Why do innocent people suffer?

[Age]

Demonstrating God, and demonstrating that God EXISTS, is about of the most SIMPLEST and EASIEST things to do, that is; to one who is Truly OPEN.

However, to you CLOSED human beings who while either BELIEVING or DISBELIEVING God exists, it is an IMPOSSIBILITY to demonstrate God, and to demonstrate that God EXISTS.

No, seriously.

YES, SERIOUSLY.

And the Fact that NO one could REFUTE this CLAIM just PROVES the Truthfulness of it.

LOL We would even love to see 'you' TRY REFUTING this "iambiguous".

[Agent Smith]

1. Good people suffer
2. Good people enjoy
3. Bad people suffer
4. Bad people enjoy.

Sic vita est.

It's a tough nut to crack, this!

[Age]

1. Good people suffer
2. Good people enjoy
3. Bad people suffer
4. Bad people enjoy.

Sic vita est.

It's a tough nut to crack, this!

1. There are NO so-called 'good people'.
2. There are NO so-called 'bad people'.

ALL adult people, however, through human bodies, do SOME 'good' things, AND, do SOME 'bad' things.

If one considers that they are 'suffering' or 'enjoying', then that is ALL solely dependent upon the 'thoughts' and/or 'emotions', in 'that moment'.

What do the words 'sic vita est' mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

[Agent Smith]

1. Good people suffer
2. Good people enjoy
3. Bad people suffer
4. Bad people enjoy.

Sic vita est.

It's a tough nut to crack, this!

1. There are NO so-called 'good people'.
2. There are NO so-called 'bad people'.

ALL adult people, however, through human bodies, do SOME 'good' things, AND, do SOME 'bad' things.

If one considers that they are 'suffering' or 'enjoying', then that is ALL solely dependent upon the 'thoughts' and/or 'emotions', in 'that moment'.

What do the words 'sic vita est' mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

Well, if there are no good/bad people what is dattaswami babbling about?

[iambiguous]

Demonstrating God, and demonstrating that God EXISTS, is about of the most SIMPLEST and EASIEST things to do, that is; to one who is Truly OPEN.

However, to you CLOSED human beings who while either BELIEVING or DISBELIEVING God exists, it is an IMPOSSIBILITY to demonstrate God, and to demonstrate that God EXISTS.

No, seriously.

YES, SERIOUSLY.

And the Fact that NO one could REFUTE this CLAIM just PROVES the Truthfulness of it.

LOL We would even love to see 'you' TRY REFUTING this "iambiguous".

It is truly demoralizing that innocent people here are made to suffer when those like you come to a philosophy forum and turn it into a...a freak show?

In my own personal opinion, there is clearly something amiss in that brain of yours. Though, sure, it may well be "beyond your control".

Still, it's comforting to know that no one here is actually required to read your posts. Imagine the suffering that would entail!!!



On the other hand...

Perhaps it's just me. Is there anyone at all here who can note points that Age raised/raises that are, indeed, worthy of perusal on in a philosophy forum derived from a publication like Philosophy Now?

[Lacewing]

And the Fact that NO one could REFUTE this CLAIM just PROVES the Truthfulness of it.

There's some logic for you!

Nobody can refute the claim that monkeys fly around the moon, so that proves the Truthfulness of it.

Yes, let's all spend time and energy refuting every dumbass bit of nonsense that Age comes up with! Otherwise, he'll claim it's the truth... as if anyone fucking cares about the latest delusion he's under.

It is truly demoralizing that innocent people here are made to suffer when those like you come to a philosophy forum and turn it into a...a freak show?

In my own personal opinion, there is clearly something amiss in that brain of yours. Though, sure, it may well be "beyond your control".

It's an excessive amount of deranged garbage. I believe Age once said he was or is locked up somewhere... but if not, he should be.

The signs of mental distortion were visible back when he posted on the forum under the name 'Ken'. Then Ken vanished and Age emerged... and Age was a whole new level of mental distortion. Something must have happened during that transition. Maybe some kind of shock treatment? That might explain the increased delusions of knowing what others do not, emanating from his new persona. It's fucking ridiculous.

And yes, I agree, he trashes this environment with his continual psychotic questions that have nothing to do with the point or greater meaning of people's communication. Why should anyone be allowed to abuse forum membership in such a way, by treating it as their own psychotic diary? I say: Go buy a fucking book and write in it -- don't subject everyone to every one of your crazy distorted projections and babblings. Most of us know how to maintain this balance.

[Age]

1. Good people suffer
2. Good people enjoy
3. Bad people suffer
4. Bad people enjoy.

Sic vita est.

It's a tough nut to crack, this!

1. There are NO so-called 'good people'.
2. There are NO so-called 'bad people'.

ALL adult people, however, through human bodies, do SOME 'good' things, AND, do SOME 'bad' things.

If one considers that they are 'suffering' or 'enjoying', then that is ALL solely dependent upon the 'thoughts' and/or 'emotions', in 'that moment'.

What do the words 'sic vita est' mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

Well, if there are no good/bad people what is dattaswami babbling about?

Just what 'it' has been TOLD and which 'it' now, unfortunately, BELIEVES is the Truth.

[Agent Smith]

1. There are NO so-called 'good people'.
2. There are NO so-called 'bad people'.

ALL adult people, however, through human bodies, do SOME 'good' things, AND, do SOME 'bad' things.

If one considers that they are 'suffering' or 'enjoying', then that is ALL solely dependent upon the 'thoughts' and/or 'emotions', in 'that moment'.

What do the words 'sic vita est' mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

Well, if there are no good/bad people what is dattaswami babbling about?

Just what 'it' has been TOLD and which 'it' now, unfortunately, BELIEVES is the Truth.

Dattaswami isn't just rattling off his beliefs now is he?

[Agent Smith]

1. There are NO so-called 'good people'.
2. There are NO so-called 'bad people'.

ALL adult people, however, through human bodies, do SOME 'good' things, AND, do SOME 'bad' things.

If one considers that they are 'suffering' or 'enjoying', then that is ALL solely dependent upon the 'thoughts' and/or 'emotions', in 'that moment'.

What do the words 'sic vita est' mean or refer to, to you, EXACTLY?

Well, if there are no good/bad people what is dattaswami babbling about?

Just what 'it' has been TOLD and which 'it' now, unfortunately, BELIEVES is the Truth.

Dattaswami isn't just rattling off his beliefs now is he?

[Age]

No, seriously.

YES, SERIOUSLY.

And the Fact that NO one could REFUTE this CLAIM just PROVES the Truthfulness of it.

LOL We would even love to see 'you' TRY REFUTING this "iambiguous".

It is truly demoralizing that innocent people here are made to suffer when those like you come to a philosophy forum and turn it into a...a freak show?

Just LOOK AT the ACTUAL WORDS in this STATEMENT and CLAIM here.

Now, I will SHOW and PROVE WHY they PROVIDE such a Truly DISTORTED VIEW of things here, but YET this one will CLAIM that I am the so-called 'FREAK' here.

"It is truly demoralizing that 'innocent people here",

There are NO so-called 'innocent people here'. This can be SHOWN and PROVED by just ASKING the QUESTION for CLARIFICATION like, for example, 'Who are so-called 'innocent people', EXACTLY? Now, although you WILL NOT PROVIDE absolute CLARITY on 'this' will you AT LEAST EXPLAIN where 'here' IS, EXACTLY?

"are made to suffer", Now, HOW EXACTLY are these so-called 'innocent people' being MADE to so-call 'suffer'? And, WHO, EXACTLY, is MAKING 'those so-called 'innocent people' 'suffer'? Also, in WHAT WAY are those so-called 'innocent people', allegedly and supposedly, 'suffering', EXACTLY?

"when those like you", 'Who and/or what are 'those' like me", In other words WHO and/or WHAT is 'me', EXACTLY?

"come to a philosophy forum and turn it into a ... a freak show?" HOW, EXACTLY, am I, supposedly and allegedly, turned this philosophy forum into a so-called 'freak show'? And, am I the ONLY one who has turned this philosophy forum into a 'freak show'? WHY do you have a question mark at the end of that STATEMENT and CLAIM of YOURS here?

Now, through 'philosophical discussions' one WOULD CLARIFY "themselves" by EXPLAINING what they ACTUALLY MEAN, so that "others" can become WISER. YET here you WILL PROVE your ABSOLUTE INABILITY to HAVE a Truly 'philosophical discussion'. Instead what you WILL DO is LAUGH 'me' OFF, as though it is I who is the one WITH a 'condition' here who has RUINED this WHOLE philosophy forum all by "myself".

AND, you WILL DO this WITHOUT even RECOGNIZING that PROPER 'philosophical discussions' NEEDS the one who made the CLAIM to have the PROOF to back up and support their CLAIMS.

In my own personal opinion, there is clearly something amiss in that brain of yours. Though, sure, it may well be "beyond your control".

ONCE AGAIN, I WILL PROVE that it is the one here known as 'iambiguous' WHO is NOT YET ABLE TO EXPLAIN and CLARIFY "itself" here.

When 'you', "iambiguous", SAY and CLAIM there is some 'thing' clearly amiss in that brain of 'mine', then WHO and/or WHAT am 'i' that, allegedly and supposedly, have 'its' OWN brain?

Also, and 'it' would be the SAME one, but WHO and/or WHAT am 'i' that, allegedly and supposedly, that 'that miss' may well be beyond control of?

What WILL BE PROVED is that this one STILL has absolutely NO idea AT ALL of WHO nor WHAT 'it', 'i', NOR 'I' AM, EXACTLY.

Also, NO one disputes that what 'you' SEE here is, OF COURSE, 'your' OWN personal opinion, but BECAUSE of WHO and WHAT 'you' ARE EXACTLY, the reason WHY this is what 'you' SEE is ALREADY FULLY UNDERSTOOD and KNOWN by 'us'. That is; WHY this one SEES and has such a Truly DISTORTED VIEW is BECAUSE NO one has TAUGHT 'it' what thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth IS, YET.

Furthermore, 'its' ATTEMPT to just RIDICULE the "other" to 'try to' make "itself", and "others", look MORE 'stable and sane' WILL NEVER REALLY WORK, although that 'misbehavior' does FOOL some of the people, some of the time.

Still, it's comforting to know that no one here is actually required to read your posts.

Well this is what I KEEP INFORMING 'you', people, here. So, it is GOOD to SEE that my INFORMATION IS comforting 'you' here "iambiguous".

Imagine the suffering that would entail!!!

It is this type of EMOTIVE TALK and ATTEMPT AT RIDICULE of the "other" how these adult people used to REALLY talk like, and worse still they used to actually think and/or BELIEVE that 'this' is what 'philosophical discussions' are about and how discussions in philosophy forums are meant to be. And YET it was 'me' who turned this WHOLE 'philosophy forum' into a 'freak show'.

On the other hand...

Perhaps it's just me. Is there anyone at all here who can note points that Age raised/raises that are, indeed, worthy of perusal on in a philosophy forum derived from a publication like Philosophy Now?

GREAT, and FINALLY, we get a question worthy of LOOKING AT and DISCUSSING here.

So, now we just WAIT to SEE if absolutely ANY one on this forum can note ANY point that i have raised or raise that is, indeed, to them worthy of perusal on, in a philosophy forum, ONLY (for some reason) from A PUBLICATION like philosophy now.

So, if NO one can note absolutely ANY thing. Then this PROVES there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING right?

BUT, what the points they raised or raise WILL BE NOTEWORTHY, and to PROVE this "IRREFUTABLY true" all we need to do is just ask 'them', personally.

By the way, these adult human beings who constantly talk ABOUT "others" did NOT see constantly talking ABOUT "others", in a philosophy forum, as a 'problematic behavior' AT ALL.

[Age]

And the Fact that NO one could REFUTE this CLAIM just PROVES the Truthfulness of it.

There's some logic for you!

And here is someone who CLAIMS to NOT want to read my words NOR engage with me, but YET WILL, VERY QUICKLY, JUMP IN when 'it' BELIEVES that 'it' KNOWS what 'it' is talking about and COULD refute what I have SAID. But, what this one does NOT YET KNOW IS what I have ACTUALLY SAID and MEANT.

See, it just constantly JUMPS IN based on 'its' OWN Wrong ASSUMPTIONS and/or BELIEFS.

Nobody can refute the claim that monkeys fly around the moon, so that proves the Truthfulness of it.

1. This can be VERY EASILY and VERY SIMPLY REFUTED.
a) One just needs to define the 'monkey' word.
b) While describing what 'monkeys' are capable of, EXACTLY.
c) Work out where the moon is, EXACTLY.
d) Word out if that statement and claim is IRREFUTABLY True or NOT.

So, "lacewing's" so-called 'logic' is has just PROVED True is Truly ILLOGICAL.

Oh, and by the way, thee Truth IS 'monkeys' CAN fly around the moon. Which is ANOTHER ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth. Thus, another Truth NO one could REFUTE.

Yes, let's all spend time and energy refuting every dumbass bit of nonsense that Age comes up with!

LOL Here is MORE IRREFUTABLE PROOF that this one does NOT LISTEN.

I CLEARLY SAID that NO one could REFUTE. Which, OBVIOUSLY, MEANS it WOULD BE and ACTUALLY IS a COMPLETE 'waste of time and energy' to even 'TRY TO' REFUTE.

'you', "lacewing", REALLY DO NEED TO LISTEN MORE. That is; IF you do NOT want to be SO Wrong, AS OFTEN, as you are CLEARLY SHOWING and PROVING here.

Otherwise, he'll claim it's the truth... as if anyone fucking cares about the latest delusion he's under.

LOL Do 'you' REALLY think or BELIEVE that absolutely ANY one cares about ANY of the DELUSIONS that 'you' are UNDER "lacewing"?

It is truly demoralizing that innocent people here are made to suffer when those like you come to a philosophy forum and turn it into a...a freak show?

In my own personal opinion, there is clearly something amiss in that brain of yours. Though, sure, it may well be "beyond your control".

It's an excessive amount of deranged garbage. I believe Age once said he was or is locked up somewhere... but if not, he should be.

Here is a PRIME EXAMPLE of one who LETS the BELIEFS within INFLUENCE 'them' ABSOLUTELY.

The signs of mental distortion were visible back when he posted on the forum under the name 'Ken'. Then Ken vanished and Age emerged... and Age was a whole new level of mental distortion. Something must have happened during that transition. Maybe some kind of shock treatment? That might explain the increased delusions of knowing what others do not, emanating from his new persona. It's fucking ridiculous.

LOL 'YOUR' CLEARLY DELUSIONAL thinking here "lacewing" is Truly RIDICULOUS.

And the AMOUNT of time and energy SPEND ON 'me' is Truly AMAZING, as well as Truly RIDICULOUS. BUT, they DO CONTINUE.

And yes, I agree, he trashes this environment with his continual psychotic questions that have nothing to do with the point or greater meaning of people's communication.

LOL

you STILL can NOT YET SEE that MY QUESTIONING and CHALLENGING goes WAY BEYOND the VERY ARTIFICIAL and SUPERFICIAL 'level' that what you TALK ABOUT, which, by the way, IS CLEARLY SEEN and IS VERY WELL UNDERSTOOD.

Why should anyone be allowed to abuse forum membership in such a way, by treating it as their own psychotic diary?

WHY should posters RUIN philosophiical discussions, in a philosophy forum, by continually talking ABOUT "others", while 'TRYING TO' RIDICULE and/or HUMILIATE 'them' through and by ad hominen ATTACKS.

WHY NOT just concentrate AND discuss THE WORDS ALONE?

I say: Go buy a fucking book and write in it -- don't subject everyone to every one of your crazy distorted projections and babblings. Most of us know how to maintain this balance.

I ask, WHY do 'you', people, LOVE or HATE 'me' SO MUCH that 'you' SEE FIT to SPEND SO MUCH of 'your' 'time AND energy' ON 'me'?

Does it have ANY thing to do with the Fact that I have, on MANY OCCASIONS, been ABLE TO PROVE 'your' CLAIMS False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, and RARELY, if EVER, 'you' have FAILED to do the SAME back? Or, for some OTHER reason?

[Age]

Well, if there are no good/bad people what is dattaswami babbling about?

Just what 'it' has been TOLD and which 'it' now, unfortunately, BELIEVES is the Truth.

Dattaswami isn't just rattling off his beliefs now is he?

"dattaswami" is 'rattling off' the BELIEFS of "others" as well, which have been passed on and into "dattaswami".

[dattaswami]

AND, according to YOUR so-called "logic" "dattaswami", the human being who had their pursed snatched MUST OF BEEN a so-called 'bad person' from 'sins' committed in some so-called 'previous life', correct?

If no, then WHY NOT, now?

This has been what you have BEEN CLAIMING, up to 'now'.

There are 2 possibliities. If somebody harmed you now it means you would have harmed him in the previous birth and the present incident is a tit for tat.

In the second case that person is harming you for the first time. In such case also you have to leave revenge to God since God will certainly going to punish him and also He will compensate you for your loss. If you burn with revenge then you will also be punished for your such attitude. If you leave everything to God and be peaceful and patient then God will take care of the case and you will be compensated for your patience also. God will give some time for your enemy to change. Even during that your enemy is not changing then God is any way going to punish him or her. Reformation of the soul is the aim of God and not vengeance.

[dattaswami]

So, it is possible to harm good people? One can be harmed and not have a lesson to learn involved or as punishment.

In this world full free will is given to all the people. When you are walking on the road a theif can come from behind and snatch your purse..It is quite possible...

But if you suffer this, you needed punishment for your past sins. YOu may be a good person in general, but you deserved some kind of punishment, here around money

Punishment is not for revenge or vengeance. God punishes you not with anger or vengeance with love and care He punishes. You refromation is His aim. If you realize, repent and do not repeat any sins from today onwards till your death all your past sins also will be forgiven by God. This is the promise of God to you.

[dattaswami]

So, IF I stop at a red traffic light and/or help the older lady cross the road, then I will NEVER be hit by any tidal wave NOR any volcano, correct?

If no, then WHY NOT?

Also, for HOW LONG does one HAVE TO follow so-called 'justice' in this world BEFORE they are killed or damaged by a NON human being NATURAL event?

Or, can ANY brand new born human being be KILLED or HARMED by a NON human being NATURAL event? Or, is it ONLY the ones that have so-called 'sinned' in so-called 'previous lives' WHERE and WHEN the brand new born human beings who are KILLED or MAIMED because of one of the MANY NON human being NATURAL events?

By the way HOW are you DEFINING the 'justice' word here?

From the nature of punishment you can infer the bad sinful deeds committed by that soul. Some people pose themselves as very pure and say they have not done any sins in this life. Some other say had God given them the list of sins done by them in the previous birth for the present suffering they are undergoing then they would have stopped that sin.

You are putting this suggestion to God forgetting the human psychology. Even if the flashback is created in them by God, some of the human beings will interpret their sins as good actions only and those were misunderstood by God as sins. Some others think that their sin was small and the punishment is unnecessarily big. Knowing this human psychology God stopped giving the flashback.

Such a human psychology will never give them a chance to realize and develop towards the path of justice. When the punishment is given, you should immediately infer to an equivalent sin committed by you in the past. Then only, you are the real devotee accepting God as the best judge. Therefore, a real devotee never expresses even a trace of criticism on God even in the dream.

When Sita was sent to forest, she thought that Rama will not do injustice to anybody and the punishment given to her must have been due to some unknown sin done in the previous birth (Mamaiva Janmaantara Patakaanaam—Raghuvamsha). In fact, we forget the sins done by us in this very birth itself since we do sins and misinterpret those sins as good actions.

We always get convinced and such conviction is the reason for our forgetfulness. Lack of right analysis is the reason for such misinterpretation. Sometimes, we know the sins as sins, but we misinterpret them as good actions due to the power of our perverted intelligence. Hence, such misunderstanding of our own actions is the reason for such unwise thoughts. A real devotee never blames God in any of His actions but waits patiently to get his doubts clarified from a Divine Preacher.

Sita represented an ordinary human being, who forgets the sins done in past in this birth itself and thinks that the sins might have been done in the previous birth since he or she is very pure in this birth. Sita committed the sin of criticizing God by insulting Rama several times in the past life of this birth itself.

For example, when Rama refused to take Sita along with Him to the forest, Sita insulted Rama by saying that Rama is a woman in the form of a man, who fears to protect her in the forest (Striyam Purushavigraham – Ramayana). Even according to Pravritti, the wife should not comment on her husband like this. Now, Rama sends her alone to the forest since she suspected Him inefficient to protect her.

In fact, the fruits of actions done in this birth only give the results in this birth. Only the qualities come from the previous birth, which provoke the aims according to their nature that are responsible for the present actions. In this way, the previous birth makes an indirect contribution. The direct contribution is in only from the aims and actions done in this birth only.
----------------