What makes your life worth living?

[JECE]

I think that I first heard the term 'maya' as a kid while reading Siddhartha:
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/25 ... mages.html

Granted, the author wasn't Buddhist, but I don't think that his book is often derided as a false representation of Buddhism.

My heathen understanding of Buddhism is that life is suffering and that we are stuck in a cycle of death and rebirth. Only when we attain enlightenment (accept that the life of suffering that we live is an illusion) can we escape to Nirvana.

[flash2015]

There are three sources here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)#Theravada

That doesn't say that suffering is an illusion

[flash2015]

I think that I first heard the term 'maya' as a kid while reading Siddhartha:
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/25 ... mages.html

Granted, the author wasn't Buddhist, but I don't think that his book is often derided as a false representation of Buddhism.

My heathen understanding of Buddhism is that life is suffering and that we are stuck in a cycle of death and rebirth. Only when we attain enlightenment (accept that the life of suffering that we live is an illusion) can we escape to Nirvana.

Most of this is right...but I am not convinced about the life/suffering is an illusion part.

[JECE]

There are three sources here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)#Theravada

That doesn't say that suffering is an illusion

If cognition is an illusion, how could suffering not be an illusion? The rest of the Buddhism section is perhaps more explicit.

[Fluminator]

@Fluminator: If you still want more from me on why suffering is bad, I have been reflecting on how to explain it to you.

I think that suffering is bad because I have experienced it, and I have some evidence to suggest to me that others experience suffering as a bad thing also.

I know that when something happens that causes me to suffer, I do not like it, it upsets me, it makes me sad.

I have seen other people experience various forms of suffering and in pretty much every case it was abundantly clear that they also did not like it, and were sad.

Human beings are social creatures. I am a very social person. I do not want to suffer, and I do not want other human beings to experience suffering.

Therefore, I conclude that suffering is bad.

Does that answer you?

I really appreciate you coming back to this. Haven't had time to make a good response yet but I have noted this.

[flash2015]

There are three sources here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_(religion)#Theravada

That doesn't say that suffering is an illusion

If cognition is an illusion, how could suffering not be an illusion? The rest of the Buddhism section is perhaps more explicit.

"Cognition is like a magical illusion (māyā) in the sense that it is insubstantial and cannot be grasped."

I don't think it is saying what you think it is saying.

[flash2015]

It feels like these whole set of sutras are more Mahayana additions rather than Theravada:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajnaparamita

[learnedSloth]

I don't think Christians have anything to fear about evolution

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ43.html

[learnedSloth]

Oh, I don't know, maybe point out that the referenced real-world pet doesn't actually have a flaming tail, so the risk of fire damage is miniscule?

I think that you understand the point perfectly well, though.

I don't want to give much thought to this hypothetical scenario, but I think that I would try a more unassuming approach. I don't see why talking about something I don't believe in would be so difficult.

[Fluminator]

I don't think Christians have anything to fear about evolution

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ43.html

Going through some of these and it's kind of weird.

1. They're claiming evolution would require miracles in the same line they're saying evolution doesn't require miracles. Which is it? If it's the former then there's no difference as far as miracles go. Can't both ways be miraculous?

2. Things such as "tree of knowledge of good and evil" obviously have a deeper meaning beyond being a literal fruit. There's believing it's true and believing it's literally historically true and neither undermine the point.

3. Sure

4. This site is saying God can't work through nature or natural processes? I think that's a very dangerous view to have.

5. Space, Time, and Matter have absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is the diversification of species.

6. Big bang has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. (Although it was Christians who discovered the evidence of the Big Bang)

7. Same as 6.

8. Again not sure how this is relevant to evolution

9. Nothing to do with evolution

This goes on for awhile. Even the ones that are relevant to evolution are really missing the point of Genesis imo.

[learnedSloth]

I don't think Christians have anything to fear about evolution

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ43.html

Going through some of these and it's kind of weird.

1. They're claiming evolution would require miracles in the same line they're saying evolution doesn't require miracles. Which is it? If it's the former then there's no difference as far as miracles go. Can't both ways be miraculous?

It's a comparison of what theistic evolutionists (like you) are saying and what the Bible says (+ the author's opinions). A major selling point of Darwinism is that it supposedly doesn't require miracles, which the author promptly denies.

It's meant to illustrate that the Bible excludes theistic evolution.

4. This site is saying God can't work through nature or natural processes?

I don't see how you arrived at that.

[Wusti]

@Fluminator: If you still want more from me on why suffering is bad, I have been reflecting on how to explain it to you.

I think that suffering is bad because I have experienced it, and I have some evidence to suggest to me that others experience suffering as a bad thing also.

I know that when something happens that causes me to suffer, I do not like it, it upsets me, it makes me sad.

I have seen other people experience various forms of suffering and in pretty much every case it was abundantly clear that they also did not like it, and were sad.

Human beings are social creatures. I am a very social person. I do not want to suffer, and I do not want other human beings to experience suffering.

Therefore, I conclude that suffering is bad.

Does that answer you?

I have to say that you need to follow this to the end in various ways, and not just conclude that suffering is bad because it makes you and other feel bad - but the HOW of stopping suffering is something you should consider.

For example when I was in my early 20s and my relationship with my first love broke down I suffered and was sad. How do you make this go away? Well, she could've decided to stay in the relationship - but then she might suffer being stuck with a partner she didn't want to be with anymore - cancelling one suffering creates another.

Paint me a picture of how you can reconcile suffering out of existence and what it would look like.

[Crazy Anglican]

I am once again reading "The Giver" by Lois Lowery with my classes. In the book they do a good job of ending suffering for everyone but one person in their community. Their rationale being that one person has to have experience with it to be able to advise others in how to avoid it.

[JECE]

It feels like these whole set of sutras are more Mahayana additions rather than Theravada:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prajnaparamita

The Pheṇapiṇḍūpama Sutta is described in the Maya article as an early Buddhist text. Elsewhere on Wikipedia the Sāratthappakāsinī is described as a fifth century text attributed to Buddhaghosa, who was of the Theravada tradition.

[JECE]

That doesn't say that suffering is an illusion

If cognition is an illusion, how could suffering not be an illusion? The rest of the Buddhism section is perhaps more explicit.

"Cognition is like a magical illusion (māyā) in the sense that it is insubstantial and cannot be grasped."

I don't think it is saying what you think it is saying.

I don't think that it makes sense for me to argue with your wife via proxy. After all, I'm not a Buddhist and she is. But I don't think that I'm misreading this. The text continues:
". . . Cognition is even more transient and fleeting than a magical illusion. For it gives the impression that a person comes and goes, stands and sits, with the same mind, but the mind is different in each of these activities. Cognition deceives the multitude like a magical illusion (māyā)."

I read that as saying that our mind deceives us into experiencing through the five senses a world that exists only in our mind.

[Crazy Anglican]

The discussion of suffering has taken some weird and in my opinion unnecessary turns. It seems to me that the initial challenge was that an all-powerful, omniscient, all-loving God cannot have created a world in which suffering is present.
Since

A) if He is unable to create a world in which there is no suffering, then He is not all powerful.

or

B) if He is unwilling to create a world in which there is no suffering, then He is not all-loving.



The answer to A) is we must assume He is able to create a world with no suffering based on the definitions of All Powerful and Omniscient.


The answer to B) is that it is a false statement if:

A1) Making such a pain free world creates an undesired (and worse) outcome. To be clear the exact nature of the worse world doesn't need to be defined. The simple possibility that it might be brought into existence defeats the original statement, since none of us actually has any hands on experience with creation of realities there can't be much evidence as to what can go wrong with the process. Thus, any of us simply imagining a world with no pain does nothing since we aren't privy to all the parameters that making such a reality for billions of people would entail.

or

B1) Making a pain free world interferes with or prevents God's plan for a greater outcome for us. In this case God allows pain because for some reason it is a necessary (and by definition short term) element in His (infinite) plan for salvation.


So, the original statement is invalid because there are at least two instances in which God can allow pain in the world and still be omnipotent, omniscient, and loving because allowing the existence of something unpleasant to prevent an outcome that is more unpleasant is an act of love.

A further weakness in the original statement is that it allows for the existence of God for the sake of argument but doesn't allow for other necessary elements of the religion that would help to inform the discussion. For instance, the existence of Heaven, for most Christians, makes our suffering right now short term because we believe that an infinite and joyous existence is ahead of us.

Then, I guess, maybe the conversation goes to what about Hell?

Okay, what about it? it's the byproduct of a loving God allowing us to choose to reject Him. Even if that rejection is a painful one. Also take a look at the dogma further. What about Purgatory? There is evidence there that even in Hell you could still choose God, since making the choice to embrace God turns Hell into Purgatory. As to staying in Hell for eternity, I guess it happens. Have you met anyone who makes choices that are detrimental but will not change even wen the consequences for those choices are staring them in the face. That is a possible choice open to all of us.


To suppose that a paragraph or two is sufficient to discredit a religion that has stood for two thousand years is to show that you don't really understand the religion. It is very well thought out and quite logical at it's core.


Like I said though, the same people (me included) spouting the same lines.

[Crazy Anglican]

Anyway,

Wedding number two of the month this weekend. This time my daughter's.

Quite the fun ceremony, we booked rooms at the lodge at a State Park with beautiful fall foliage views. They had booked the amphitheater at the top of the waterfall, which unbeknownst to us did not include any actual sign or anything telling anyone that the place was reserved. Still everyone was nice about letting us decorate around them while they were finishing up lunch. Parking was a nightmare but game my son-in-law a chance to work together making sure that we could get the truck close enough to the venue to load everything. He ended up having a sort of vampire meets cowboy costume. The officiant was a pirate having us all yell "Aaargh" as we shouted our support for the happy couple. My wife pulled off steampunk with stunning results. Me, I came off more circus MC than steampunk, but all was well. It was quite the spectacle with several people stopping to witness and wish them well. Others loudly blew car horns for the couple's kiss. My daughter was beautiful (the only one in an actual traditional wedding dress) I didn't even come close to crying in the father daughter dance.

[Fluminator]

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ43.html

Going through some of these and it's kind of weird.

1. They're claiming evolution would require miracles in the same line they're saying evolution doesn't require miracles. Which is it? If it's the former then there's no difference as far as miracles go. Can't both ways be miraculous?

It's a comparison of what theistic evolutionists (like you) are saying and what the Bible says (+ the author's opinions). A major selling point of Darwinism is that it supposedly doesn't require miracles, which the author promptly denies.

It's meant to illustrate that the Bible excludes theistic evolution.

4. This site is saying God can't work through nature or natural processes?

I don't see how you arrived at that.

The site says that if the world is made through natural processes, it's different from God making it. But I view them as one and the same and that God works through natural processes.

The Bible even implies it by saying "let the land produce living creature"
Still is miraculous to me

[PRINCE WILLIAM]

God made the world and man perfect, and at the same time, he gave us free will. Because to do good and be good is worthy when you do it of your free will and not when you have to do it, or you don't any other way.
Besides that, if there is no God who sets the rules, the natural ones that celestial bodies obey, ie. Even for the big bang to exist, someone created this first overdense matter. It wasn't always there. This, for me, is enough proof there is God.

[PRINCE WILLIAM]

Anyway,

Wedding number two of the month this weekend. This time my daughter's.

Quite the fun ceremony, we booked rooms at the lodge at a State Park with beautiful fall foliage views. They had booked the amphitheater at the top of the waterfall, which unbeknownst to us did not include any actual sign or anything telling anyone that the place was reserved. Still everyone was nice about letting us decorate around them while they were finishing up lunch. Parking was a nightmare but game my son-in-law a chance to work together making sure that we could get the truck close enough to the venue to load everything. He ended up having a sort of vampire meets cowboy costume. The officiant was a pirate having us all yell "Aaargh" as we shouted our support for the happy couple. My wife pulled off steampunk with stunning results. Me, I came off more circus MC than steampunk, but all was well. It was quite the spectacle with several people stopping to witness and wish them well. Others loudly blew car horns for the couple's kiss. My daughter was beautiful (the only one in an actual traditional wedding dress) I didn't even come close to crying in the father daughter dance.

Congratulations on the happy occasion and to for answering about the actual theme of this thread.