Is it possible that there is only one God...... for everyone?

[ananda]

No doubt that death causes suffering for those who are living, but if there is no immortal God then death will eventually swollow up all life and suffering will end, but so will life. Would you consider that a good thing if sufferings ends in that way? Is this an enlightened way to think?

All I can say is that, as far as I can discern, suffering is the least common denominator which forms the foundation of all our actions.

E.g. I eat because starving is suffering; I stop eating because overeating is suffering; I sleep because staying awake too long is suffering; I get up because staying in bed too long is suffering; so and and so forth for literally everything else in life. Also, "I fear death and hope for deliverance because the thought of it makes me suffer".

I think it is quite enlightened to approach spirituality in this way, to understand that my experience of suffering is the most basic question in life, and to directly address that (just as Buddhism proposes to do). If I don't suffer because of it, death becomes peaceful.

 

[SkyWriting]

It does seem so, but if suffering and death are stoped, as we both agree would be good, then it would require a good immortal being like God to be involved. Otherwise we could just conclude that suffering and death will end when all beings forever cease to live, although death would be the victor in that case. So without God, death wins?

Without God, nothing exists. We can call that death only becasue God cut us some slack and delayed paying our wages. death. This gift is "time".

 

[SkyWriting]

All I can say is that, as far as I can discern, suffering is the least common denominator which forms the foundation of all our actions.

E.g. I eat because starving is suffering; I stop eating because overeating is suffering; I sleep because staying awake too long is suffering; I get up because staying in bed too long is suffering; so and and so forth for literally everything else in life. Also, "I fear death and hope for deliverance because the thought of it makes me suffer".

I think it is quite enlightened to approach spirituality in this way, to understand that my experience of suffering is the most basic question in life, and to directly address that (just as Buddhism proposes to do). If I don't suffer because of it, death becomes peaceful.

Joy, happiness, value, worth, and Love all involve suffering and have far more impact than avoiding suffering. People will suffer even more than they can endure, to benefit loved ones. Jesus did.

 

[ananda]

Joy, happiness, value, worth, and Love all involve suffering and have far more impact than avoiding suffering.

I would suggest that those things all exist somewhere on the suffering<->pleasure spectrum. Joy, happiness, value, worth, love, etc. often provides a measure of pleasurable relief from suffering.

People will suffer even more than they can endure, to benefit loved ones.

Undoubtedly. I think that people do just that because they know that they would suffer even more if they didn't help their loved ones.

 

[Chriliman]

All I can say is that, as far as I can discern, suffering is the least common denominator which forms the foundation of all our actions.

E.g. I eat because starving is suffering; I stop eating because overeating is suffering; I sleep because staying awake too long is suffering; I get up because staying in bed too long is suffering; so and and so forth for literally everything else in life. Also, "I fear death and hope for deliverance because the thought of it makes me suffer".

I'd think that the thought that everyone will die and cease to exist forever, should cause some level of discomfort or sorrow since it would mean everything we do is ultimately pointless. There's no eternal perspective(Gods perspective) from which we can imagine our lives having unending purpose and meaning. What solution does Buddhism have for the suffering that comes when we think everyone will forever cease to exist after death? I know Christianity's solution, but what about Buddhisms?

 

[ananda]

I'd think that the thought that everyone will die and cease to exist forever, should cause some level of discomfort or sorrow since it would mean everything we do is ultimately pointless.

In a sense, everything in life is ultimately pointless. There is no permanence, and all that is now here will be forgotten and turned to dust in centuries, if not decades.

On the other hand, everything in life isn't pointless when I understand that it's all meant to teach me the primary lesson regarding suffering.

There's no eternal perspective(Gods perspective) from which we can imagine our lives having unending purpose and meaning. What solution does Buddhism have for the suffering that comes when we think everyone will forever cease to exist after death? I know Christianity's solution, but what about Buddhisms?

We don't see physical death as a primary problem; it's only our attachments to life, our aversion to death/the unknown, and our ignorance regarding all of the above, which produces our experience of suffering.

The suicidal likely have attachments to death or an aversion for life.

So, from a Buddhist perspective the real problem - which explains the sufferings of both the "healthy" and the "suicidal" - are our ignorance/attachments/aversions. On the other hand, "suffering from thinking we cease to exist after death" is obviously not a universal desire, because it fails to explain the suicidal.

 

[Hawkins]

What do you think?

A religion becomes "not an option" once it provides a salvation of after life by a god advocated in that religion. To put it another way, if a religion is not about after life, you may simply choose to ignore it as it won't affect you or your life. The advocate affects us because no humans can get to know what could possibly happen after death. If you believe "nothing happens" (an implicit belief of the atheists), it remains your faith to believe so. If you believe that "something happens", it remains your own faith to believe so. Both cannot be confirmed. Even it's a truth it's beyond human technology to reach. So it's your choice to choose one of them.

It's analogue to when you are tied up in a pair of rails without telling you whether a train will come by. It's up to you decide whether to believe that "no train" is coming, or it's possible that "a train is coming". A religion in this case is an advocate that "a train is coming" and "a god can save you".

So the first question to ask is, why the god doesn't show up. If you as a superior and powerful human claims to save a nest of bees, it's no point for you to remotely ask them to believe but insists not to show up in front of them. Similarly, if a powerful god claims to love you so much and so much then what's the point for him to hide behind instead of showing up in front of humans? To put it another way, the loving god chooses to hide behind must provide a good reason why he's not showing up.

The good reason the Christianity God can provide is that all humans are tied to a covenant which demands them to have faith in God in order to be saved. So if God shows up, it means humans can no longer be saved. (the next question can be why such a covenant exists, it also has a good reason but it may be off topic in this thread).

Now and for a good reason, the god will have to hide behind. Then the next question is, what efforts should he puts forward to save humans. He should first choose the most possibly efficient way to convey his message of both the warning and salvation to as many humans as possible. Other than directly showing up, the next most efficient way for a truth to convey among humans is by "believing in accounts of human witnessing". It seems to me that only the Christianity God ever knows about this efficient way, not even today's humans can realize how efficient and fundamental human witnessing can be.

This way of conveying truth has two crucial factors. One is to spread as widely as possible while the other is to invite faith to believe. It's more or less resembled to our daily news. Our media will broadcast as widely as possible to reach the many humans, and for them to believe with faith. That's the way how a truth propagates among humans.

Now the god has a good reason to hide behind, and he has chosen the most possibly efficient way to convey his salvation message, then the next question is can he keep his message consistent across history, and for humans today to receive the same salvation message as humans some 2000 years ago, and as humans in the future?

In Christianity, we can reconcile the Bible with its contents some 2000 years ago for us to tell that the Christianity God is conveying the same theological message yesterday, today and tomorrow. We have a whole library of ancient scrolls (Dead Sea Scrolls) for us to confirm the contents of the OT books. We have 2 independent sources of NT, namely the KJV and NIV streams of Bible, for us to confirm that the same NT books we read today remains theologically the same some 2000 years ago. We have whole Church which ensures that the same theology will remain with no contents added or subtracted.

Now Christianity is about a God who has a good reason to hide from humans, He employs the most efficient way to convey his message of salvation, He maintains the theological consistency of his Bible through history and the coming future for humans to receive the same message and to be saved.

 

[Tolworth John]

Well to be honest I do think that large chunks of the old testament are ludicrous, I mean the flood, Jonah and a fish, Tower of Babel, creation in 6 days..... I could go on but it would be pointless.

God may judge us on belief of Jesus but I genuinely think that any god will give a lot more slack than that, but we'll see.

Putting a man on the moon, flight, and transplant operations are all either ludicrous or impossible to those who know nothing about the science involved.

If God created time and space, energy and matter. Then a six day creation is reasonable. There is no scientific evidence that says that did or did not happen. It depends entirely how one view the universe.
The same applies to the flood etc

As for God cutting unbelieve slack try it next time you get a speeding ticket. Just because you don't believe in a speed limit does not stop you from getting or having to pay a speeding fine.

 

[Chriliman]

In a sense, everything in life is ultimately pointless. There is no permanence, and all that is now here will be forgotten and turned to dust in centuries, if not decades.

On the other hand, everything in life isn't pointless when I understand that it's all meant to teach me the primary lesson regarding suffering.

The two paragraphs above are in direct opposition to each other. The first is saying life is ultimately pointless and second is saying life is meant to teach us something. I'll agree that life is meant to teach us something and disagree that life is ultimately pointless because I believe what we're being taught is eternal, imperishable truth by a loving God.

I'd suggest you pick one or the other to believe because having opposing beliefs only leads to confusion.

We don't see physical death as a primary problem; it's only our attachments to life, our aversion to death/the unknown, and our ignorance regarding all of the above, which produces our experience of suffering.

The suicidal likely have attachments to death or an aversion for life.

The suicidal have determined there's no actual reason to live, which is a lie, but they listen to the lie and make the wrong choice. So it's really their attachment to a lie that causes their wrong choice(sin).

So, from a Buddhist perspective the real problem - which explains the sufferings of both the "healthy" and the "suicidal" - are our ignorance/attachments/aversions. On the other hand, "suffering from thinking we cease to exist after death" is obviously not a universal desire, because it fails to explain the suicidal.

Their suffering is due to their belief that there is no actual reason to live, which is a lie.

Anyhow, I thank you for telling me about what Buddhism teaches and I hope our discussion was helpful in some positive way for both of us. I do enjoy thinking through these topics, I believe it helps come closer to the truth in love.

 

[ananda]

The two paragraphs above are in direct opposition to each other. The first is saying life is ultimately pointless and second is saying life is meant to teach us something. I'll agree that life is meant to teach us something and disagree that life is ultimately pointless because I believe what we're being taught is eternal, imperishable truth by a loving God.

I'd suggest you pick one or the other to believe because having opposing beliefs only leads to confusion.

I would say they are opposite sides of the same coin. IMO life is ultimately pointless for those who do not live in light of the teachings of suffering.

The suicidal have determined there's no actual reason to live, which is a lie, but they listen to the lie and make the wrong choice. So it's really their attachment to a lie that causes their wrong choice(sin). Their suffering is due to their belief that there is no actual reason to live, which is a lie.

How is it a lie? Sometimes I see that point of view, seeing the futility of everything in this world that is subject to impermanence and death.

Anyhow, I thank you for telling me about what Buddhism teaches and I hope our discussion was helpful in some positive way for both of us. I do enjoy thinking through these topics, I believe it helps come closer to the truth in love.