There is no [compassionate] God.

[djewleu]

ALL the sages are hypocrites, so I say!

 

[Riverwolf]

ALL the sages are hypocrites, so I say!

Unless you can name every single Sage who ever lived, even before the written word was discovered, and at will recite from memory all their teachings and their actions, you are in no position to say that.

Tell me, just through your memory, who Narada is. Nobody help him.

 

[djewleu]

Narada was an ignorant monk telling weird stories to illiterate folk to earn his daily soup!
ALL sages are lazy hypocrites, saturated with fears of the night.

 

[Riverwolf]

Narada was an ignorant monk telling weird stories to illiterate folk to earn his daily soup!
ALL sages are lazy hypocrites, saturated with fears of the night.

You do not know who Narada is. I say you made that up. Prove me wrong.

Tell me who Suka is.

Tell me who Nanak is.

Tell me who Vyasa is.

Tell me who Ramakrishna is.

Tell me who Sankaracarya is. (These last two should be easy.)

Now, if you can tell me all of these, tell me of ALL the sages. Tell me their names, and recite to me, from memory, their teachings AS THEY TAUGHT THEM. Only then, will you gain at least a LITTLE credibility to back up your ramblings.

 

[imaginaryme]

Like Lao-tzu? This guy... destined to be the first victim of taoist vengeance.

I personally find "sage advice" everywhere - like the Purifier from Riddick - wisdom doesn't have to speak to the masses, wisdom is only required to speak to you. Of course, it always helps to be wise, first; but hey, it's an imperfect world.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Narada was an ignorant monk telling weird stories to illiterate folk to earn his daily soup!

Wow, that wasn't a massive over-generalization or anything.:sarcastic

 

[cottage]

LOL, well boring everyone to death generally isn't a good tactic. Perhaps a summary?

A brief summary it is, then.

Can suffering be good or beneficial?

There are several arguments made in favour of this position. One is that the existence of evil and suffering allows us to develop and grow. Another apologetic, related to the first, invokes the Parent/Child analogy, where suffering serves as an admonishment or warning, allowing us to learn to avoid harmful situations.

There is also the argument that suffering is good in relative terms, and another that makes the case that it is better for evil to exist as a choice rather than for humans to be mere automatons (the free will defence).

And there is another offering, which I will call the Ying and Yang argument. This very common (but hugely mistaken, in my view) understanding is that that there can be no good without evil, and therefore (so the argument goes) evil is therefore good. (I have a separate response to this one)

All of these positions can be met with the objection that they make evil a condition of the argument. And that means God caused evil and suffering to exist unnecessarily. To which it cannot be replied that causing evil is necessary, unless we also want to accept that God is powerless in that respect, which of course is self-evidently absurd if God is omnipotent.

 

[imaginaryme]

I'm not bored.

I "suffer without my Gwynnies," but there is only joy. Using the same type of symmetry from the Kybalion - suffering can be overcome with comedy. Such is slapstick - and too the misunderstood nature of evil. Things become "politic" when we act to restrain our natural self; when we're told "not to laugh at another's misfortune" out of "common courtesy" - yet we all do. "Political correctness" is actually a form of evil - who determines the "correctness" but the politicians?

Anybody do this home experiment? Bump your head, stub your toe; and laugh like a fool? Surprise! Comedy conquers suffering.

 

[Storm]

A brief summary it is, then.

Can suffering be good or beneficial?

There are several arguments made in favour of this position. One is that the existence of evil and suffering allows us to develop and grow. Another apologetic, related to the first, invokes the Parent/Child analogy, where suffering serves as an admonishment or warning, allowing us to learn to avoid harmful situations.

There is also the argument that suffering is good in relative terms, and another that makes the case that it is better for evil to exist as a choice rather than for humans to be mere automatons (the free will defence).

And there is another offering, which I will call the Ying and Yang argument. This very common (but hugely mistaken, in my view) understanding is that that there can be no good without evil, and therefore (so the argument goes) evil is therefore good. (I have a separate response to this one)

All of these positions can be met with the objection that they make evil a condition of the argument. And that means God caused evil and suffering to exist unnecessarily. To which it cannot be replied that causing evil is necessary, unless we also want to accept that God is powerless in that respect, which of course is self-evidently absurd if God is omnipotent.

I disagree that we can assume evil is unnecessary, though. Also,we weren't discussing omnipotence, but benevolence. I can work with that, though.

Even if we add the trait of omnipotence, that doesn't mean that what we have wasn't the best method to cheive the desired results.

 

[sonofskeptish]

I've seen it three times in recent years: There is no compassionate God.
Three of several of my friends have died in terribly agonizing circumstances;
in terrible pain and dishonour, with no human dignity.
Cancer is a very cruel disease, determined to kill you by intense suffering.
Is it all that necessary to die?
I repeat: there is no compassionate God!

You are correct... the is no compassionate god. And coldly stated, nature doesn't give a damn when it comes to pain and suffering either... it has no impact on the survival of our DNA. But that's where (IMO) our humanity comes in... giving us knowledge and compassion which we can use to minimize the pain and dishonour being felt by fellow human beings.

 

[Thief]

You are correct... the is no compassionate god. And coldly stated, nature doesn't give a damn when it comes to pain and suffering either... it has no impact on the survival of our DNA. But that's where (IMO) our humanity comes in... giving us knowledge and compassion which we can use to minimize the pain and dishonour being felt by fellow human beings.

God gave Man dominion.
It is Man that allows the pain and suffering.

As for dying...we were never meant to live forever in the flesh.
We would have over run the Earth, long before now, without some of us dying.
Eternal flesh? seems so compromised.

 

[Katzpur]

I've seen it three times in recent years: There is no compassionate God.
Three of several of my friends have died in terribly agonizing circumstances;
in terrible pain and dishonour, with no human dignity.
Cancer is a very cruel disease, determined to kill you by intense suffering.
Is it all that necessary to die?
I repeat: there is no compassionate God!

So people are supposed to die without any pain. Okay. Sounds good to me. I mean I definitely hope that when it's my time to go, I go without suffering. When is this supposed to happen? When a person is old or young? I guess it's supposed to take place very suddenly, with no advance notice, since if there is something wrong with our bodies we generally find out about it due to the fact that we experience pain of some sort. If a compassionate God would not allow death to be accompanied by suffering, could you explain when and how people are supposed to die?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

I've seen it three times in recent years: There is no compassionate God.
Three of several of my friends have died in terribly agonizing circumstances;
in terrible pain and dishonour, with no human dignity.
Cancer is a very cruel disease, determined to kill you by intense suffering.
Is it all that necessary to die?
I repeat: there is no compassionate God!

I say change the glasses you look through, and you will get a different outlook each time. So keep changing your glasses until you find the set that makes you a happy person.

You seem to be wearing your dark sinister pair lately, I think I remember seeing your happy pair in the other room on the bookshelf. Quite dusty too, if I recall correctly!

Good luck!

 

[blackout]

Anybody do this home experiment? Bump your head, stub your toe; and laugh like a fool? Surprise! Comedy conquers suffering.

Once I burnt my bum on the radiator pipe
and it made me forget how miserable my flu was
for at least 3 hours.

I laughed about it like a loon whilst cooling the burn in a low cold tub.

I had been in there originally to take a nice warm bath.

Sometimes Comedy conquers Suffering.
Sometimes Suffering conquers Suffering.:yes:

 

[cottage]

I disagree that we can assume evil is unnecessary, though. Also,we weren't discussing omnipotence, but benevolence. I can work with that, though.

Even if we add the trait of omnipotence, that doesn't mean that what we have wasn't the best method to acheive the desired results.

We'll assume (for the sake of argument) that God is not omnipotent and go with your best method view.

So we'll say that God couldn’t create a world such as ours without incorporating evil in order for him/her/it to achieve the desired results. But what this approach suggests is that suffering has a special worth or usefulness. Which of course makes it a condition once more and implies a need for evil as a means to overcome evil as a means to achieve good.

In relative terms it can be said to be ‘good’ to cut off the hand of a man who is trapped in revolving farm machinery, which would otherwise drag him into the mechanism causing his death.
So, yes, minor or lesser suffering is frequently used to alleviate an even greater suffering, but that only serves to confirm the problem, which is that great suffering exists! And as there is no logical necessity for the existence of suffering it follows that there is no contradiction in God creating a world without suffering. But a contradiction is implied if an argument is made from the converse position. Therefore to argue for suffering, at any level, in order to introduce what we perceive as ‘good’ is just an exercise in circularity.

 

[Thief]

We'll assume (for the sake of argument) that God is not omnipotent and go with your best method view.

So we'll say that God couldn’t create a world such as ours without incorporating evil in order for him/her/it to achieve the desired results. But what this approach suggests is that suffering has a special worth or usefulness. Which of course makes it a condition once more and implies a need for evil as a means to overcome evil as a means to achieve good.

In relative terms it can be said to be ‘good’ to cut off the hand of a man who is trapped in revolving farm machinery, which would otherwise drag him into the mechanism causing his death.
So, yes, minor or lesser suffering is frequently used to alleviate an even greater suffering, but that only serves to confirm the problem, which is that great suffering exists! And as there is no logical necessity for the existence of suffering it follows that there is no contradiction in God creating a world without suffering. But a contradiction is implied if an argument is made from the converse position. Therefore to argue for suffering, at any level, in order to introduce what we perceive as ‘good’ is just an exercise in circularity.

You might think the argument to be circular....but it can end.

If your hand offends cut you ..cut it off...
If your eye offends you...gouge it out...
Better to enter heaven, in part, than to be thrown into hell...whole.

I don't think is meant to be physically literal.
Something else is implied.

 

[djewleu]

I once heard a [ridiculous] preacher insinuate that to cut one's hand/foot or pluck out one's eye was alegorical, but Hell/Heaven were not, in the same passage!
The idiot!

 

[Charity]

I once heard a [ridiculous] preacher insinuate that to cut one's hand/foot or pluck out one's eye was alegorical, but Hell/Heaven were not, in the same passage!
The idiot!

Your entitled to your opinion, which is like rear ends everyone has them.

Your personal attack calling anyone an idiot is really disgusting. I may not agree with someone or their pov but I would never insult them with juvenile name calling.

 

[MSizer]

Can imagine a planet wherein no one dies?

There are 6billion people on this earth now.
Only 3billion, forty years ago.

If I live to the age of my dearly departed grandfather...
there will be 12billion people on this earth.

Of course you're going to die.
One of two possibilities....
Prematurely...as by accident.
Or....some disease will eat at you until you can't take it anymore.

Either way...your going.
Are you ready?
Doesn't seem like it.

For crying out loud - did you hear him claim that nobody should die? His (perfectly reasonable) frustration is that there are people who live moral lives only to end up suffering greatly.

For goodness sake, if a loved one of yours were dying painfully of cancer, I'd hope nobody would be as heartless as to say "well, everyone has to die, that's just the way it is".

I've said it before and I'll say it many times again: "on behalf of children who are born into poverty, raped, or forced to suffer for any other reason, god can lick the bottom of my feet as he sends me to hell for not believing in him".

And as for anyone who lacks the decency to show compassion to someone who has lost 3 friends to an agonizing disease, give your head a shake.

 

[cottage]

Since when was God a puppetmaster pulling the strings? If you ask me, that's a very inaccurate description of God.

Possibly, but it is one that a lot of people happen to agree with.

St Thomas Aquinas said:
Just as God not only gave being to things but is also the cause of their being as long as they last...so he not only gave these things their operative powers when they were first created, but is always the cause of these in things. Hence if his divine influence stopped, every operation would stop. Every operation, therefore, of anything is traced back to him as a cause. (Summa contra Gentiles, III,67)


And that make perfect sense to me. Everything is the will of God. For surely, if it was not then it simply could not happen!