I think i am completely wrong about God, being atheist sucks

[Redsox]

Hi ,

maybe it is the tough economic times or maybe it is my own fearfulness or maybe my financial status right about now, but I am in a deep ditch, which I wasn't when I wasn't atheist lets say. I was happy atleast, now all I have is depression and anxiety. Fear has taken complete hold of me, everyday as I see myself go into more and more debt, all I can find comfort in is this book bhagavad gita, and prabhupada's words, ironically. The same words that I actually forbid myself from reading, those same ideas of surrender, which were once given up by me, I made my self believe that there is no God, then how can these words give me this type of comfort, I am still convinced that if there is God, he would be more visible. Anyway, atheism truly makes one miserable, maybe there is a better way.

 

You may not remember me, but anyway sorry for any offense I had created earlier as an atheistic moron.

[jeffster]

God IS visible, but we must first become qualified to see Him, then He will reveal Himself in due course. It sounds like you have already taken the first steps to become qualified, by reading Gita and listening to Prabhupad's instructions. Then just follow the instructions, follow the process and associate with like-minded people on the bhakti-marg, path of bhakti yoga.

jeffster/AMd

[sanatan]

I know where you're coming from, my friend.

 

Last couple of years, I've felt a revulsion toward organized religion in any form, ISKCON included. Haven't been to any temple events at all in a long time, though I maintain contact with some devotee friends and have contributed time and money towards a couple of worthy projects.

 

There's an automotive board I hang out on a lot. One of the guys started a prayer group, and I joined. Turns out it's a front for evangelical Christianity, so I'm going to get myself taken off the list.

 

I've been expanding horizons, so to speak, and doing a lot of wide-ranging reading, toying with a bit of writing.

 

Recently read a book called godless. Author Dan Barker is a former long-time evangelical Christian minister, turned atheist. He sings the praises of his new "freethought" life, but it just sounds empty to me. Personally, I think he's in a phase of rejecting his particular brand of Christianity, as he didn't investigate other philosophical schools deeply before "converting" wholeheartedly to atheism.

 

Agree on BG As It Is. I can still open it up and be transported to a world I know exists, but have chosen to ignore.

 

"For the soul, there is never birth nor death...:)"

[ranjeetmore]

There is misery everywhere.Everyone feels the same....

So what is the solution ?

 

Attain Sri Krsna.

Why ?

 

Because He is Bliss.

Raso Vai saha.

 

So what ?

 

He alone can make you happy.

Rasatvam heva yam labhdva anandi bhavati.

 

I know saying is easier than doing.But it is possible with practise.

If you don't,you will take to your old ways without doubt.

[kaisersose]

Just my opinion.

 

 

There is misery everywhere.Everyone feels the same....

So what is the solution ?

 

Attain Sri Krsna.

Why ?

 

Because He is Bliss.

Raso Vai saha.

 

So what ?

 

He alone can make you happy.

Rasatvam heva yam labhdva anandi bhavati.

 

I know saying is easier than doing.But it is possible with practise.

If you don't,you will take to your old ways without doubt.

 

Why did Krishna create misery and suffering in the first place?

 

Even after you attain Krishna, the pain and misery in the world will still persist as before. Infants will starve to death in Africa, civilians will be slaughtered daily in the Congo and kids will be kidnapped and blinded to send them out to beg in Mumbai (a la slumdog millionaire).

 

So for you to be blissful with Krishna, Krishna should erase all these memories from you and make you think (wrongly) that there is no pain and suffering in the world and keep you in ignorance. Or he should alter your genetic makeup to remove the compassion gene - that makes you feel for someone else's pain. If that happens, they you can be in bliss with no regard for the continued suffering on planet earth.

 

Advaita offers a better solution as duality ends , really ending suffering in its true sense ( Not endorsing Advaita, for all the Mayavada bashers out there).

 

If I were a theist, I would be angered at a God for creating an unfair world, with the troubles in Congo, Iraq and countless other places. Especially more so, when you hear some idiots claiming this is all a "sport". I would tell them to stop speaking nonsense unless they are willing to get blinded and beg on the streets for the rest of their lives - all as part of the "sport". Or alternatively, we can take this sport angle seriously if the starving people of the world are also willing to call their suffering a sport. As an atheist, it is relatively easier to deal with the situation as there is no source and therefore no one to blame.

 

Cheers

[bija]

 

...sport...

Just doesn't sit right! Big time! Philosophy, that is all...explaining away profound suffering as an enjoyable sport. Maybe suffering is much more profound in meaning than that simple idea.

 

An atheist, Kaisersose, can have deep insights and appreciation for life...as much as a theist. Isnt it so? Many buddhists seem like very happy people..with respect for life and others.

 

Just like different theists have ideas about God, so the atheists vary and have different views about life...and ways to live.

[bija]

 

I've been expanding horizons, so to speak, and doing a lot of wide-ranging reading... by sanatan

 

Sounds good.

[jeffster]

Kaiserose, you are claiming that there "is no source and therefore no one to blame" for the troubles in the world, yet it certainly is convenient to blame God for all the problems of the world, isn't it ? The reasons for the soul's implications within the confines of materialistic misconception have been discussed on this website countless times. This explains the suffering (and enjoyment) in the world if you'd care to understand a little simple philosophy. A couple of days ago, some of my wife's friends (ritualistic Buddhists) came over and gave us a replica statue of Emerald Buddha in Bangkok, saying " I hope this brings you good luck in the new year." I said "but we've already created our luck in our past lives and earlier in this one." They laughed at that, seeing how true it is. God has undoubtedly given man free will; therefore, we enjoy and suffer based on what we do.

 

It's just like when there is a natural disaster, in USA they call it an act of God. But they never call a bright, sunny warm day an act of God, although it is also an act of God. Atheists are just looking to exonerate themselves of responsibility for their own activities, often to rationalize their sinful activities. Spiritually-minded people, Vaishnavas and otherwise, understand the principle of karma. Karma is termed "As you sow, so shall you reap," in the bible, the law of karma for Hindus and Buddhists, the law of cause and effect for philosophers, and "what comes around goes around," in the modern parlance, but all four terms are equivalent. Anyone thinking that they can somehow circumvent karmic implications for their own activities is a fool. Understanding that we are bound BY OUR OWN ACTIVITIES for better or worse and that we are in a suffering condition may be the first step on the path of theism.

jeffster/AMd

As far as being an atheistic moron goes, I've always said "Be a Mormon, don't be a moron."

[bija]

 

A couple of days ago, some of my wife's friends (ritualistic Buddhists) came over and gave us a replica statue of Emerald Buddha in Bangkok, saying " I hope this brings you good luck in the new year." I said "but we've already created our luck in our past lives and earlier in this one." They laughed at that, seeing how true it is. God has undoubtedly given man free will; therefore, we enjoy and suffer based on what we do. by jeffster

 

Buddhists hold to emptiness and impermanence. Kinda like, everything has cause by another cause...same idea basically Jeff. Therefore they suggest that each experience essentially has no self.

[jeffster]

Bija, I believe that most Buddhists believe in cause and effect here within the material world, while they are in a conditioned stage. Only their goal of liberation into a kind of a void is beyond karma, no ? The defect with their philosophy is that if there is no self, who is it discussing that there is no self ?

jeffster/AMd

[bija]

Buddhism is not very clear on what remains, if viewed from a theistic perspective. It seems to not speculate much further than the mind's experience.

 

There is 'pure land' in later forms of buddhism. There is also 'pure mind'...which is in essence the clear view of the heart.

 

I don't know much more than that Jeff.

[primate]

 

Why did Krishna create misery and suffering in the first place? .....

 

The misery and suffering that you perceive, may be just the product of your individual consciousness. Happy new year!

[kaisersose]

 

Kaiserose, you are claiming that there "is no source and therefore no one to blame" for the troubles in the world, yet it certainly is convenient to blame God for all the problems of the world, isn't it ? The reasons for the soul's implications within the confines of materialistic misconception have been discussed on this website countless times. This explains the suffering (and enjoyment) in the world if you'd care to understand a little simple philosophy. A couple of days ago, some of my wife's friends (ritualistic Buddhists) came over and gave us a replica statue of Emerald Buddha in Bangkok, saying " I hope this brings you good luck in the new year." I said "but we've already created our luck in our past lives and earlier in this one." They laughed at that, seeing how true it is. God has undoubtedly given man free will; therefore, we enjoy and suffer based on what we do.

 

It's just like when there is a natural disaster, in USA they call it an act of God. But they never call a bright, sunny warm day an act of God, although it is also an act of God. Atheists are just looking to exonerate themselves of responsibility for their own activities, often to rationalize their sinful activities. Spiritually-minded people, Vaishnavas and otherwise, understand the principle of karma. Karma is termed "As you sow, so shall you reap," in the bible, the law of karma for Hindus and Buddhists, the law of cause and effect for philosophers, and "what comes around goes around," in the modern parlance, but all four terms are equivalent. Anyone thinking that they can somehow circumvent karmic implications for their own activities is a fool, an atheistic fool at that. Understanding that we are bound BY OUR OWN ACTIVITIES for better or worse and that we are in a suffering condition may be the first step on the path of theism.

jeffster/AMd

As far as being an atheistic moron goes, I've always said "Be a Mormon, don't be a moron."

 

Jeffster,

 

You are saying man creates his own suffering (through past karma), but you are again failing to address the fundamental question of who created the concept of suffering in the first place and why? The starving child in Africa has absolutely no recollection of its past lives. What is the point in it suffering?

 

Even setting the root cause aside, where is the much hyped about mercy from the Lord? Jndas appears to have more mercy than Krishna for he - in his limited capacity - is actually alleviating the hunger of several children, something which the all-mighty Lord is failing to do. If he cannot even end the hunger of an innocent child, what is the big deal about an all-powerful God? He seems to have time to help the Pandavas get their kingdom back, but is simply not interested in the kids of the Congo? There are people being killed there, as we are writing now.

 

Haven't you had these questions yourself, at some point of time? How did you get past them?

 

Cheers

[kaisersose]

 

The misery and suffering that you perceive, may be just the product of your individual consciousness. Happy new year!

 

Do you really believe that?

 

If yes, then we can extend this logic to pretty much everything and put an end to all communication and social living!

 

And a happy new year to you as well!

 

Cheers

[bija]

 

The misery and suffering that you perceive, may be just the product of your individual consciousness.

 

hey primate...interesting view..

[jeffster]

Kaiserrose, your questions are certainly valid. That the soul cannot remember his past lives is not the question; the point of suffering is for rectification of character, so that the soul will ultimately give up his illusory desire for independence from the Lord, surrender to the Lord, and thereby become reinstated in the grace of the Lord, in his natural constitutional position as eternal servitor of the Lord. We have simply forgotten our real position as servitor, and run amuck here within the 3 worlds falsely attempting to be the doer, controller, enjoyer, etc.

 

Yes, I have had these questions, also. The Vaishnava idea is of a God-centered society, and that no one living within 10 km of a temple should go hungry. There is food enough for everyone, often the problem is unequal distribution of food. The poor have fewer resources for survival than do the other classes. That is why there is the Food for Life program in temples in certain sections of the world. So there is a compassionate set-up for alleviation of world hunger through prasadam distribution. But we must still understand that it is the conditioned soul's renegade activities that have caused him to be put into these temporary positions of enjoyment and suffering. Ultimately the soul needs to surrender, rather than insisting on his false independence. Upon full surrender he will become reinstated in the eternal plane, and there will be no more question of suffering. Hope this helps.

jeffster/AMd

[jeffster]

Another way of understanding suffering is that suffering only exists in the eka-pad vibhuti (sp?), the 1/4 of the creation that is considered material. There is no suffering in the tri-pad vibhuti, the 3/4 of the creation that is the spiritual kingdom, because all the souls there are surrendered souls, in harmony with the will of the Lord. I believe Prabhupad termed the 1/4 section a "vitiated plane" of existence. I just looked up vitiated; it means "contaminated" or "debased." This is the nature of the material world. So when the renegade soul has desires for independence from the Lord, he is sent to the material world, but ultimately finds it to be a debased realm of suffering and death - martya-loka. It is paradoxical that all our desires for independence only result in suffering and death, but to surrender willingly, to become eager servitors, even willing slaves, if you like, of the Divine Lord Sri Krishna results in an eternal life of knowledge and bliss.

jeffster/AMd

[Lotusflower]

 

Hi ,

maybe it is the tough economic times or maybe it is my own fearfulness or maybe my financial status right about now, but I am in a deep ditch, which I wasn't when I wasn't atheist lets say. I was happy atleast, now all I have is depression and anxiety. Fear has taken complete hold of me, everyday as I see myself go into more and more debt, all I can find comfort in is this book bhagavad gita, and prabhupada's words, ironically. The same words that I actually forbid myself from reading, those same ideas of surrender, which were once given up by me, I made my self believe that there is no God, then how can these words give me this type of comfort, I am still convinced that if there is God, he would be more visible. Anyway, atheism truly makes one miserable, maybe there is a better way.

 

You may not remember me, but anyway sorry for any offense I had created earlier as an atheistic moron.

 

 

 

O best among the Bharatas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me -- the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.

http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/7/16/en1

 

=====

 

Okay my personal view is I also need money so my so-called surrender or whatever is not really, according to above verse, but also the it is in a way since the verse above says ... 'four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me' so its like a 'double jeporday'

[primate]

 

Do you really believe that?

If yes, then we can extend this logic to pretty much everything and put an end to all communication and social living! ...

 

Yes, I think I really do believe that. And/but what we need is some form of global education about this.

[jeffster]

Also, we can look at the Gita verse wherein Krishna says "All men follow My path in all respects..." Nothing is separate from Krishna; everything is within Him. It is just that some know it while others don't, and some, knowing it, accept it while others fight it. We just need to "get with the program" voluntarily.

jeffster/AMd

[melvin]

 

Just my opinion.

 

 

 

Why did Krishna create misery and suffering in the first place?

 

Even after you attain Krishna, the pain and misery in the world will still persist as before. Infants will starve to death in Africa, civilians will be slaughtered daily in the Congo and kids will be kidnapped and blinded to send them out to beg in Mumbai (a la slumdog millionaire).

 

So for you to be blissful with Krishna, Krishna should erase all these memories from you and make you think (wrongly) that there is no pain and suffering in the world and keep you in ignorance. Or he should alter your genetic makeup to remove the compassion gene - that makes you feel for someone else's pain. If that happens, they you can be in bliss with no regard for the continued suffering on planet earth.

 

Advaita offers a better solution as duality ends , really ending suffering in its true sense ( Not endorsing Advaita, for all the Mayavada bashers out there).

 

If I were a theist, I would be angered at a God for creating an unfair world, with the troubles in Congo, Iraq and countless other places. Especially more so, when you hear some idiots claiming this is all a "sport". I would tell them to stop speaking nonsense unless they are willing to get blinded and beg on the streets for the rest of their lives - all as part of the "sport". Or alternatively, we can take this sport angle seriously if the starving people of the world are also willing to call their suffering a sport. As an atheist, it is relatively easier to deal with the situation as there is no source and therefore no one to blame.

 

Cheers

 

It`s just to prove that heaven & hell is here on earth.

[raghu]

 

Just my opinion.

 

Why did Krishna create misery and suffering in the first place?

 

Why do you hold that Krishna "created" misery and suffering? This presupposes the idea that (1) these are created things with a definite beginning in time and (2) that they are "things" that can be created.

 

Creationism is the hallmark of Judeo-Christian religions. Some entities like the jIva-s, paramAtma, jagat, etc are not created but exist always. Misery is the absence of bliss and not a "created" thing as such.

 

 

Even after you attain Krishna, the pain and misery in the world will still persist as before. Infants will starve to death in Africa, civilians will be slaughtered daily in the Congo and kids will be kidnapped and blinded to send them out to beg in Mumbai (a la slumdog millionaire).

 

So for you to be blissful with Krishna, Krishna should erase all these memories from you and make you think (wrongly) that there is no pain and suffering in the world and keep you in ignorance. Or he should alter your genetic makeup to remove the compassion gene - that makes you feel for someone else's pain. If that happens, they you can be in bliss with no regard for the continued suffering on planet earth.

 

Several points here:

 

1) Centuries of denouncing theism and finding meaning in life by humanitarian efforts divorced of belief in a higher power have not ended suffering in this world. On the contrary, we still have wars, poverty, starvation, ethnic cleansing, etc and no indication to suggest that it will stop anytime in the near future. This of course supports the point of view held by Hindus and Buddhists that suffering is a part of the nature of this world. Hence point #2:

 

2) People show compassion in different ways based on the assumptions they make about the reality of the world in which they live. On the premise that suffering is a part of existence in this world when separate from Sri Hari, a Vaishnava shows compassion by wanting to offer knowledge about Vishnu and the path to liberation to those who do not know about it. Needless to say, this compassion is not welcome by those who are inimical to the "sectarian" path of Vishnu-worship.

 

3) On the point about liberated souls being able to enjoy and yet feel for the suffering of those living in bondage: This is certainly an interesting point. I think all are agreed that the liberated jIva does not suffer as he is properly situated in his natural position as a servant of Vishnu. I am not certain if he forgets the suffering of those "left behind" or not, but I see no reason why he cannot still be compassionate for them and still be blissful in his service to Vishnu. I am of course speculating here.

 

 

Advaita offers a better solution as duality ends , really ending suffering in its true sense ( Not endorsing Advaita, for all the Mayavada bashers out there).

 

I am not attacking Advaita, for all the Advaita groupies out there, but this statement seems absurd taken at face value. Whose duality ends when one attains moksha? Does everyone get moksha if one person gets it? If not, then the duality and experience of suffering remain for those who have not got moksha. If the argument is that there really is no duality then who is suffering, and is suffering real? If suffering is not real, then what about the experience of suffering? If the experience of suffering is not real, then where does the concept of compassion enter into it, since suffering is not real? If suffering is real, then non-liberated jIvas still get it while it ends for liberated jIvas, which makes the above statement illogical.

 

 

If I were a theist, I would be angered at a God for creating an unfair world, with the troubles in Congo, Iraq and countless other places. Especially more so, when you hear some idiots claiming this is all a "sport". I would tell them to stop speaking nonsense unless they are willing to get blinded and beg on the streets for the rest of their lives - all as part of the "sport". Or alternatively, we can take this sport angle seriously if the starving people of the world are also willing to call their suffering a sport.

 

The above is based on the mistaken premise that the world is "created" by God and that He is responsible for the suffering that takes place within it. This is certainly a problem for Abrahamic faiths. But as far as Vedanta is concerned, world is beginningless, karma is beginningless, etc so the issue of God's responsibility does not arise.

 

 

As an atheist, it is relatively easier to deal with the situation as there is no source and therefore no one to blame.

 

Cheers

 

This seems illogical. How does an atheist deal with the issue of suffering in the world? If he is angry at God and decides not to believe, does that not presuppose the idea that he does believe in God and just wants to make a show of defiance? Otherwise, who is he angry at? And if he truly does not believe in God, then why is no one to blame for the sufferings seen in this world? It would be most logical in such a situation to identify the most proximal cause of any atrocity (the Saddam Hussein and the Kurds, Hitler and the Jews, Islamic fundamentalists and India, etc) and blame them. In which case if an atheist wanted to really do something, he ought to fight all these blameworthy individuals instead of coming to forums like this and denouncing an imaginary God who could not possibly be responsible for any of it.

[kaisersose]

 

Why do you hold that Krishna "created" misery and suffering? This presupposes the idea that (1) these are created things with a definite beginning in time and (2) that they are "things" that can be created.

 

Creationism is the hallmark of Judeo-Christian religions. Some entities like the jIva-s, paramAtma, jagat, etc are not created but exist always. Misery is the absence of bliss and not a "created" thing as such.

OK…That works too. Suffering was either created or existed always. We will explore the latter a little bit.

 

 

1) Centuries of denouncing theism and finding meaning in life by humanitarian efforts divorced of belief in a higher power have not ended suffering in this world. On the contrary, we still have wars, poverty, starvation, ethnic cleansing, etc and no indication to suggest that it will stop anytime in the near future. This of course supports the point of view held by Hindus and Buddhists that suffering is a part of the nature of this world. Hence point #2:

 

Agreed.

 

 

2) People show compassion in different ways based on the assumptions they make about the reality of the world in which they live. On the premise that suffering is a part of existence in this world when separate from Sri Hari, a Vaishnava shows compassion by wanting to offer knowledge about Vishnu and the path to liberation to those who do not know about it. Needless to say, this compassion is not welcome by those who are inimical to the "sectarian" path of Vishnu-worship.

 

I don’t see the relevance, but no arguments here.

 

 

3) On the point about liberated souls being able to enjoy and yet feel for the suffering of those living in bondage: This is certainly an interesting point. I think all are agreed that the liberated jIva does not suffer as he is properly situated in his natural position as a servant of Vishnu. I am not certain if he forgets the suffering of those "left behind" or not, but I see no reason why he cannot still be compassionate for them and still be blissful in his service to Vishnu. I am of course speculating here.

 

This should certainly be the case if the world and the individual continue to exist after Liberation. As long as the world exists the way we know it now, pain & suffering exist too. And the only way the Liberated soul can be situated in a state of pure bliss is to either be unaware of this ongoing suffering or be aware, but completely detached (P1).

 

 

I am not attacking Advaita, for all the Advaita groupies out there, but this statement seems absurd taken at face value. Whose duality ends when one attains moksha? Does everyone get moksha if one person gets it? If not, then the duality and experience of suffering remain for those who have not got moksha. If the argument is that there really is no duality then who is suffering, and is suffering real?

 

The simple answer is, the Advaita concept of Liberation does not create situation P1 as explained above. And since they claim a blissful state on Liberation too , their concept of of bliss is less taxing on the brain than in P1.

 

 

If suffering is not real, then what about the experience of suffering? If the experience of suffering is not real, then where does the concept of compassion enter into it, since suffering is not real? If suffering is real, then non-liberated jIvas still get it while it ends for liberated jIvas, which makes the above statement illogical.

 

I don’t see how. On Liberation, it is Jagat Mithya. Not just from that point of time, but the whole concept of duality never existed. Like I said, it is a real end to pain and suffering, which is not necessarily the case when the world continues to exist even after Liberation.

 

Again, I am not advocating Advaita.

 

 

The above is based on the mistaken premise that the world is "created" by God and that He is responsible for the suffering that takes place within it. This is certainly a problem for Abrahamic faiths. But as far as Vedanta is concerned, world is beginningless, karma is beginningless, etc so the issue of God's responsibility does not arise.

 

And here is the problem. If we say God was not the creator and that he has no role in our daily lives, then he pretty much has no role at all!

 

The whole logic of seeking Liberation is called into question. Why should I seek Hari and Liberation? Anyway, nothing is going to change in my lifetime. And if I fail and am born again, then I have no recollection of the past anyway and so it does not matter (The slate is erased clean). That guy (my next life) does not know me nor my lofty goals nor the pain and sufferings that I see around me. He has no conceivable relation to me at all. Any pain & suffering he sees will be all new to him.

 

The point I am making is, if Krishna does not play a role in this very lifetime, then I fail to see the point of seeking Krishna (as Ranjeet was proposing earlier) for a time when I will have no recollection of this life and my reasons for seeking him.

 

 

This seems illogical. How does an atheist deal with the issue of suffering in the world? If he is angry at God and decides not to believe, does that not presuppose the idea that he does believe in God and just wants to make a show of defiance?

 

The atheist is not angry at God (you got that mixed up). That would be a paradox.

 

I said, if I were a theist, I would be angry. Because then, there is an all-mighty God and he is not lifting a finger to help, which is orthogonal to most people around us. We would all help to whatever extent we can. I would have a lot of questions about the validity of my beliefs, etc.

But as an atheist, since there is no one who can do anything about this (beyond us humans), the aforementioned problems no longer exist. This is the way things are and we do what we can to make them better and if not, we live with it. It is easier to do this, as there is no rationale behind our existence anyway.

 

Cheers

[jeffster]

Kaiserose, I think you may be just playing devil's advocate to get us fired up. Actually, I believe, from previous threads, that you are not actually an atheist, but more of a monist. God does play a role in our daily lives, and we need only read Gita to understand it. I forget the verses, but Krishna says He is the light of the sun and the moon, the taste of water, etc. We need sunlight for the heat and light of our existence and we need sun and moon to help crops grow for our very sustenance (sp?). We need water on a daily basis for our survival, also. So how can we not directly see the hand of God in our daily lives ? How can you possibly say "he is not lifting a finger to help," when, in fact, He certainly is, by maintaining (indirectly) this entire universe. If some soul is not receiving his due share of maintenance (starving kids in Africa, for example), than we can understand that they are lacking something in punya, or sukriti (piety), if you prefer, causing them to suffer some lack. Is that God's doing, that someone has committed some type of sinful activity and they are suffering because of it ? The blame must be placed squarely where it belongs, not on God, but on the errant jiva.

 

Of course, there are other verses for those who are really in denial about the supremacy of Krishna, and they are Gita 9:11-12, which state:

"Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be. Those who are thus bewildered are attracted by demonic and atheistic views. In that deluded condition, their hopes for liberation, their fruitive activities, and their culture of knowledge are all defeated."

Regards, jeffster/AMd

[kaisersose]

 

God does play a role in our daily lives, and we need only read Gita to understand it.

 

I was - and I believe Raghu was too - talking about God playing a role in the hunger of a child, etc.

 

The system of Karma is in place, dictating the course of one's life, which is also somehow in parallel being shaped by one's choices through free-will. This seems to be the general consensus among most people here.

 

In this collaboration of Karma and free-will, God is playing no role. Do you agree? Because if he can influence this in anyway, then he should be capable of playing a direct role in the child's hunger too.

 

 

How can you possibly say "he is not lifting a finger to help," when, in fact, He certainly is, by maintaining (indirectly) this entire universe.

 

This system is already in place. We are not arguing that. We are talking about suffering on the planet and God's role specific to that.

 

 

If some soul is not receiving his due share of maintenance (starving kids in Africa, for example), than we can understand that they are lacking something in punya, or sukriti (piety), if you prefer, causing them to suffer some lack. Is that God's doing, that someone has committed some type of sinful activity and they are suffering because of it ? The blame must be placed squarely where it belongs, not on God, but on the errant jiva.

 

I'll ask you again. Who created the concept of pain and suffering? Was it Krishna or was it not created?

 

If it is his creation, he is the cause of all misery.

If it is not his creation and it always existed, then in his capacity as the Supreme with umlimited power, he should certainly be able to put an end to that nonsense, dont you think?

 

Either way, if he exists, he is clearly endorsing suffering and looking on and therefore he takes the blame. To me, it is simply not acceptable that there is a Supreme God somewhere who is watching and not acting, when indescribable pain is inflicted on countless innocents on the planet. Past life Karma is a very unconvincing excuse. The way I see it, that guy in the past life was someone else. The child does not remember him and was in no way responsible for the other guy's misdeeds and should not suffer. Ironically, poverty is more a reason than anything else for someone to take to a sinful path and accrue more bad Karma. So I fail to see that as a correction method.

 

I think I have made my points and do not want to repeat myself. So I am done. But I will be reading your responses.

 

Cheers