Debate: If God exists, why does God allow so much suffering?

[Flat Earth Kyle]

OK, so can we now state, without question, that the meaning of the scripture which alludes to lions laying with lambs is crystal clear?)(

On my side yeah.

 

[godnotgod]

On my side yeah.

What 'side'? Stop playing games.

Once again: do we now agree that the meaning of the scripture in question is unambiguous; that it can only be interpreted one way; that the author, when referring to the lion laying down with the lamb, meant that a condition of peace and harmony would ensue?

 

[godnotgod]

Did the lion bring the crystals? Be careful I have it from him himself that the lions have been making their own counterfeit crystals for years.:takeabow:

Lions can be such crafty rapscallions!

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

What 'side'? Stop playing games.

Once again: do we now agree that the meaning of the scripture in question is unambiguous; that it can only be interpreted one way; that the author, when referring to the lion laying down with the lamb, meant that a condition of peace and harmony would ensue?

Have you proved it on your side?

 

[godnotgod]

Have you proved it on your side?

You don't listen very well, do you?

REPEAT: 'WHAT SIDES'?

I am going by what the scripture itself is saying. Why else do you think I went to all the trouble of posting it in its entirety?

It is becoming more and more obvious that you are beating around the bush in order to avoid the obvious, and that is that you don't even understand the scripture you say you believe in. If you persist in your illogic, I will simply carry through without your erroneous input.

 

[fishy]

Lions can be such crafty rapscallions!

Ya got that right. My dad always said never turn your back on a lion. :biglaugh:

 

[Koldo]

In one sense, you're right.

The nature of all suffering is that it is temporal. It is also relative, as it is inextricably tied to joy. If you imagine a triangle, with Relative Suffering on one corner, with Relative Joy at the opposite end, this establishes their relationship. We suffer because the joy we experienced is no more. But there is another kind of Joy, and that is Absolute Joy, which has NO opposite, and it is this Absolute Joy which is at the apex of the triangle. Suffering does exist in its presence, but dissolves when one realizes the state of Absolute Joy. However, this requires transcendence from the lower to the higher state of consciousness. From this vantage point, one sees and understands the true nature of both Relative Joy and Suffering, and is no longer at their mercy. It is said that when a man reaches his effulgent being (ie; Absolute Joy; Radiance), joy and suffering then become a study to him. So it's not about the presence of God, but the state of one's being that determines how suffering is seen.

How do you explain the existence of a side that isn't absolute joy?
How do you explain the triangle not being created with three equal sides?

 

[Koldo]

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.

And funny enough, that IS an idea in itself.

 

[Flat Earth Kyle]

You don't listen very well, do you?

REPEAT: 'WHAT SIDES'?

I am going by what the scripture itself is saying. Why else do you think I went to all the trouble of posting it in its entirety?

It is becoming more and more obvious that you are beating around the bush in order to avoid the obvious, and that is that you don't even understand the scripture you say you believe in. If you persist in your illogic, I will simply carry through without your erroneous input.

I am stating that I have proven it for myself. (my end/ side)
on your end/ side, how have you proven that it represents peace, since you don't believe my sources. Can you prove it without implying things, for implying things is assuming things, which isn't evidence at all.

 

[Agnostic75]

I believe that a God would be able to achieve any fair, worthy, and just goal without sending Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans. In addition, I believe that a God would be able to achieve any fair, worthy, and just goal without forcing animals to kill each other.

 

[godnotgod]

And funny enough, that IS an idea in itself.

Yes, it is an idea of an experience, as compared to only an idea itself, which are beliefs, doctrines, concepts, etc. Going beyond them requires the abandonment of all ideas. It is experiential and transformative.

 

[Koldo]

Yes, it is an idea of an experience, as compared to only an idea itself, which are beliefs, doctrines, concepts, etc. Going beyond them requires the abandonment of all ideas. It is experiential and transformative.

You can not go beyond all ideas using an idea. That is rather contradictory.

 

[godnotgod]

How do you explain the existence of a side that isn't absolute joy?
How do you explain the triangle not being created with three equal sides?

It does have three equal sides, thus:

There is, in reality, no 'other side' to the Absolute. Relative Suffering and Relative Joy are temporal and essentially illusory.

If you want to take the time to understand how this is determined, you might like to take a look here:

The supreme doctrine: psychological studies in Zen thought - Hubert Benoît - Google Books

Imagine that the ordinary existence of most people is that of being in a kind of waking sleep, a dreamlike state in which they only think the reality they are living is real. They experience all the ups and downs of llfe, which result in temporary feelings of suffering and joy. They are not awake, spiritually speaking. Only upon awakening, and transcending into the next higher level of consciousness, where one is a kind of observer, watching oneself act out his dream life in the lower state, can one begin to realize the Absolute, which is True Reality. We can liken such an experience to that of Plato's Cave Allegory, where prisoners watching shadows cast upon the cave walls think it to be the only reality, compared to those who have escaped and have seen the Sun.

 

[godnotgod]

You can not go beyond all ideas using an idea. That is rather contradictory.

True, but that is not what I said. The actual going beyond is a pure experience, but talking about it is indeed only an idea. If you imagine that you can 'use' the idea of going beyond to actually go beyond, you are still attached to an idea or concept about it, which will prevent your going beyond.

 

[Koldo]

It does have three equal sides, thus:

There is, in reality, no 'other side' to the Absolute. Relative Suffering and Relative Joy are temporal and essentially illusory.

Allow me to rectify my questions then:
How do you explain the existence of a corner that isn't absolute joy?
How do you explain the triangle not being created with three equal corners?

If you want to take the time to understand how this is determined, you might like to take a look here:

The supreme doctrine: psychological studies in Zen thought - Hubert Benoît - Google Books

Imagine that the ordinary existence of most people is that of being in a kind of waking sleep, a dreamlike state in which they only think the reality they are living is real. They experience all the ups and downs of llfe, which result in temporary feelings of suffering and joy. They are not awake, spiritually speaking. Only upon awakening, and transcending into the next higher level of consciousness, where one is a kind of observer, watching oneself act out his dream life in the lower state, can one begin to realize the Absolute, which is True Reality. We can liken such an experience to that of Plato's Cave Allegory, where prisoners watching shadows cast upon the cave walls think it to be the only reality, compared to those who have escaped and have seen the Sun.

The questions presented above will be enough to further our conversation.

 

[Koldo]

True, but that is not what I said. The actual going beyond is a pure experience, but talking about it is indeed only an idea. If you imagine that you can 'use' the idea of going beyond to actually go beyond, you are still attached to an idea or concept about it, which will prevent your going beyond.

And how do you know of this (the bolded part) without the aid of your idea?
How did you come to this realization without an idea?
Fact is, it all began with an idea, that in the end contradicts itself.

 

[godnotgod]

How do you explain the existence of a corner that isn't absolute joy?

When one is in the state of either Relative Joy or Relative Suffering, one is also ALWAYS in the state of Absolute Joy, but one does not realize it. Imagine that you are a fish born into the sea (which, of course, all fish are). You go about your business of being a fish without realizing the presence of the sea around you. You focus on finding food, sex, etc, but the sea is just passively 'there' as a background to your existence, in spite of the fact that it is crucial to your existence. It is what ultimately supports you. Likewise, we, as humans, primarily pay attention to the foreground of our everyday existence, hardly ever paying any heed to the passive background that is crucial to our existence. It goes unnoticed because it is also the Ordinary of our everyday life. We are too busy seeking things that provide pleasure and sensual gratification, and it becomes overlooked, but it is there constantly, nonetheless. In short, that which constitutes our life, Relative Joy and Suffering, is one and the same as Absolute Joy. In the East it is stated thus: Nirvana and Samsara are One.


How do you explain the triangle not being created with three equal corners?

See above.


[/QUOTE]

 

[godnotgod]

And how do you know of this (the bolded part) without the aid of your idea?
How did you come to this realization without an idea?
Fact is, it all began with an idea, that in the end contradicts itself.

You may or may not have an idea of it prior to the experience, but the description pales in comparison. The idea is not necessary to the experience. The experience can be totally spontaneous and/or there are certain things that are conducive to the experience that one can prepare. But the actual experience is never the idea of it. Having said that, one may have an inkling (ie; self-remembering) of the state of mind the experience affords; it is just that we have forgotten or have fallen asleep, and become immersed in Identification.

An idea may come about as a result of your suffering, in which you imagine that there must be some other more satisfactory experience, and so you go about seeking it. So you have an 'idea' of something other than what you are now experiencing, but in reality, you don't really know what that is until you experience it.

 

[godnotgod]

I am stating that I have proven it for myself. (my end/ side)
on your end/ side, how have you proven that it represents peace, since you don't believe my sources. Can you prove it without implying things, for implying things is assuming things, which isn't evidence at all.

I am not trying to prove 'my side'. I am simply trying to establish what the author's intent of the scriptural passage is. I already told you that I agree with you that the intent of his symbolism represents a peaceful state, as the context of the passage verifies. I just want to establish that you and I are in agreement as to the author's intent, and it appears that we are. In other words, I am not saying that it actually represents peace, only that the author's intent is that it does.

Agreed?

 

[godnotgod]

I believe that a God would be able to achieve any fair, worthy, and just goal without sending Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans. In addition, I believe that a God would be able to achieve any fair, worthy, and just goal without forcing animals to kill each other.

...or without forcing them NOT to kill each other.