If God existed he could end all this suffering right now

The suffering of the world is due to knowledge of good and evil; tree of knowledge. There is a scientific explanation. This has to do with the way the human brain, which evolved from animals, store law memories. Laws are binary data in that contained in any law is the good action and the bad action. Thou shall not steal, implies good citizens not stealing but also thieves getting punished.

When the brain stores memory, the limbic system in the core of the brain, is part of the writing process, with the limbic system connected to our emotions. The net result is each memory will have an emotional tag. This is useful to the animal since if there is a good feeling due to memory of an object he will eat, if a bad feeling he will avoid. If we are hungry, images of food appear in the mind since all these have the same tag connected the hungry feeling.

Law memory, by being binary, creates conflicting feelings since the good side of the laws gives us good feelings of cooperation, rest and security, while the bad side of law creates feelings of fear, anger, and pain. Because of the limbic tags, the brain stores the binary of law in two separate locations.

The symbols of heaven and hell reflect this, with heaven containing all the good things law talk about (everyone is lawful) with feelings of joy, happiness, love and peace. Hell is where all the dark side of the law gathers. It symbolically has all the violators of the law, from thieves to mass murderers, while the emotional tags are pain, suffering, fear, exhaustion, torture, etc.

Since law is one thing, but also a binary form of data, even if we try to do good by the law, the dark side of law is still in storage, at an unconscious level, since law is not a monopole but implies binary. If you know one side, the other is implied. In tradition, Satan is the binarius or the head of this data storage. This dual consolidation can go renegade.

The preacher may teach self control over his animal urges. He tries to only do the good side of law, while repressing the dark side of the law. But because it is a binarius, the dark consolidation gains potential within the unconscious mind, until he begins to chase hookers doing the very things he preached against. It is a predictable brain scenario, leading to suffering, since the unconscious compulsion, can come up in many ways including phobias and sicknesses, with even people compelled to evil in the name of good. In the latter case, hey are conscious of trying to do good, but since the unconscious compulsion feels so strong, they assume this is their inner voice, justifying evil. The killing of the witches started out with being good by their law, while fueled by the dark side in the unconscious that consolidates from law. We could set up a computer simulation and the result is predictable and avoidable.

God did something about this already but it is up to us to choose. Christ died in the cross to do away with the law thereby negating the power of the binary. But humans maintained law and therefore decided in favor of pain and suffering.

The problem was, if we removed all law, in the short term, people will go wild doing what they were not allowed. But with the binary disrupted this would fade away since it lacks the unconscious foundation of evil created by the binary law. But most people assume this foundation will remain, even without law (humans are evil), causing evil to become released and become permanent. But they don't understand the science of the mind and how their law, by being binary (tree of knowledge) is the very source of the problem. It is delicate.
 
God could psychically transmit the feeling and images of loss and suffering every act of theft causes. He could flash that into the thief's mind as a revelation of the consequences of his crime. Eventually people would learn that stealing really is a bad thing for society, and do so without any violation of free choice. Thus God would be bettering a human race who in addition now has the knowledge that he exists and will allow evil to punish itself over time.
And what would happen after all this if they decided to steal (or you decided to remain attached to what they are coveting)?
Iow the real issue of attachment remains totally untouched in your scenario ..... and as a further detail its the issue of attachment which establishes the necessity of a world divorced from God's will for living entities with free will (and the concomitant issues of suffering that arises)


According the theists, God's going to provide that scenario anyway. It's called heaven or the New Earth--a land where all desires are met and no suffering exists. Why not start that scenario now on earth? Do you think freedom entails the necessity of suffering? Do you think people have to actually choose to do evil to realize it is wrong?
The general idea is that surmounting the dualities of material existence is what grants passage to heaven et al ... iow it involves one having already sorted through their issues of attachment that relegated them to suffering in the material world in the first place. .. for it to be otherwise one would suffer in heaven since one would be afflicted with attachment to acts one doesn't have the resources to pursue
 
God did something about this already but it is up to us to choose. Christ died in the cross to do away with the law thereby negating the power of the binary. But humans maintained law and therefore decided in favor of pain and suffering.

Hi wellwisher;

I'm not sure I'm following you...I read your post a few times. :eek:

In essence, are you trying to explain Adam & Eve's 'fall into sin,' through science? Explaining how we 'choose' good vs evil/evil vs good...through science?
That if one takes literally, the Adam & Eve story in Genesis, that there is a scientific explanation for why they chose 'evil?' (in this case, are you referring to that as 'the law?')
Just trying to follow your thought process. :)
 
He could appear to us and come down and tell everyone, "It's over. Here I am. I exist. Now everything will be fine from henceforth. No more suffering. No more tragedies. No more evil. I will let you continue to solve your problems, but you have my help and support now." Why couldn't this happen? Or does the mere knowledge of an omnipotent God take away our freedom?

Time to watch Bruce Almighty.
For all its Hollywood superficiality, the film does saliently address the problem you are posing.
 
It's hard to imagine anyone having courage in a universe without fear. It's hard to imagine anyone showing self-sacrifice in a universe without loss. It's hard to imagine the joy of discovery in a universe without ignorance. It's hard to imagine anyone displaying determination in a universe where every goal is easily attained.

It seems to me that most of our human virtues only make sense in conditions of imperfection where adversity exists.

Maybe the idea is that the goal isn't so much that we be strong, wise or kind, but rather that we want to be strong, wise or kind. If God just creates everyone with a full set of factory-installed virtues, we wouldn't be rising over adversity, discovering and hopefully choosing the good in ourselves. In other words, maybe the focus is on our motivation.

If the promise of eternal life was true, then this life would be so infinitesimally fleeting as to almost be insignificant. So whatever pain this life contains might not have a whole lot of importance in the big picture.

Compare the Buddhist outlook:

"Monks, suppose there was a man whose life span was 100 years, who would live to 100. Someone would say to him, 'Look here, fellow. They will stab you at dawn with 100 spears, at noon with 100 spears, & again at evening with 100 spears. You, thus stabbed day after day with 300 spears, will have a lifespan of 100 years, will live to be 100, and at the end of 100 years you will realize the four noble truths that you have never realized before.'

"Monks, a person who desired his own true benefit would do well to take up (the offer). Why is that? From an inconceivable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident for the (pain of) blows from spears, swords, & axes. Even if this (offer) were to occur, I tell you that the realization of the four noble truths would not be accompanied by pain & distress. Instead, I tell you, the realization of the four noble truths would be accompanied by pleasure & happiness.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.035.than.html
 
God could psychically transmit the feeling and images of loss and suffering every act of theft causes. He could flash that into the thief's mind as a revelation of the consequences of his crime. Eventually people would learn that stealing really is a bad thing for society, and do so without any violation of free choice.

Most thieves probably know that stealing is "bad for society" - but they do it anyway.

Bottomline, crime is not an issue of not knowing the difference between right and wrong. It's an issue of how to balance competition and cooperation between people. It's inevitable that both competition and cooperation are necessary, but the question is how to balance them out.
 
Competition and cooperation can be complementary rather than mutually exclusive. Competition can be against our past selves, and cooperation can be our social approach. In a practical sense, the two do clash because of the flaws of us and our world, but within our minds they don't have to.
 
Competition and cooperation can be complementary rather than mutually exclusive. Competition can be against our past selves, and cooperation can be our social approach. In a practical sense, the two do clash because of the flaws of us and our world, but within our minds they don't have to.

So how do you propose to cooperate with someone who wants to rob you (ie. who is holding a gun to your head and tells you to give him/her your money and valuables),
and how does that end for you?
 
So how do you propose to cooperate with someone who wants to rob you (ie. who is holding a gun to your head and tells you to give him/her your money and valuables),
and how does that end for you?

I'd like you to try to reflect on the last sentence of my comment some more.
 
So your solution is to do what - live in the mind?

I think you know the solution, yet have to realize it. I think it is why you are attracted to Buddhism. I like the idea in Buddhism of not wishing to do harm to other people. I apply this directive to my dealing with self-aware and feeling beings. Though we do harm (as well as good, hopefully) just through the process of staying alive, I think we have a bad attitude if we accept that state as reflective of who we really are, or at least aspire to be.

The tone of your posts to me indicates that you think that I am competing against you. Competition against others is a state of mind that I find detrimental, and which should be avoided because of it's negative effects on personal mental well-being and on society. So, because I live in society, which I don't want to be degraded, and don't just live in the mind, I don't want to think of others as people who I am competing against. I see them as strugglers in this life like I am a struggler.
 
I see why someone came up with the head and brick wall emoticon. If it weren't for the "and how does that end for you?" ad hominem, maybe things could have gone somewhere useful.
 
He could appear to us and come down and tell everyone, "It's over. Here I am. I exist. Now everything will be fine from henceforth. No more suffering. No more tragedies. No more evil. I will let you continue to solve your problems, but you have my help and support now." Why couldn't this happen? Or does the mere knowledge of an omnipotent God take away our freedom?

Suffering pertains to the body not the soul (part of God), so the body is not God's major
concern as it is temporary and therefore illusory.

Why do you only regard the things you mentioned as ''suffering'' (seeing as you've brought God into the equation)?

jan.
 
I see why someone came up with the head and brick wall emoticon. If it weren't for the "and how does that end for you?" ad hominem, maybe things could have gone somewhere useful.

It's telling that you interpreted "and how does that end for you?" as an ad hom, as opposed to as a genuine question.


Look. You keep talking about how people should not compete etc.

But you'd be far more convincing if you yourself wouldn't try to compete with other people.

When you say patronizing things like

I think you know the solution, yet have to realize it. I think it is why you are attracted to Buddhism.

you're making it clear you want to compete, you want the upper hand.
 
It's telling that you interpreted "and how does that end for you?" as an ad hom, as opposed to as a genuine question.

It's a common rhetorical question with the assumed answer, "badly." You might not have been aware that it's use is to bring the life of the person being addressed into the conversation in a very negative way. Please stop using that with me unless you are trying to piss me off. We had trouble with wording like this another time.



Look. You keep talking about how people should not compete etc.

But you'd be far more convincing if you yourself wouldn't try to compete with other people.

I'm not out to get you! The thing I'd do differently, after reflection, is to
click on "reply to thread" instead of "reply to post." I wasn't replying to compete against you but as a courtesy to allow you to see how more perspective is available to your viewpoint in your text. But I see that it leaves me open to your bashing. From now on for self-protection, I'll feel free to click "reply to thread" concerning your comments.


When you say patronizing things like
elte said:
I think you know the solution, yet have to realize it. I think it is why you
are attracted to Buddhism.

you're making it clear you want to compete, you want the upper hand.

Not my intent at all. I mention Buddhism because I generally see it's teachings positively. I'm saying I think it was good you looked at Buddhism.

You apparently think that I am competing against you when my only intent is to get understanding out there in the world. You just happen to have put the idea out there that needed to be addressed. There was no "you" intended in my first post. I have long ago overcome the desire to win and make others losers.

My desire is to self-actualize. There isn't anyone that I wish to harm in that process.

The self-defense kicked in with your personally abrasive wording in the reply to my writing. I'm still in self-defense mode unless you talk just about competition and cooperation in a non-personal way.
 
The discourse above used the phrases "competition with" and "competition against." It is very common to give both phrases the same meaning. However, there is an important distinction that society misses. Here are some examples I can give to illustrate.

Bill is competing against Jack.

Bill is competing with Sally against Jack.

If someone just uses "competition" by itself, it implies "competion against."
 
The discourse above used the phrases "competition with" and "competition against." It is very common to give both phrases the same meaning. However, there is an important distinction that society misses. Here are some examples I can give to illustrate.

Bill is competing against Jack.

Bill is competing with Sally against Jack.

If someone just uses "competition" by itself, it implies "competion against."

What about:
Bill is competing with Jack. (Are they in the same team?)

Bill is competing against Sally with Jack. (which team are they in now?)

If someone just uses "competition" by itself, it implies "competition against." (spelling error noticed)
 
When you say patronizing things like
Quote Originally Posted by elte
I think you know the solution, yet have to realize it. I think it is why you
are attracted to Buddhism.
you're making it clear you want to compete, you want the upper hand.

Not my intent at all. I mention Buddhism because I generally see it's teachings positively. I'm saying I think it was good you looked at Buddhism.

There you go. This is all about you, you, you, and more you.


You apparently think that I am competing against you when my only intent is to get understanding out there in the world.

Yes, we stupid suckers are just waiting for you to enlighten us. Yess, massa!


I have long ago overcome the desire to win and make others losers.

Whom are you trying to convince about this?
 
What about:
Bill is competing with Jack. (Are they in the same team?)

They don't have to literally be on the same team. For example, they could be two researchers in separate labs trying to find a cure for a disease.

To move the meaning away from indicating a direct relationship between Bill and Jack, we could replace the "with" with "and."

Bill is competing against Sally with Jack. (which team are they in now?)

The wording of that would have Sally in the same team as Jack. If we add a comma after Sally, then it would change it to mean Bill and Jack are going against Sally.

If someone just uses "competition" by itself, it implies "competition against." (spelling error noticed)
Thanks, forgot spell checker or clicked ignore by mistake when it asked what to do.
 
Back
Top