The loss of a family member is an event, and an event cannot be overcome, only accepted. But I am assuming you meant to ask "how to overcome the grief of loosing your family in an earthquake?", which I will simplify to "how to overcome the grief of losing a loved one?" — Tzeentch

But that still means the grief exists. It's real. We wouldn't talk about "overcoming" a mere fiction. So in the context of this thread, the question is why is there grief in the first place? Why aren't people born perfect Buddhists?

I'd like to add that we are now talking about natural events, like earthquakes and death, which cannot be considering evil, which was the original topic. I don't mind the detour but I still wanted to acknowledge that. — Tzeentch

From the perspective of an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no natural events. Every event, and every consequence of every event, is intentional.

Not necessarily. Some methods of ‘stopping evil’ contribute greatly to suffering. War, for instance, does not ‘emit a good’. — Possibility

That's begging the question though. If war contributes greatly to suffering, is it "stopping evil"?

If the Great Nintendo exists and is good, why did he create Bowser, and why did he put those stars in such hard to reach places? — Mario

From the perspective of an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no natural events. Every event, and every consequence of every event, is intentional. — Echarmion

:chin: Arbitrary, yeah, but not necessarily deliberate ... (of course, "from a certain point of view" :smirk: ).

:chin: Arbitrary, yeah, but not necessarily deliberate ... (of course, "from a certain point of view" :smirk: ). — 180 Proof

We could debate the exact debarkation between intentional negligence and deliberate harm here, but for the purposes of theodicy, the distinction is moot.

But that still means the grief exists. It's real. We wouldn't talk about "overcoming" a mere fiction. — Echarmion

What the story about the child is supposed to illustrate is that grief and suffering are illusory in nature. When one stops thinking about them, they stop to exist.

Why aren't people born perfect Buddhists? — Echarmion

Who says they aren't?

From the perspective of an omniscient and omnipotent God, there are no natural events. Every event, and every consequence of every event, is intentional. — Echarmion

Terms like "omniscient", "omnibenevolent", "omnipotent", they are paradoxical in nature and make little sense to me. Though, I don't believe a "creator" necessarily needs to be any of those three things.

What the story about the child is supposed to illustrate is that grief and suffering are illusory in nature. When one stops thinking about them, they stop to exist. — Tzeentch

But the story doesn't illustrate that. The feelings the child has are real. So are the memories of the event.

Who says they aren't? — Tzeentch

I think the world would look very different if they were.

Terms like "omniscient", "omnibenevolent", "omnipotent", they are paradoxical in nature and make little sense to me. Though, I don't believe a "creator" necessarily needs to be any of those three things. — Tzeentch

I do agree with that. All three "omnis" are incoherent. Nevertheless, that's the Christian doctrine the "problem of evil addresses".

Not necessarily. Some methods of ‘stopping evil’ contribute greatly to suffering. War, for instance, does not ‘emit a good’.
— Possibility

That's begging the question though. If war contributes greatly to suffering, is it "stopping evil"? — Echarmion

No - and yet ‘stopping evil’ is so often presented as a reason to go to war, or to hate, isolate, exclude, ignore, or otherwise act in a way that may cause suffering - isn’t it? The point is, we assume that because our intention is to ‘stop evil’, that we are doing something ‘good’ by definition. It’s usually only after the fact that we acknowledge it wasn’t good, after all.

Free will theodicies depend on an incompatibilist conception of free will. On a compatibilist conception there is no reason God could not have determined the universe to be all good and also allowed for free will; in fact on some compatibilist conceptions like Susan Wolff’s or my own, free will is identical with responsiveness to moral reasoning, so making people free of will makes them more moral and the world a better place, not worse.

It’s seems that God could of simply removed the capacity for us to suffer without changing possible human behavior and thus preserving free will in a world with no suffering. For example, imagine that humans are still capable of sinning but no one will suffer because of the sin because no one has the capacity to suffer. A Christian might argue that suffering is sometimes beneficial but why would God not turn off the capacity to suffer in cases when it is clearly not beneficial.

A Christian might argue that suffering is sometimes beneficial but why would God not turn off the capacity to suffer in cases when it is clearly not beneficial. — TheHedoMinimalist

:wink: :up:

(Consistent with reality ravaged by gratuitous, pointless suffering, the JCI g/G is either a sadist or a fiction, no?)

1- mans evil is caused by his freedom not by god
2- natures evil is necessary for creation or part of gods higher plan

3- god helps stop evil sometimes if you pray.

4- god gives justice in the afterlife — OmniscientNihilist

5 - there is no evil from God's point of view

To briefly summarize this argument I will use an example my teacher gave me: would you rathe have a rock as a pet, who cannot move or sin, or a horse that can or will run away as a pet. The answer seems to be the horse, despite it's ability to sin, appears to be inherently more valuable because it has the free will to act, unlike the immobile rock. This is how humankind is, free to sin and yet more valuable due to said ability. Thus God allows us to have free will, knowing evil will happen as a result, because we are more valuable creatures for such a trait. — robbiefrost

This might just be my free will allowing me to disagree with god, but if I were god I would rather have the rock. As a god, one that I assume has a plan, I would rather put that plan into action in a way that is likely to succeed and not backfire. Adding unpredictable elements to my grand scheme would only add the unknown, eliminating a perceived advantage of being a god (to be all knowing). The only way I would prefer a horse over a rock is if the horse's free will was required for part of the plan.

If my plan requires that part of it may be evil, and I allow that willingly, am I good or evil?

Whether there can be love without attachment is a valid question, to which a Buddhist would answer in the affirmative. To explain how and why is perhaps better left to actual Buddhist teachers and not me.

To the question of how to deal with destructive forces, I would tend towards a "turn the other cheek" approach. The assumption is that all men are Good in essence, but are corrupted by their material existence. By giving the right example one may cause them to see the error of their ways. An "eye for an eye" or "fight fire with fire" approach are fundamentally flawed as solutions, though.

However, understanding attachment and the cause of suffering doesn't mean one may never act to preserve something, like in the act of self-defense. One would simply have to accept the suffering that may come along with such an act.

Lastly, I would disagree that loss or separation is the root cause of suffering, since without attachment there is no sense of loss or separation. — Tzeentch

Yes I agree that one can love without attachment, however what I ultimately meant is that if we aren’t attached to love and to life, destructive forces could destroy life and love, and then ultimately there wouldn’t be love anymore.

I agree that the approaches “an eye for an eye” and “fight fire with fire” are fundamentally flawed, but the approach “turn the other cheek” is only valid if as you say the assumption that all men are Good in essence is true, or to put it in another way if Good is necessarily more powerful than destructive forces, or if turning the other cheek necessarily leads destructive forces to eventually stop being destructive. But is that really true?

Rather I would say there are plenty of examples of people who have turned the other cheek and who were simply destroyed, and then we say that these people were too weak for this world. Turning the other cheek is not enough to stop destructive forces, Good needs to be strong as well, not wanting to hurt but not always turning the other cheek, Good needs to stand its ground and say no to destructive forces, in order for Good to spread.

And so to me the “being detached” and the “turning the other cheek” approaches miss an important part of the picture. Loving while being detached so as to never suffer makes love vulnerable to destructive forces. Loving while turning the other cheek also makes love vulnerable to destructive forces. In fact I would say in both cases one attempts to be detached from suffering, while not working on protecting love. Love doesn’t just need to be given, it also needs to be protected in order to not be destroyed.

And then while being completely detached allows to avoid suffering, that doesn’t imply that attachment is the root cause of suffering, because if there were no destructive forces then one wouldn’t need to be detached in order to avoid suffering. Rather, these destructive forces are the root cause of suffering, because if they weren’t there then there would be no loss or separation. Destructive forces aren’t only found within men, they are also found in Nature, but there are also forces in Nature that work to protect life. What if then the struggle between Good and destructive forces that plays out among men and among life also plays out in Nature? What if Nature is not moved by eternal Laws but by Wills that are in constant struggle, with one Will attempting to protect and spread life and another opposite Will attempting to destroy life? Cannot we make sense of everything by seeing things that way?