What is the Religious Meaning of Coronavirus




Recently I referred to Jesuit Priest James Martin's essay where he referred to the "inconsistent triad." This is the religious notion that God is all powerful and all loving. An all powerful and all loving God would eliminate suffering. God does not eliminate suffering. Therefore God cannot be all powerful and all loving.

Father Martin, relatively young, has just completed cancer treatments so he knows about confronting his own death. He concludes there is no escape from the "inconsistent triad". It is an impossible dilemma for Christians and the only solution is to put this part of the faith on a shelf and move on to some other religious concept. He suggests the life of Jesus.

New York Time columnist, Ross Douthat, a former Protestant who converted to Catholicism, wrote today that Martin's view is unacceptable. Douthat says Christians must continue to seek understanding of the Coronavirus. He admits lots of Christians feel they understand God perfectly when good things happen to them, it is a reward for their faith. They want to hide from understanding, however, why bad things happen. He thinks people need to work at figuring why bad things happen, though he has no explanation himself.

Douthat says a common interpretation is bad things, like the virus, are punishment for sin. Another is that there is reward in the virus, we will learn about it later. And then, God is mysterious. There is meaning and a good purpose but we cannot understand it. Or, God is here to help us through tragedy but not to prevent tragedy. Douthat does not know if any or all of these are correct.

As countless readers on the NY Times comment page pointed out, Douthat is full of it. There is no religious meaning in the death of suffering around coronavirus. It is just the same randomness that science and history tell us has happened since humans evolved. Animals go through it and we are just another branch of animal.

People like Douthat, religious pundits and clergy, make a living messing with peoples' minds. The sooner the stop doing that the sooner the world will be a better place. Searching for religious meaning when there is none fits the definition of a fool's errand.

Comments

  1. There doesn't have to be a religious meaning.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What!!! That is the opposite of religious indoctrination and just another excuse for your merciful god.

      Delete
    2. I quote Jon @ last paragraph; "Searching for religious meaning when there is none fits the definition of a fool's errand". Are you demanding I have a meaning? (I don't). Do you?
      Why does it have to be "religious indoctrination"? "Merciful God" has nothing to do with it. That is your construct. If you tried, you could invent a "religious meaning " to just abourt everything. Start with a tooth ache.

      Delete
    3. You really don't know what your saying. Read it a little better.

      Delete
    4. Jinx; You must care, or you wouldn't have posted your 4;04. Did you read my 5;11?

      Delete
    5. Jinks; According to your 4;04, you think my; 5;17;"There doesn't have to be a religious meaning" is the opposite of religious indoctrination. Why does that bother you . One would think you would be in favor of it. Jon would, as per his last paragraph.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Maybe the "Original Sin" Should be Reassigned

The Religious Capitol Invaders May Yet Win

Father Frank Pavone, the Ultimate Crook