Don't try and say your omnimax god has a reason to allow suffering

[Riverwolf]

REALLY? How do you define suffering then?

Suffering is a constant, controlling desire for something that is not.

 

[Riverwolf]

Also, Riverwolf.

If God is part of us, and part of life, and reality, then let's say we abolish disease, and kill the bacteria - would we really be killing the bacteria, since we're all connected and we're all dependent on one-another right? Sure the bacteria that was killed would just be "reborn" as something else that is connected to us?

By the way, if I sound lame then don't worry - 'm really just trying to understand your own beliefs in this matter lol.

It's okay. You actually make a very good point.

Even if we did away with all the current disease-causing bacteria and viruses, something else would evolve that would replace them, and our immune systems would be unable to combat them.

 

[Riverwolf]

Not trying to offend. Was making a joke, though I was probably more than a little unfair there. While it seems counterintuitive, if God is "everything" then there's really not much to Him. He can have no seperate intentionality or consciousness.

Nope. ^_^ Not in my beliefs.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Suffering is a constant, controlling desire for something that is not.

Interesting. I actually like it.

I would ask why an omnimax God would create a world in which people suffer in this way, but I am led to believe by a previous post that you do not believe in an omnimax God. Is this correct?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Nope. ^_^ Not in my beliefs.

So...what's the point of calling everything "God" instead of just calling it "everything"?

 

[Aquitaine]

Suffering is a constant, controlling desire for something that is not.

I have to disagree with you there, that it's a "desire" and that its for something "that is not".

A desire for something that is not would probably be more like naive hope, or an unrealistic aspiration etc.

Say if some parent wished their daughter would stop seeing her abusive boyfriend, couldn't that instead be seen as a "desire for something that is not"?

Or if say, I wished I was a Millionairre?

 

[Riverwolf]

Interesting. I actually like it.

I would ask why an omnimax God would create a world in which people suffer in this way, but I am led to believe by a previous post that you do not believe in an omnimax God. Is this correct?

Pretty much. ^_^

 

[Riverwolf]

So...what's the point of calling everything "God" instead of just calling it "everything"?

Because I'm a monist, and "God" is a nice, universal word. I used to call it "the One" and I still will sometimes use that title.

But who knows? Maybe in a month or two, there's a possibility I'll start calling it Siva.

 

[Riverwolf]

I have to disagree with you there, that it's a "desire" and that its for something "that is not".

A desire for something that is not would probably be more like naive hope, or an unrealistic aspiration etc.

Say if some parent wished their daughter would stop seeing her abusive boyfriend, couldn't that instead be seen as a "desire for something that is not"?

Or if say, I wished I was a Millionairre?

I'll be more specific: desire for something that is beyond your control, either actually or perceptively.

If you have the ability to change something, change it. If you don't, don't worry about it. If the mother is in a position where she can convince her daughter (as she should) to stop seeing her abusive boyfriend, she should. If she cannot, for whatever reason, then there's really no reason to fret about it. (Though, being a mother, not fretting about her daughter's safety is nigh impossible.)

This does sound difficult, but in most cases, it's really only as difficult as you make it.

 

[Aquitaine]

I'll be more specific: desire for something that is beyond your control, either actually or perceptively.

If you have the ability to change something, change it. If you don't, don't worry about it. If the mother is in a position where she can convince her daughter (as she should) to stop seeing her abusive boyfriend, she should. If she cannot, for whatever reason, then there's really no reason to fret about it. (Though, being a mother, not fretting about her daughter's safety is nigh impossible.)

This does sound difficult, but in most cases, it's really only as difficult as you make it.

So....... basically you mean "suffering" is a desire to change something that is out of your control?

 

[Riverwolf]

So....... basically you mean "suffering" is a desire to change something that is out of your control?

I'M A WOLF NOT A BEAR!!!!! BIG DIFFERENCE!!!! jk, btw lol

Not in itself, but suffering comes from such a desire.

 

[Aquitaine]

I'M A WOLF NOT A BEAR!!!!! BIG DIFFERENCE!!!! jk, btw lol

Not in itself, but suffering comes from such a desire.

Actually, you're all of them at none of them at the same time, according to your belief on interconnection

Okay, well, with suffering this now puts me in a new loop.

So if suffering is/comes from the desire to change something that you cannot, then does that mean that most things we'd associate with suffering are no longer "suffering" - because we can actually change them?

Take a virus for instance, if you've got one are you then actually not suffering, because we can actually cure them? Not only that, but earlier on you seemed to object to the idea of us killing off the bacteria that causes virus/diseases.........however:

If you have the ability to change something, change it.

But can't we already cure most deseases? So why object? Also, therefore being a victim of a curable virus/desease would no longer actually be "suffering" then right?

 

[Riverwolf]

Actually, you're all of them at none of them at the same time, according to your belief on interconnection

...
...
...
...
grrrrrr.........

Okay, well, with suffering this now puts me in a new loop.

So if suffering is/comes from the desire to change something that you cannot, then does that mean that most things we'd associate with suffering are no longer "suffering" - because we can actually change them?

Take a virus for instance, if you've got one are you then actually not suffering, because we can actually cure them? Not only that, but earlier on you seemed to object to the idea of us killing off the bacteria that causes virus/diseases.........however:

If you have the ability to change something, change it.

But can't we already cure most deseases? So why object? Also, therefore being a victim of a curable virus/desease would no longer actually be "suffering" then right?

No. You have to accept it, first. Acceptance of suffering is one of the first steps to conquering it. The Buddha outlined the path to end suffering.

By the way, I don't "object," per se, to killing off bacteria that causes disease. After all, we still have the instinct to survive, and I see no reason why most people should not act on that instinct.

And you still can suffer if there's a cure for the specific virus if you're too anxious about getting it, and ignore the possibility of it not working for some reason. (Or the possibility of death before you can get it.)

 

[Aquitaine]

No. You have to accept it, first. Acceptance of suffering is one of the first steps to conquering it. The Buddha outlined the path to end suffering.

But then it wouldn't be "suffering" until you personally acknowledged and accepted that you couldn't control it, right?

 

[McBell]

*throws out rubber raft and jumps on pontoon*

 

[rojse]

Someone makes a silly, provocative thread like this, and gets eighty responses in three hours. I try and make intelligent and challenging threads, and I get about twenty responses in three days. What the?

I don't see anyone learning anything with this sort of thread, I don't see anyone challenging themselves in any regards. Everyone is just reheating old arguments from the last debate of this nature.

In fact, most people could probably find the last thread identical to this one, find their response, and quote it on here, and no one would notice the difference.

Watch the merry-go-round go round...

 

[methylatedghosts]

So don't try and say god has a good reason to allow suffering, that it's beyond our understanding, and then turn around and say he's all-loving and all-powerful. It's a contradiction.

Done!

 

[Beaudreaux]

Someone makes a silly, provocative thread like this, and gets eighty responses in three hours. I try and make intelligent and challenging threads, and I get about twenty responses in three days. What the?

I don't see anyone learning anything with this sort of thread, I don't see anyone challenging themselves in any regards. Everyone is just reheating old arguments from the last debate of this nature.

In fact, most people could probably find the last thread identical to this one, find their response, and quote it on here, and no one would notice the difference.

Watch the merry-go-round go round...

You missed the part where someone comes along late in the thread and criticizes everyone for being unoriginal.

To be fair, how many threads do you actually read here where people change their opinions? Have you changed any of yours while on RF? I don't mean during the time you've been posting here, but actually the moment you read something here?

And it's not like there actually ARE many new ideas in the world of religion and philosophy. Dialogue in this domain has been going on for thousands of years by some of the greatest thinkers mankind has ever seen. I think it's asking a lot for people who post here as a hobby to come up with truly original ideas. BUT...I will honor your post by trying:

God allows bad things to happen as retribution for man's continuing move toward independent thought. Details to come.
​

 

[Willamena]

Someone makes a silly, provocative thread like this, and gets eighty responses in three hours. I try and make intelligent and challenging threads, and I get about twenty responses in three days. What the?

I don't see anyone learning anything with this sort of thread, I don't see anyone challenging themselves in any regards. Everyone is just reheating old arguments from the last debate of this nature.

In fact, most people could probably find the last thread identical to this one, find their response, and quote it on here, and no one would notice the difference.

Watch the merry-go-round go round...

Yeah, and the worse part is they're all wrong.

 

[Breathe]

Someone makes a silly, provocative thread like this, and gets eighty responses in three hours. I try and make intelligent and challenging threads, and I get about twenty responses in three days. What the?

Twenty responses in three days? I'm lucky to get twenty responses in three months.