occasionally, or it would mean that this god is omnipotent occasionally or omniscient occasionally.

Notice the definitions you provided did not necessitate that one act as such with all persons, in all situations, and in all times. Therefore, you have gone beyond your own definition.
Your idea of "mercy" is not even human, since no one would qualify as "merciful" if he ever acted with justice. It would be the equivalent of saying If a man only loves his wife, and does not "love" every other woman in this way, then he is unloving. An obvious non sequitur.

This is your private and personal interpretation. I disagree.
Correct! I am applying this to a god.
Correct! If someone is only loving occasionally, I would not call that person all-loving.
If someone is merciful only occasionally, I would not call that person all-merciful.

Explain why it is relevant what people on earth are experiencing.
Hell is the punishment for being guilty before God. In this, God is glorified for his justice.
Heaven is the unmerited favour that God bestows on unworthy sinners, for whom he, out of pure grace and mercy, has provided a legal satisfaction for their sins, thus removing their guilt. In this, God is glorified for his mercy.
Unless you accept that all men born of Adam, by natural generation, are completely spiritually dead and inclined only to evil, then you will not accept my justification.
If you think men are born "tabla raza" as for instance Roman Catholicism and Islam teach, then you will not accept God's judgement as being just.
These latter issues relate to scripture, and whether you accept what it teaches.

It is reality. If there are claims that prayer works or that there is fine-tuning or a super-natural, divine being which has created the Universe and humans with a purpose then I would expect to see just that. I don't .
Fine, but that precludes mercy. Fine, but that means I was created by an omniscient creator who already then knew I would be punished by a "merciful" being with hell for a lack of a belief.
Sure, but not for those who did not experience the all merciful side. It is not based on any legal or defines system, as a believer gets rewarded and a non-believer does not regardless of guilt.
What does "born of Adam" mean? I was born by my mother. What justification do you provide? All I see is emotional pleading and special pleading.
I suppose you mean "Tabula Rasa". Catholics do the opposite of what you claim. Catholics insinuate an original sin. I do not know of any claim regarding the sin in a foetus or a baby in Islam.

Remember your initial claim was this

Wrong! I asked 3 questions. I did NOT make a claim. Please do not misrepresent what I say.

You contrasted mercy with "torturing" people on earth and then in hell. Strictly speaking this is irrelevant to God, qua creator. It is not the office of a creator to be merciful, as you agreed. It is the office of a creator, to do whatever he pleases with his creation.

Yes, I did.
I think that a merciful being is unable to apply torture.
I think that a merciful being is unable to apply torture here on Earth and then again when we are dead.
I think that a merciful being is unable to apply torture for an eternity.
I think that a merciful being is unable to apply torture for an eternity for the crime of not believing something.

I don't punish my dog if he eats the piece of meat I left on the table while I go and get some water. It is my fault for leaving a piece of meat within his reach. But then, I am not a god.

Nevertheless the God of scripture, is not God because he created. He would be God without any creation. Therefore, your complaint is without merit; however if you wish to discuss whether God is just, qua judge, that would be another issue.

Thus, as we have seen, you have defined mercy to be "the opposite of just". This is false, mercy is categorically not the opposite of justice. Rather, mercy can be considered generally inconsistent with justice; yet not absolutely and in principle. However, even then your contention is misplaced, for you ought to say that God cannot be merciful, as a just judge, not as creator. For, as I stated in point 4 above, God does indeed show that he is merciful and loving; though these attributes do not correspond to God, qua creator or even judge. Rather these attributes correspond to God qua God; that is, in his person.

I am not complaining, I am asking. If you interpret this as complaining, then this is your erroneous impression. Think logically why would I complain? About something where I lack the belief that there is evidence for its existence?
For both Plato and Aristotle, the Golden mean of justice could be located in the concept of fairness. Justice, as fairness, means that people get exactly what they deserve - no more, no less. Showing mercy isn't a matter of being kind or nice, showing sympathy or pity. It is the act of NOT doing justice. It is a clash of virtues, where the one precludes the other.
If we look at the strict linguistic definitions then you are right and I am wrong mercy is not the opposite or antonym of just. However, looking at acts towards living beings they are opposites. If you want to create a special exception for something, then that is your prerogative.

aabdul

If a god is just, the punishment for sin is hell. If this god is merciful as defined above the punishment should not be hell. But hell exists. And the god is called merciful. A logical contradiction.

Dear StopS,

It seems you are not aware the Quranic view. It is true, mercy is an emotional reaction which can obviously find no place in the working of law and justice. Still, there is a place for "forgiveness" and "mercy" as will be seen from the following example. You put your finger in fire and it gets burnt. And you must suffer the consequence? the pain and agony which is its inevitable result. There is no question of anybody forgiving you or taking mercy on you. But the same God Who has made the law that fire burns and pain is its inevitable result, has made another law. It is that a certain medicine has the property of giving relief to the pain and effacing the devastating result of burning. A recourse to this law of God would do away with the painful result of your former action. The provision of this second law is "mercy" from God, and obedience of this law results in "forgiveness" of our wrong doing. That is Allah?s clemency (rahma). This fact can be useful only to those who know and utilize it. This, in the Quranic sense, is tauba (repentance), i.e., efforts to rectify a mistake. This point is aptly illustrated in the figurative story of Man?s creation. Both Man and the Devil erred but whereas Man repented and was willing to rectify his error, the Devil refused to confess, standing defiant.

The Quran elaborates it in Sura AzZumr ?Say (O My Messenger) to those who have done wrong to themselves, ?Don?t lose hope of Allah?s clemency. Verily, He has created means of recovering all falterings. He certainly is the Protector and Clement!? Come back to your Preserver and submit to Him before your error bears result, after which no one will be able to come to your aid? --- (39/53-55). Elsewhere, it is clarified thus ?When they, who are convinced of Our laws, come to you (My Messenger), say to them ?Peace be upon you as your Preserver has bound upon Himself to be clement, i.e., anyone of you who unknowingly falters, then repents and rectifies it, shall find Allah protecting and clement?? --- (654).

This is not to be taken as a license to commit wrongs. It says ?This is how your Preserver shall be clement to you. But if you return (to your ways), Our system ( of punishment) shall return to you. 178

Every action of man is recorded and the consequences inevitably follow. Good, however, prevails over bad. The consequences of a wrong action can be nullified by a right act. "Good deeds", says the Quran, "annul bad deed" (11 114). The fate of the individual or of the nation, therefore, depends on which kind of actions predominate; "As for him whose scales are heavy (with good works) he will live a pleasant life" (101 6-11)

"And if ye avoid the great things which ye are forbidden, We will remit from your lapses and make you enter a noble gate" (432) (since constructive results of ones noble deeds outweigh the destructive consequences of your actions).

Wakas

In another thread Ahmad Bilal raises the same issues. I answered him with this

You have failed to provide a definition of "omnibenevolence" or "mercy" etc, which would result in any "problem of evil".
The attribute of mercy has relevance only to an object; it presupposes creation and has no relevance to God ad intra. Thus, whatever your definition of "mercy etc" may be, it cannot result in God contradicting himself ontologically.
Categories such as mercy or justice have no relevance to God, qua creator. Therefore your objection falls away, as God, qua creator, "...does whatever he wills with the armies of heaven and earth, and none can stay his hand and all the inhabitants of the earth are esteemed as nothing." It would be like going up to an artist and saying your work is "unmerciful" or "unjust", such categories are irrelevant

Interesting.

StopS

Dear StopS,

It seems you are not aware the Quranic view.

If you make a claim like this, why don't you show where or why you make this?
I am comparing just/merciful, what humans say, in the sentence you outline.

Your example of "You put your finger in fire and it gets burnt" does not really apply here. We are talking about human beings who do not do anything or ask for anything and who, through no action of their own, experience extreme suffering.

Your quotes "He has created means of recovering all falterings" and "anyone of you who unknowingly falters, then repents and rectifies it, shall find Allah protecting and clement" insinuates that there is nothing that will not be forgiven. Is this really true? Why would I need to repent if a judge is the "most merciful"? Is there a list of what requires repentance and what will be handled as merciful?

"And if ye avoid the great things which ye are forbidden" would not require any mercy, would it?

es

Out of courtesy, thank you all for your contributions (even 'StopS'!).

I have come across some interesting viewpoints, many of which I share myself. However, this seems to have become a discussion about much broader issues than which I anticipated. To reiterate-and for clarification- my query was "Why did God create a worm, whose sole purpose of existence seems to be to blind (five year old African boys)"?

Thank you.

God bless you all. May God increase our understanding and make us better people (AMEN!)

Salaam.

aabdul

To reiterate-and for clarification- my query was "Why did God create a worm, whose sole purpose of existence seems to be to blind (five year old African boys)"?

Thank you.

In the first place, medical scientists need to investigate and find reasons why such a worm is created (certainly there will be a cause and effect - a scientific reason why such a worm was created and a human reason why it came in the eye of the boy), but to say that "the sole purpose of existence seems to to be to bind five year old african boy" is a misleading statement. God is never unfair to any people (4146).

God does not whimsically cause any problem for anyone. God has set standards and measures for everything. Just to state an example, there is one place in south india, where the plantation corporation aerially sprayed endosulfan pesticide (banned in several countries) in an area of nearly 5000 acres and today the villagers who live close to the plantation are paying the price, average one in a family is born with physical deformities, and the area is dotted with tragedy struck families battling physical deformities, cancers and disorders of the central nervous system. Also the number of women getting pregnant in these villages is so low compared to national average. Here who is responsible for the calamity? Is it Man or God? Allah says, ?There is no calamity but brought upon you by your own hands? (4230). In Chapter Aal-Imran, it states that when people are struck by an affliction, they wonder where it came from ( &#1575 - ? Tell them ?it is of your own doing? (3164)

"Glorify the name of thy Guardian-Lord Most High Who hath created, and further, given order and proportion; Who hath ordained laws."(871-3)

aabdul

Why would I need to repent if a judge is the "most merciful"?

Admitting one's fault and make amends is a basic pre-condition for forgiveness and mercy. There is possible even without repentance one may be forgiven for any specific sins committed (Allah knows) provided "As for him whose scales are heavy (with good works) he will live a pleasant life" (101 6-11); "whosoever submits himself completely to God and he is the doer of good, shall have his reward from his Lord. No fear shall come on them nor shall they grieve." 2112

Some Talibani criminals shot and seriously injured a girl who wants to learn and openly declared they will shoot her again at the next opportunity. Do you expect any "most merciful" to forgive them?

StopS

Admitting one's fault and make amends is a basic pre-condition for forgiveness and mercy.

In the Koran no.
In the "real world" yes.

You can find examples, where the Egyptian Pharaoh was rejected his last minute conversion, but in general, it says in the Koran "the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful" and not "the Entirely Merciful, the Especially Merciful - if you apologise". Also remember that according to the Koran there is omniscience, which would make all facts known without any formal apology.

There is possible even without repentance one may be forgiven for any specific sins committed (Allah knows) provided "As for him whose scales are heavy (with good works) he will live a pleasant life" (101 6-11); "whosoever submits himself completely to God and he is the doer of good, shall have his reward from his Lord. No fear shall come on them nor shall they grieve." 2112

Some Talibani criminals shot and seriously injured a girl who wants to learn and openly declared they will shoot her again at the next opportunity. Do you expect any "most merciful" to forgive them?

You see THAT is the most difficult question to ask - and to answer. The Taliban argue that Malala is going against the express wishes of the Koran. They argue that the Koran is incomplete and requires explanations from humans. That's how they build their particular view. They think that repenting worldly sins will provide absolution because that's what the Koran says.

They tried to kill me and then shot the receptionist of the hotel - a Muslim. Killing another Muslim is a grave sin if not in accordance with the requirements in the Koran. They have their own reasoning. They think in a war for their version of a god everything is allowed - because they are at war, so they think they are entitled to mercy.

I agree that this is not what this belief should be about.

farida

Admitting one's fault and make amends is a basic pre-condition for forgiveness and mercy

In the Koran no.
In the "real world" yes.
.

I can see that StopS lives in the "real world" and seems to have received ?a good? education from his parents, he is so aware of what goes on around, so maybe its time he took a break from forums and went on a fact finding tour as to what it was like once upon a time in Africa.
& If you don?t want to be exposed to the little African boy's eye-eating worms, then just Google for a remedy.

farida

To reiterate-and for clarification- my query was "Why did God create a worm, whose sole purpose of existence seems to be to blind (five year old African boys)"?

Thank you.

God bless you all. May God increase our understanding and make us better people (AMEN!)

Salaam.

salaam es

ALLAAH created balance, and the whole universe depends on balance. When it is disturbed there are dire consequences, so the question should be; why is there such an imbalance in Africa?

ALLAAH taught Aadam the names of all things and, with that knowledge, the ?bani aadam? were supposed to live as one family, so why is one side of the world suffering, while the other side revels in luxury?
Again, the question should be; what is the root cause of misery in Africa?
By preventing much of
Africa from developing its
agricultural resources, the
CAP hurts the continent?s
ability to attract the financial,
technological, and
human capital to drive economic
and social progress
http//www.insideronline.org/archives/2003/aug03/europe_sows.pdf

In our caf? talk, he told me how some other people or countries become rich while others remain poor?. http//www.myafricanviews.com/the-west-riding-on-africas-misery/

http//blackagendareport.com/content/far-humanitarian-savior-us-causes-vast-misery-africa

peace

aabdul

In the Koran no.
In the "real world" yes.

??

What do you mean by in the Koran "NO". Write it in yourown words clearly the point you want to convey.