Really? Truly? Referentially?
Why so serious?
Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Nature of Evil
From the Thomistic Philosophy website
Right, a privation. Though for some here the first order of business will be to define it. What, technically, does “privation” mean such that when we finally do get around to discussing it in regard theodicy, we’re all on the same page “philosophically”.
So let’s start with the dictionary:
[b]"Privation: noun: a state in which things that are essential for human well-being such as food and warmth are scarce or lacking.
formal: the loss or absence of a quality or attribute that is normally present."[/b]
Okay, in regard to…
“…the endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events…making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages.”
…how is evil as a privation to be understood? The privations above are derived from God. Either formally or otherwise. What quality or attribute of God that is there in the good times is lost or absent in the bad times?
As “general description spiritual contraptions” go, this “explanation” is to be expected. Now connect the dots between it and your own “loving, just and merciful” God.
From PN: forum.philosophynow.org/viewtop … 11&t=35269
Well, there is theodicy/PoE as a philosophical or theological conundrum, and then the part that revolves around the actual suffering of flesh and blood men, women and children throughout human history.
This part:
“…the endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events…making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n … death_toll
nhsinform.scot/illnesses-an … ons/a-to-z
That taking us around to this:
Then taking some around to Harold Kushner.
Harold Kushner… Google-search
Kushner’s books include the huge bestsellers When Bad Things Happen To Good People and When All You’ve Ever Wanted Isn’t Enough
Next up, the sequels… When Good Things Happen To Bad People, and, When All You’ve Ever Wanted Is Enough
Do things for people not because of who they are or what they do in return, but because of who you are
Who am I? Who are you? Who is anyone?
You don’t have to be perfect to be loved, nor should you expect people you love to be perfect
So much for perfectionism then… 
It is true that those we meet can change us, sometimes so profoundly that we are not the same afterwards, even unto our names
Cue, the less fractured and fragmented, Iambiguous… who is he!? who is he!? What’s in a name anyway, but an allegory/an allusion, to whom a person may or may not be… for what’s in a name, but a keepsake, that alludes to a thing
How Good Do We Have to Be: Harold S Kushner? Acceptance and forgiveness can change our relationships with the most important people in our lives and help us meet the bold and rewarding challenge of being human
Then don’t do anything that requires acceptance and forgiveness in the first place then, innit… said the foresighted to the non/the wise to the not
Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Nature of Evil
From the Thomistic Philosophy website
Yes, this is my own main focus. The terrible suffering endured by millions not as a result of their own transgressions or the “inhumanity of man” but simply as a result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Of being born with one or another horrific medical condition, of getting infected with some deadly disease simply because they touched a doorknob teeming with this or that deadly microbe.
In other words, something that, if it came about as a result of human behavior – someone blowing up a dam precipitating a devastating flood, killing hundreds – we would label evil but if God constructs planet Earth out of tectonic plates and an earthquake destroys the dam killing hundreds, it’s rationalized as instead just a manifestation of God’s will. And thus not evil.
Or something along the lines of this…
Nature in a nutshell. At times a ghastly and gruesome slaughterhouse of predator and prey. But who calls that evil? On the other hand, how does it fit into the conviction that God is “loving, just and merciful”? It’s not like the creatures being hunted down, killed and eaten are guilty of original sin. Why the way nature is and not one considerably more tranquil and benevolent.
Of course: God’s will.
Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Nature of Evil
From the Thomistic Philosophy website
Again…
[b]"Privation: noun: a state in which things that are essential for human well-being such as food and warmth are scarce or lacking.
formal: the loss or absence of a quality or attribute that is normally present."[/b]
Is it any wonder then that, along with Aristotle, Aquinas was one of Ayn Rand’s favorite “great minds” from the past.
Reason. Clearly as fundamental to her “well-being” as food and water. And to do evil is to act irrationally. Only the “goods” that are “due” are always as she construes them. The classic moral objectivist.
Only for Aquinas a “due good” must revolve around God. And just as for Rand, who insisted it was ever and always her Reason, for Aquinas it was ever and always his God.
The rest of course is history. Just different Reasons and different Gods.
And who needs a context here, right? As long as you have access to the right Reason or the right God, just make the “set of circumstances” all about them. That’s why objectivism basically works the same for both the religious and the humanist zealots.
And that’s why I am such a threat to both. I dare to suggest that in the absence of substantive evidence demonstrating religiously the existence of a God, the God or, philosophically, a Goodness, the Goodness, it largely comes down to the subjective, existential parameters of dasein.
Unless of course I’m wrong. So, by all means, explain that to me.
Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Nature of Evil
From the Thomistic Philosophy website
Ayn Rand was drawn to Aquinas because he too followed “reason’s judgment about what is the true or appropriate good.”
jonathanturley.org/2012/05/05/t … -ayn-rand/
She simply insisted that her own ontological and teleological conclusions were rooted secularly in philosophy rather than theologically in God. But make no mistake about it: both paths shared in common the need to make morality objective. The need, in other words, to have a particular font [God/Rand] that others can fall back on as the One True Path.
Evil from the perspective of Aquinas/God or from the perspective of Rand/Philosophy.
The starting point either way being Reason itself?
Freedom. You are free to live your life through the Christian God or through Objectivism. For Christians that freedom revolved around the congregation…flocks of sheep…while for Objectivists it revolved around, well, flocks of sheep. After all, if you dared to reject Rand’s own conclusions, you were “excommunicated” from the tribe…the “Collective”. You became evil personified.
Evil was whatever she said it was. Rape it would seem is immoral because it is not rational. Unless, of course, the woman is a Dominique Francon and the man is a Howard Roark.
Objectivism is simple.
If anything is bothering anyone, existence isn’t working.
The problem is that the sheer magnitude and vastness of that problem overwhelms people.
Even you iambiguous.
So you shut down and keep posting like a robot.
You realize your limitations. You can’t think. You can’t create. You can’t add. You can’t use inference.
I’d say that it scares you how incompetent you are when objective reality is so simple.
Look, I have patiently [and, sure, at times, polemically] attempted to explain to you why I believe that you are afflicted with a “condition” – clinical or otherwise – that prompts you to assert things that are often way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way “out there”.
Unless, of course, you can demonstrate that, among other things, you have in fact spoken to God, the Devil, Mr. Death and Buddha.
Just for starters.
Either that or [again] ecmandu is just this “online” character that you invented in order to entertain yourself. For whatever reason.
And, if so, I would certainly not suggest that that is evil.
Well, given your motivation and intention rooted existentially, subjectively in dasein. 
Interesting how you approached my post.
I stated that objective morality is rooted in anyone being bothered by anything.
Knowing you can’t approach or defeat the topic, you brought up 4 failed beings who failed.
Ah, of course: proving my point.
Or are you just channeling Meno here?
Waiting patiently for the next pinhead post from her?
Charles is writing a terrible song about you. Out of my hands.
Interesting.
I see it all now. If you feel hurt if anyone’s hurt, you’re eternally damned.
I’m the only hyper empath on earth with a conscience.
Interesting.
So. I cast my gaze to life.
All I see is evil.
It makes sense why I tried to destroy existence.
But that’s impossible.
My curse forever is to have a conscience and know how to reach perfect for all beings, but nobody wants goodness for themselves except me.
It’s not enough to be eternally damned because I have a conscience. It’s that nobody else has one forever.
I know this post doesn’t matter to you, and never will.
My only option is to patch analog with analog.
So. This patch. Is it gonna tear Biggy’s hole worse? Everybody knows if you patch old with new, it tears the hole bigger. And when people get comfortable in their holes, they don’t crawl out too easily.
Note to Meno:
Complete this farce please. 
Iambiguous has never had a hole.
Just bothersome features of existence.
Those can be fixed.
What does iambiguous want?
Not to have dreams?
That can be done.
What else does iambiguous want?
No conflicting goods?
That can be done.
What else does iambiguous want?
No morality in a god or no god world?
Not even iambiguous is that stupid.
So what’s the last thing iambiguous is bothered by?
Being born as a unique being. The dasein topic.
You’ll just have to adapt to the fact that we’re all unique iambiguous. Obviously you hate yourself and others no matter what they think because nobody has a right to think.
You’ll adapt.
Theodicy is most commonly expressed as a claim that things are the way they are because things are as good as they can get. The idea that all is for the best as we live in the best of all possible worlds.
The absurdity of this statement is best expressed by Panglos and his fellow travellers in Candide by Voltaire and was a tongue in cheek response to the Lisbon earthquake.1755. It was a witty satire on the notion.
After such a major disaster religious people respond in several ways; thanking god for their personal deliverance; looking round to explain what people had done wrong to deserve such punishment, and usually pointing the finger at minorities or minority practices; others fall into despair; but a small percentage question their faith.
The theodicy is a poor attempt to counter Epicurus’ trilemma: “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?” Some complete it: “Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
Most people have very small standards when it comes to God and Jesus Christ.
I asked if Jesus could cure everyone on earth in an instant.
He seemed unable. He had to manually do it one at a time.
My mormon friend said it was that way because it was
a test of people’s faith.
Also Jesus could have taught medical science.
That way people could heal themselves throughout time.
I know I have gods on my side,
but those gods also have low expectations.
As far as i know, “gods” are beings beyond humanity.
However, on a deeper level, humans are low on the food chain.
What we call a god could be a common, average alien life form.
Have you ever gone through anything that at the time was painful, but if it had never happened, greater joys down the road would not have been possible?
Have you never thought something difficult was worth overcoming, and were glad for the challenge?
Would you prefer no joy on the other side of challenge?
Would you prefer being a vegetable?
Or would you call God a bleeding heart, paternalistic helicopter dictator overstepping bounds and abusing his power?