waitasec
Veteran Member
in this life we learn from our mistakes...well some of us do.
sin isn't the problem it's a symptom of a problem.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Debate: If God exists, why does God allow so much suffering?
- Thread starter Flat Earth Kyle
- Start date
in this life we learn from our mistakes...well some of us do.
sin isn't the problem it's a symptom of a problem.
It is a symptom of a disease your inevitably going to catch due to corruption either from genetics or other influences like a serpent in a tree.
wayward_teen
Beautiful Disaster
I agree.:yes:
"Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense."
~ Robert A. Heinlein
waitasec
Veteran Member
the fallible state of our genes has everything to do with why we die...
not because we are, in principle, able to make choices.
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
We would have no need of it, it would be gone.
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
No doubt our choices can definitely speed up that process.
waitasec
Veteran Member
i'd agree if you decided to jump out of a building or a cliff....
that has nothing to do with our genes
Flat Earth Kyle
Well-Known Member
I find it interesting how in the Book of Genesis God stated that he cursed the earth for Man's sake.
Genesis 3:17
I think it is pretty clear that man"s suffering can somehow be seen as a benefit to man.
Genesis 3:17
I think it is pretty clear that man"s suffering can somehow be seen as a benefit to man.
godnotgod
Thou art That
It's not so much that God intended man to fail, but more like man is writing the story for God, putting words and intent into his mouth. Because, as Venugopal says, man fails to understand his own nature, and thinks himself separate from God, he suffers.
The reason God wanted man to eat of the so-called 'Forbidden Fruit', is because of Divine Union. The 'fruit' is a symbol of Higher Consciousness, God's unconditional gift to man. If man only understood the true meaning of this allegory, he would see intuitively its inner meaning, whose goal is union with the Divine Nature (ie 'Absolute Joy'). Instead, man has misunderstood the meaning of the allegory to be that of obedience to God's Law, and that of an imagined 'separation' from God due to 'disobedience'. There was no such disobedience. There was merely God telling his children NOT to eat of the Fruit because he knew that by creating a piece de resistance, the first thing they would do in his absence, as all children do, would be to eat of it.
So, from a divine point of view, the joke is that man, thinking himself separate from God, is actually God pretending to not know that he is God. In other words, we are all involved in a provocative cosmic game of hide and seek, in which we ourselves ARE the divine nature itself, poker-facingly pretending we really are the characters we play. :faint:
godnotgod
Thou art That
The nature of God is that IT is beyond all dualities. Because God is beyond all dualities, IT neither exists, nor not-exists. God is beyond all conceptual thought, as God cannot be so encapsulated in such dualistic concepts. Neither is God an object to be believed in, or not-believed in.
'Think neither God, nor not-God'
The Buddha
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
Please go away and come back when your argument doesn't shoot itself in the foot.
It's the idea that 'God is not the image of God.'
Well I think it is honest that one realizes when one says God is like this or that they are shooting themselves in the foot.
PolyHedral
Superabacus Mystic
And any such idea is inherently incoherent, because you're essentially saying that God is not itself.
Or that the concept of "self" mayhaps needs revisiting.
Edit: Maybe this will help. References are separate entities from the referents at which they point. Referents can be unnamed, and even absent. To discuss "God" is similar to discussing a reference where the referent is absent or unnamed: the reference "is not itself" in that we are aware that what we discuss is reference and not referent. All discussion of "God" is discussion of a reference.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
OK..I'm back.
Now show me a god that is encapsulated by concept and I'll show you a dead god.
The description is not the described.
Try as you may, you can never capture the wind in a box.
godnotgod
Thou art That
No. She is saying that the idea one entertains of God is not God, since God is beyond all ideas, all concepts, all beliefs, all doctrines. To know God, one must go beyond all of these. That is why the Buddha said:
"Think neither god, nor not-god".
It is virtually impossible to speak about God in positive terms; We can only say what God is not.
There are two basic kinds of knowledge: that which is realized via accumulation of data and facts; and that which is realized via of the shedding of all that is unnecessary. A sculptor, for example, realizes the beauty of the inner form via removing material, not by adding anything. In the case of mystical knowledge, that emptying of self is termed kenosis.
Last edited:
godnotgod
Thou art That
The Zen way of saying it is: "Zen is a finger pointing to the moon, but is not the moon itself"
godnotgod
Thou art That
This is not to be taken literally. Of course the lion cannot lie down with the lamb. That is utterly ridiculous! You are asking a lion not to follow its natural lion instincts, and for a lamb to be an utter fool!
"Oh, lookie! A nice fluffy lion! I do believe I'll prance over and snuggle up to him....my...what big teeth you have, Fluffy!"
"Why, thank you, Little Lamb! I do believe I love you so much that I cannot possibly EAT you. Oh, no, no, no! Why, I'd rather STARVE! Grass, anyone? yum...yuck¡"
Pure poppycock!
Nyet.
What this refers to is the realization of unity and harmony between the ordinarily opposed aspects of aggression and passivity, or, if you will, yin and yang. In other words, in this 'new heaven' that is being spoken of, man's consciousness will be transformed into one that has no conflict within it. It is this state of mind which actually creates the reality of 'heaven'! It is not an actual physical/spiritual 'place' as such, but a state of spirit/mind.
Last edited:
I see a couple of things with this type of question:
1. It assumes that suffering and God cannot both be true at the same
time.
2. It suggests that the presence of bad things indicates there's no God,
while not using this same logic to consider that the presence of good
things indicates there is a God. After all, I'm sure it's been asked before
that if God doesn't exist, why is there so much love, joy, peace, etc., in
the world?
The only way that I can see where the original argument might work (and
be even more understandable) is if there were only suffering, evil, etc. in
the world, all the time, with never even a trace of anything remotely
good. Including chocolate.
As it is, though, it seems to presume that life only has suffering to offer and nothing positive or worthwhile.