I came across the following Epicurus (341–270 B.C.) quote in a Facebook comment:
"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
First, I want to be clear that I am exploring and sharing a perspective in the context of the entire quote, not just, "Why do we call God, God?" I am sharing a perspective based on why we call him God withstanding the conditions that Epicurus presents.
Perhaps we call him God because we feel like adding meaning to things and labeling things. Ironically, the labeling is insidious, e.g. we're predisposed to perceive a category of "separate" or "third party", hence we refer to and apply a “He” when there is none. Maybe we simply exist in a being or a becoming state of is-ness that is God. Hence, there is just an is state. I know that may sound strange. Of course, there is only one is. Imagine we might decide to distinguish, categorize, define, judge, label and count is’s. Actually, that’s what we do.
Finally, let's consider that the label “evil” and the descriptors, e.g. “malevolent” are fictitious. We apply the labels “good”, “bad”, etc. to our opinions of a thing and call it true, when it is not. In this case, therefore, we hold the fabrication labeled “He” accountable to the opinions and the labels that we attach to them. Uh-oh, then who is accountable? I declare that I am accountable with the collective I's (is) that we are.
Thanks for the opportunity to look!
Lovingly Namaste,
"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
First, I want to be clear that I am exploring and sharing a perspective in the context of the entire quote, not just, "Why do we call God, God?" I am sharing a perspective based on why we call him God withstanding the conditions that Epicurus presents.
Perhaps we call him God because we feel like adding meaning to things and labeling things. Ironically, the labeling is insidious, e.g. we're predisposed to perceive a category of "separate" or "third party", hence we refer to and apply a “He” when there is none. Maybe we simply exist in a being or a becoming state of is-ness that is God. Hence, there is just an is state. I know that may sound strange. Of course, there is only one is. Imagine we might decide to distinguish, categorize, define, judge, label and count is’s. Actually, that’s what we do.
Finally, let's consider that the label “evil” and the descriptors, e.g. “malevolent” are fictitious. We apply the labels “good”, “bad”, etc. to our opinions of a thing and call it true, when it is not. In this case, therefore, we hold the fabrication labeled “He” accountable to the opinions and the labels that we attach to them. Uh-oh, then who is accountable? I declare that I am accountable with the collective I's (is) that we are.
Thanks for the opportunity to look!
Lovingly Namaste,
Joe Simmons
Metaphysical Life Coach & Public Speaker
Metaphysical Life Coach & Public Speaker
RSS Feed
