Big Question

by choosing life 59 Replies latest jw friends

  • Terry
    Terry
    The problem is how to end suffering. What you learn from suffering does not end it. What you ascribe to god about suffering does not end it. How to end it is the problem. Siddhartha Gautama , know as the Buddha ("AWAKENED") , claims to have solved the problem of how to end suffering. Why not find out how Siddhartha did it ?

    When Chinese Communist troops massacred Buddhist monks they put up no resistance.

    Those peaceful, non-resisting monk no longer exist.

    When you do not resist Evil you give it power. Evil uses that license of power to grow and prosper. It is the Sanction of the Victim to the evildoer which co-operates toward his own self-destruction.

    Buddhist philosophy is essentially that of pretending that something such as suffering "doesn't exist, doesn't matter" and disregarding the consequences. The implosion of the intellect in Buddhist philosophy, in effect, tells us "The only way to win is to not play the game." The Buddhist sits in the lotus on the sideline humming while the real world struggles away.

    This is enlightenment?

  • Siddhashunyata
    Siddhashunyata

    "Buddhist philosophy is essentially that of pretending that something such as suffering "doesn't exist, doesn't matter" and disregarding the consequences."

    Ignorance by any other name is still ignorance.

  • acadian
    acadian

    Something to consider, this is an excerpt from the article, "Objections to Christianity Answered" no author listed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If God eradicated everyone who has ever caused pain by selfishness, cheating, lying, gossiping or hurtful remarks, who would be left?

    People say, "Suffering is God's fault!", conveniently forgetting times our own anger, greed and lies hurt others. To wipe out some people who cause suffering, and spare you and me, would make God guilty of gross injustice. We have each added to humanity's shame. If there is a God of love, the people he loves and longs to place in a pain-free world are the very ones who cause humanity's suffering.

    We are so far from being innocent that we owe our very existence to sin. If, for example, we traced our family tree far enough, we would probably each find an ancestor born as a result of sin - rape, unlawful incest, a despised pregnancy, sex before marriage, and the like. Humanity can boast only one perfect Person. We killed him.

    Frequently, we hear or read a comment like this: "I simply cannot believe in a god who permits innocent children to starve and suffer, and men like Hitler and Stalin to murder millions of people." The examples may vary, but the thoughts are always the same. Supposedly, this is "proof" that either God doesn't exist, or that if He does, He either doesn't care about our sufferings, or He is not powerful enough to do anything about them. But suffering is neither proof of God's non-existence or existence.

    Saying, "If God exists, why is there suffering?" is like saying "If San Francisco exists, why are there earthquakes?" Do earthquakes occur because San Francisco causes them? Or do they occur in spite of San Francisco? Or do they have nothing to do with San Francisco? Well, we know the answer to that question because we know about San Francisco and we know about earthquakes. But how much do we really know about God? If we define Him by our own nature, then He cannot be of any greater character than ourselves. We may ascribe to Him a greater power than ourselves, but when we suppose that God should or should not act like this or that, then all we are really saying is, "He should act like I would if I were God."

    Now, let's look at starving children. The Bible says that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. That includes everything necessary to feed and provide for its inhabitants. Can anyone deny that the earth is capable of producing more than enough food to feed the entire globe? Well then, if people are starving, whose fault is that? If God made the earth, is He also supposed to plant and distribute our crops for us? Do you remember the tons of food that were shipped to Ethiopia, but did not reach the starving people who needed it? Whose fault was that?

    The reason that over 90% of the masses have barely enough to survive on, is that there is a problem of distribution, not of supply. A tiny minority have far more than they need, depriving the many.

    Regarding suffering that is the result of sin, what could be clearer than Romans 1:28–29 and Galatians 6:8–9? The unbeliever may stomp about with all vigor and complain that it is "bigotry" to associate the rise of AIDS and other diseases to sin; that biblical morality is narrow-minded, outdated, and totally wrong. But this fact is unalterable: In a society where biblical morality is abandoned, suffering always increases. Where biblical morality is followed, suffering always declines. Always. (Isa.59:1-4).

    As to Hitler, Stalin, street gangs and senseless murders: Would any of these things happen if people followed the teachings of Jesus? Do you realize what this world would be like if people simply followed God's instructions? There would be no murder, no wars. There would be no welfare, because families would take care of their own (and families would stay together) and those who did not have families would be provided for by their fellow-members in Christ. There would be no starvation… I could go on, but the point is: God has provided us answers; whose fault is it that we don't seek them or heed them when we find them?

    I suspect that those who use suffering as a "proof" of God's non-existence would not want to have their free choice taken away from them, but that's exactly what God would have to do if He were to enforce His will on the earth. For if God were to intervene in the matter of suffering, would He not also intervene in the matter of sin? If He did, He would have to be a dictator. Then how would we react? We would not want that, and according to the Bible, God doesn't want it either. He wants us to obey Him because we want to, not because we have to. And in order to accomplish this, He must allow two things to happen. First, in order to grant us free choice, He must provide us with graphic examples of the consequences of the wrong choice. Secondly, He must allow injustices and sufferings; otherwise he'd provide sinful mankind with every blessing and benefit without restriction. If everything in this life was fair, good and happy, what need would there be to seek a better life? Why would we seek a Deliverer, if there was nothing to be delivered from? Suffering is not something that ought to turn people away from God, but draw them to Him.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Peace
    Acadian

  • daystar
    daystar

    Siddha

    "Buddhist philosophy is essentially that of pretending that something such as suffering "doesn't exist, doesn't matter" and disregarding the consequences."

    Ignorance by any other name is still ignorance.

    Namaste! Don't confuse disagreement as ignorance. Among other things, I've studied Buddhism for years and come to very similar conclusions as has Terry. Rather than confront the "problem" of suffering, Buddhism tells us to detach ourselves from the source, to remove ourselves from the equation, rather than face reality as it is. It is little more than popular escapism.

  • Borgia
    Borgia

    The WT has a nice one: a parent allowing to suffer his child pain caused by an medical operation. In the end, it will prolong and better the life of the child.

    What escapes their mind is the fact that the child will receive aenestetics during the procedure and after that painkillers........and that it is treated with love in a most profound way.......

    how differs our treatment of our childeren from God's...

    To answer your question: No I do not reconcile it.

    Cheers

    Borgia

  • Siddhashunyata
    Siddhashunyata

    " Buddhism tells us to detach ourselves from the source, to remove ourselves from the equation, rather than face reality as it is. It is little more than popular escapism."

    daystar, there is one thing I think we can agree on: what we consider reality is ever changing, there is nothing permanent. The realization of the "permanent" is enlightment . If that realization were not a fact of experience , I would agree with you and with Terry. I can't answer for all the Buddhists to which you refer but I understand what some of them are doing. We are talking about "doing " not about thinking. The worst possible approach to all this is to take an immovable philosophical position. Permanence is not something we think it is something that is.

  • JamesThomas
    JamesThomas

    IMO, the problem with Buddhism, is it is another "ism", another system of beliefs. Beliefs are inherently restrictive and narrow, which inhibits the unfettered openness of acute investigation into what is truly real, and what is not.

    I have found that it's important to loosen and free every stone of our beliefs about "self" and universe. This becomes extra difficult, perhaps impossible if we hang tightly onto any belief, be it of self, god, whatever.

    If someone broke into my house, I have no predetermined belief as to response; and so it is highly likely that the natural actions of self-preservation would kick in. Who the hell am I to jdge such natural instincts as evil? This is the problem with religion. It ends up making concrete judgments which divide everything and everyone into groups of good and evil; which sustains duality, and then so conflict and war.

    What is it that unites us, one and all? What is it that all beliefs and gods exist within? What is closer than the entire grand drama of things? What is the unmoving foundational truth? These are the questions religion should be guiding their followers to ask. If someone breaks into my temple or house, and the animal instincts of this body flare-up and kill them, so what? It is the nature of phenomena to continually move and change. No natural laws have been broken, nor I doubt, can they ever be. What does not move and change? Other than the "life" story, who/what am I, really? that is the question.

    j

  • daystar
    daystar

    Siddha

    what we consider reality is ever changing, there is nothing permanent. The realization of the "permanent" is enlightment .

    Sure, impermanence. However, you should note that you contradicted yourself above. If nothing is permanent, how can permanence be realized?

    Relativism, even, is something I struggle with. The paradox of relativism vs. objectivism is something I really don't see a resolution to.

    Siddartha's path is merely one of many, and not one that is very appealing to me. It's like the religio-philosophical version of Prozac... to me.

  • JamesThomas
    JamesThomas
    If nothing is permanent, how can permanence be realized?

    I'm not answering for Sid, but the problem here is that yes, all things change. However, there is that which is not a thing, nor in movement. It is That, which all thingness and movement exists within. Find that within your self. It, is closer than the mind. Closer than the body.

    It needs to be seen first hand, or it just becomes another confusing and moronic belief.

    j

  • Terry
    Terry

    Ignorance by any other name is still ignorance.

    A chair is still a chair. Even when there's no one sitting there.

    But, a chair is not a house, and; a house is not a home...........(Burt Bacharach and Hal David)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit