₦airaland Forum

Is It Justifiable That We Have to Suffer Because of an Issue Between God and Satan?

By Benjamin G

When you strip away religious jargon and look at this question with basic common sense, the answer is simple: No, it isn’t justifiable at all.
When you break it down using everyday logic, justice, history, and simple human empathy, the entire idea that we are suffering because of a cosmic debate completely falls apart.

Think about what it means to be a father. If a father has the power to save his children from suffering, disease, pain and death, you would expect him to act. He would not sit back and allow his children to suffer for thousands of years simply because he wanted to prove someone else wrong.

If a human father did that, would we call him loving and merciful?

Yet this is essentially the explanation we are given for why the God of the Bible has allowed human suffering. Christianity (Especially Jehovah's witnesses) teaches that Satan challenged God's right to rule and that God allowed time to pass so that Satan's claims could be proven false. The Bible's account of Job does show Satan challenging the motives of humans and God allowing Satan to test Job. Satan argued that Job served God only because God protected and blessed him, and God permitted the test.

But that creates a serious moral question.

Why should billions of human beings have to suffer because of an issue between the God of the Bible and Satan?

Imagine a father whose children are being harmed by someone who has rebelled against him. If that father has the power to remove the person responsible, but instead allows his children to continue suffering for generations just to prove that the rebel is wrong, would we consider that the behavior of a loving father?

Now look at how the biblical stories handle the supposed source of the problem.

Adam and Eve were deceived by Satan. They eventually died, but Satan remained alive. The Bible later describes Satan as the one who deceives the whole world, and says that the whole world is under the control of the wicked one.

During Noah's time, humanity became extremely corrupt and the God of the Bible used a flood to destroy humanity, but Satan, the one presented in the Bible as the great deceiver and influence behind human rebellion, was not destroyed. Humanity suffered and died, while the alleged source of the problem remained alive.

The same pattern appears again with Sodom and Gomorrah. The people were destroyed, but Satan was still alive. So if Satan was the supernatural being responsible for deceiving and influencing humanity, why repeatedly destroy humans while leaving the one who supposedly caused the rebellion alive?

That is difficult for me to reconcile with the idea of a loving Father.

And then there is the question of inherited suffering.

Why should I suffer because of something Adam and Eve supposedly did thousands of years before I was born?

I was not in Eden.

I did not eat the fruit.

I did not make a decision to rebel against the God of the Bible.

I never agreed to participate in a dispute between the God of the Bible and Satan.

Yet according to the biblical explanation, I am born into a world where I inherit sin, suffering and death because of what happened before I existed.

The Bible itself contains passages emphasizing individual responsibility. Deuteronomy 24:16 says that children should not be put to death for their fathers, while Ezekiel 18:20 says that the child will not bear the guilt of the parent. At the same time, Romans 5 presents Adam's sin as the reason sin and death entered humanity. That creates a serious question about how inherited consequences fit with the Bible's own emphasis on individual responsibility.

And this is not even where the questions stop.

When you study the history of the Bible, you discover that many of its stories are not unique to the Bible. Ancient Mesopotamian civilizations had much older flood traditions. The Atrahasis Epic and the Gilgamesh tradition contain striking parallels with the biblical Flood story, including divine decisions to destroy humanity, a chosen man being warned, the construction of a vessel, survival through the flood and the beginning of a new era afterward. Scholars have extensively studied these parallels and the relationship between the Mesopotamian traditions and Genesis.

That does not automatically prove that the Bible simply copied another story. But it does show that the biblical Flood exists within a much older world of Ancient Near Eastern flood traditions.

The same applies to creation and other biblical stories. The Bible emerged within an ancient Near Eastern world that already had its own creation traditions, flood stories, gods, temples and explanations for human existence.

So when someone tells me that the Bible is the only explanation for why humans suffer, I have to ask why.

Humans have always tried to explain suffering, death, natural disasters and the world around them. Different civilizations developed different religious explanations for these things. The existence of suffering does not automatically prove that the biblical explanation is true.

There is also a practical side to this.

If someone is constantly taught that this world is temporary, that suffering is unavoidable because of Satan's rebellion, and that the Biblical God's Kingdom will soon come and fix everything, what happens when that belief begins to influence the way they approach life?

Does it encourage them to build the best life they can now, or can it make them more willing to simply accept hardship because they believe the present world does not really matter?

Life does not need a supernatural explanation every time something goes wrong. Human suffering can be explained by many real-world factors: genetics, disease, environment, family circumstances, poverty, education, economics, politics, geography, human decisions, natural disasters, luck and circumstances outside our control.

Nature does not distribute suffering according to whether someone deserves it.

A child can be born into poverty while another is born into wealth.

One person can grow up surrounded by education and opportunities while another grows up in an environment where those opportunities barely exist.

Someone can make good decisions and still experience terrible circumstances.

Someone else can make terrible decisions and still become wealthy or successful.

That is simply part of the reality we live in.

And this is why I have a problem with the idea that my suffering is fundamentally because of a dispute between the God of the Bible and Satan.

I don't see evidence that my suffering is some personal consequence of a supernatural courtroom case that I agreed to participate in.

I see human beings living within nature, society, history and circumstances that existed long before them.

European missionary movements played a major role in the expansion of Christianity in Nigeria during the nineteenth century, although African converts, evangelists and institutions also played major roles in that process.

But regardless of where Christianity came from or who spread it, the bigger question remains:

What are we actually going to do with the life we have?

If we want a better life, we have to set goals, acquire useful skills, plan ahead, build financial stability, invest in education, improve our environment and make the best decisions we can with the circumstances available to us.

Waiting for a future paradise should not stop anyone from trying to improve their life today.

So when I am asked:

“Is it justifiable that I have to suffer because there is an issue between the God and Satan?”

My answer is simple:

No.

If the God of the Bible is truly love, merciful and our Father, then I cannot simply accept that billions of innocent human beings must suffer for thousands of years because he needed to settle an argument with Satan.

If the God of the Bible had the power to destroy Satan but chose instead to allow generations of humans to suffer while Satan remained active, then we are entitled to question whether that explanation is actually consistent with the qualities of love, mercy and fatherhood that the Bible says God possesses.

And if the answer is that the God of the Bible had no other way to settle the issue, then that raises another question:

What does that say about the limits of God's power?

These are not questions you should be afraid to ask.

They are exactly the questions that should be asked when we are told to accept suffering as part of a divine plan.

gbolaben:
They are exactly the questions that should be asked when we are told to accept suffering as part of a divine plan.

Suffering was never God's plan!

gbolaben:
Is It Justifiable That We Have to Suffer Because of an Issue Between God and Satan?

By Benjamin G

When you strip away religious jargon and look at this question with basic common sense, the answer is simple: No, it isn’t justifiable at all.
When you break it down using everyday logic, justice, history, and simple human empathy, the entire idea that we are suffering because of a cosmic debate completely falls apart.

Think about what it means to be a father. If a father has the power to save his children from suffering, disease, pain and death, you would expect him to act. He would not sit back and allow his children to suffer for thousands of years simply because he wanted to prove someone else wrong.

If a human father did that, would we call him loving and merciful?

Yet this is essentially the explanation we are given for why the God of the Bible has allowed human suffering. Christianity (Especially Jehovah's witnesses) teaches that Satan challenged God's right to rule and that God allowed time to pass so that Satan's claims could be proven false. The Bible's account of Job does show Satan challenging the motives of humans and God allowing Satan to test Job. Satan argued that Job served God only because God protected and blessed him, and God permitted the test.

But that creates a serious moral question.

Why should billions of human beings have to suffer because of an issue between the God of the Bible and Satan?

Imagine a father whose children are being harmed by someone who has rebelled against him. If that father has the power to remove the person responsible, but instead allows his children to continue suffering for generations just to prove that the rebel is wrong, would we consider that the behavior of a loving father?

Now look at how the biblical stories handle the supposed source of the problem.

Adam and Eve were deceived by Satan. They eventually died, but Satan remained alive. The Bible later describes Satan as the one who deceives the whole world, and says that the whole world is under the control of the wicked one.

During Noah's time, humanity became extremely corrupt and the God of the Bible used a flood to destroy humanity, but Satan, the one presented in the Bible as the great deceiver and influence behind human rebellion, was not destroyed. Humanity suffered and died, while the alleged source of the problem remained alive.

The same pattern appears again with Sodom and Gomorrah. The people were destroyed, but Satan was still alive. So if Satan was the supernatural being responsible for deceiving and influencing humanity, why repeatedly destroy humans while leaving the one who supposedly caused the rebellion alive?

That is difficult for me to reconcile with the idea of a loving Father.

And then there is the question of inherited suffering.

Why should I suffer because of something Adam and Eve supposedly did thousands of years before I was born?

I was not in Eden.

I did not eat the fruit.

I did not make a decision to rebel against the God of the Bible.

I never agreed to participate in a dispute between the God of the Bible and Satan.

Yet according to the biblical explanation, I am born into a world where I inherit sin, suffering and death because of what happened before I existed.

The Bible itself contains passages emphasizing individual responsibility. Deuteronomy 24:16 says that children should not be put to death for their fathers, while Ezekiel 18:20 says that the child will not bear the guilt of the parent. At the same time, Romans 5 presents Adam's sin as the reason sin and death entered humanity. That creates a serious question about how inherited consequences fit with the Bible's own emphasis on individual responsibility.

And this is not even where the questions stop.

When you study the history of the Bible, you discover that many of its stories are not unique to the Bible. Ancient Mesopotamian civilizations had much older flood traditions. The Atrahasis Epic and the Gilgamesh tradition contain striking parallels with the biblical Flood story, including divine decisions to destroy humanity, a chosen man being warned, the construction of a vessel, survival through the flood and the beginning of a new era afterward. Scholars have extensively studied these parallels and the relationship between the Mesopotamian traditions and Genesis.

That does not automatically prove that the Bible simply copied another story. But it does show that the biblical Flood exists within a much older world of Ancient Near Eastern flood traditions.

The same applies to creation and other biblical stories. The Bible emerged within an ancient Near Eastern world that already had its own creation traditions, flood stories, gods, temples and explanations for human existence.

So when someone tells me that the Bible is the only explanation for why humans suffer, I have to ask why.

Humans have always tried to explain suffering, death, natural disasters and the world around them. Different civilizations developed different religious explanations for these things. The existence of suffering does not automatically prove that the biblical explanation is true.

There is also a practical side to this.

If someone is constantly taught that this world is temporary, that suffering is unavoidable because of Satan's rebellion, and that the Biblical God's Kingdom will soon come and fix everything, what happens when that belief begins to influence the way they approach life?

Does it encourage them to build the best life they can now, or can it make them more willing to simply accept hardship because they believe the present world does not really matter?

Life does not need a supernatural explanation every time something goes wrong. Human suffering can be explained by many real-world factors: genetics, disease, environment, family circumstances, poverty, education, economics, politics, geography, human decisions, natural disasters, luck and circumstances outside our control.

Nature does not distribute suffering according to whether someone deserves it.

A child can be born into poverty while another is born into wealth.

One person can grow up surrounded by education and opportunities while another grows up in an environment where those opportunities barely exist.

Someone can make good decisions and still experience terrible circumstances.

Someone else can make terrible decisions and still become wealthy or successful.

That is simply part of the reality we live in.

And this is why I have a problem with the idea that my suffering is fundamentally because of a dispute between the God of the Bible and Satan.

I don't see evidence that my suffering is some personal consequence of a supernatural courtroom case that I agreed to participate in.

I see human beings living within nature, society, history and circumstances that existed long before them.

European missionary movements played a major role in the expansion of Christianity in Nigeria during the nineteenth century, although African converts, evangelists and institutions also played major roles in that process.

But regardless of where Christianity came from or who spread it, the bigger question remains:

What are we actually going to do with the life we have?

If we want a better life, we have to set goals, acquire useful skills, plan ahead, build financial stability, invest in education, improve our environment and make the best decisions we can with the circumstances available to us.

Waiting for a future paradise should not stop anyone from trying to improve their life today.

So when I am asked:

“Is it justifiable that I have to suffer because there is an issue between the God and Satan?”

My answer is simple:

No.

If the God of the Bible is truly love, merciful and our Father, then I cannot simply accept that billions of innocent human beings must suffer for thousands of years because he needed to settle an argument with Satan.

If the God of the Bible had the power to destroy Satan but chose instead to allow generations of humans to suffer while Satan remained active, then we are entitled to question whether that explanation is actually consistent with the qualities of love, mercy and fatherhood that the Bible says God possesses.

And if the answer is that the God of the Bible had no other way to settle the issue, then that raises another question:

What does that say about the limits of God's power?

These are not questions you should be afraid to ask.

They are exactly the questions that should be asked when we are told to accept suffering as part of a divine plan.

interesting write up. Your statement below in bold caught my attention.

"Does it encourage them to build the best life they can now, or can it make them more willing to simply accept hardship because they believe the present world does not really matter?"

If your view of humans making the best decision means they building the best life now, don't you think it would be worth asking where suffering and death came from? Why do you have to live the best life now only for you to later die, what purpose would that serve?

gbolaben:
Is It Justifiable That We Have to Suffer Because of an Issue Between God and Satan?

By Benjamin G

When you strip away religious jargon and look at this question with basic common sense, the answer is simple: No, it isn’t justifiable at all.
When you break it down using everyday logic, justice, history, and simple human empathy, the entire idea that we are suffering because of a cosmic debate completely falls apart.

See what you are using to deceive yourself. Who told you that it is an argument that is causing your suffering?

How do you expect not to suffer when you cause other people to suffer?

Do you have empathy for your fellowman? No.

Therefore, your suffering is justified.

The issue is coming from half knowledge copied into the Bible. Recall that story was not a Christian story, it was from another religion which the folks who formed Christianity decided to copy.


Mankind called the space beings who came to earth "God".

The story of Lucifer and God is an account of disagreement between one of them (Lucifer) and the King who the Israelis referred to as God.

Before that disagreement, conditions for suffering is already in place. A dead give-away is that the world was already one of duality where if a liquid existed ("water covering earth" ), then there must be a solid.

So if you keep building this dual relationships like liquid/solid, pain/joy, sickness/health, mountain/valley, enemy/friend, etc. You find that they self-explain that suffering/joy, fight/reconciliation already existed and the quarrel between 'God/Satan' did not commence it.


All existed before their fight, and they are not the only advanced beings in the universe. There are others more majestic and God-like than those who made men in their image and likeness.

Again,that they fought and got tempted in the first place-means temptation, jealousy, etc already exists, this is why they could experience it and have a fight or issues with one another. More so, what is the guarantee that was not the first time?

Dtruthspeaker:
See what you are using to deceive yourself. Who told you that it is an argument that is causing your suffering?

How do you expect not to suffer when you cause other people to suffer?

Do you have empathy for your fellowman? No.

Therefore, your suffering is justified.

How does a newborn baby born with a terminal illness cause anyone else to suffer? How does an honest person wiped out by a tsunami lack empathy?
Saying "your suffering is justified" completely ignores the millions of innocent people who face hardship every single day through no fault of their own.

If you had actually read the article carefully, you would realize my point was addressing mainstream Christian theology and institutional teachings. According to those doctrines, Satan challenged God's right to rule, a concept clearly illustrated in the Bible's account of Job. In that story, Satan claimed Job only served God because of his blessings, so God allowed Satan to strip away Job's wealth, kill his children, and afflict his body with painful sores just to prove Satan wrong.

That is the exact point of the article: the teaching that God permits widespread human agony across generations simply to settle a cosmic challenge or win an argument against the devil.

And If you truly believe that millions of innocent people deserve to suffer to prove a point in a cosmic dispute, then we have very different definitions of justice and empathy. My focus is on real-world compassion, taking responsibility, and treating people right, not justifying human pain through a divine court case.

Truthseeker10:
interesting write up. Your statement below in bold caught my attention.

"Does it encourage them to build the best life they can now, or can it make them more willing to simply accept hardship because they believe the present world does not really matter?"

If your view of humans making the best decision means they building the best life now, don't you think it would be worth asking where suffering and death came from? Why do you have to live the best life now only for you to later die, what purpose would that serve?

You ask what purpose it serves to build a good life if we eventually die. Turn that question around: what purpose does it serve to accept avoidable poverty, poor health, or hardship today while waiting for a divine fix that never comes in your lifetime?

Humans don't need a guarantee of physical immortality for their choices to have meaning. Building a good life now means educating yourself, staying healthy, securing your family, and leaving a better world for the next generation.

That is a tangible purpose you can measure today, rather than a passive hope anchored in the ancient past.

chieveboy:
The issue is coming from half knowledge copied into the Bible. Recall that story was not a Christian story, it was from another religion which the folks who formed Christianity decided to copy.


Mankind called the space beings who came to earth "God".

The story of Lucifer and God is an account of disagreement between one of them (Lucifer) and the King who the Israelis referred to as God.

Before that disagreement, conditions for suffering is already in place. A dead give-away is that the world was already one of duality where if a liquid existed ("water covering earth" ), then there must be a solid.

So if you keep building this dual relationships like liquid/solid, pain/joy, sickness/health, mountain/valley, enemy/friend, etc. You find that they self-explain that suffering/joy, fight/reconciliation already existed and the quarrel between 'God/Satan' did not commence it.


All existed before their fight, and they are not the only advanced beings in the universe. There are others more majestic and God-like than those who made men in their image and likeness.

Again,that they fought and got tempted in the first place-means temptation, jealousy, etc already exists, this is why they could experience it and have a fight or issues with one another. More so, what is the guarantee that was not the first time?

This is an interesting perspective, and you’re absolutely right on one major point: the biblical stories were adapted from much older traditions and religions, which is why treating them as absolute, ultimate truth falls apart under scrutiny.

Where we might differ is that whether someone views "God and Satan" as literal spiritual beings, ancient space beings, or symbolic archetypes of dualism, the main problem remains the same: people use these stories to justify human suffering and promote passivity.

My article focuses on the real-world impact of these beliefs. When people are taught that suffering is just an inevitable part of a cosmic balance or a fight between higher powers, it stops them from taking control, solving real problems, and building a better life today.

Regardless of how the story originated, we shouldn't let ancient narratives dictate our potential or cause us to passively accept hardship.

gbolaben:
How does a newborn baby born with a terminal illness cause anyone else to suffer? How does an honest person wiped out by a tsunami lack empathy?
Saying "your suffering is justified" completely ignores the millions of innocent people who face hardship every single day through no fault of their own.

If you had actually read the article carefully, you would realize my point was addressing mainstream Christian theology and institutional teachings. According to those doctrines, Satan challenged God's right to rule, a concept clearly illustrated in the Bible's account of Job. In that story, Satan claimed Job only served God because of his blessings, so God allowed Satan to strip away Job's wealth, kill his children, and afflict his body with painful sores just to prove Satan wrong.

That is the exact point of the article: the teaching that God permits widespread human agony across generations simply to settle a cosmic challenge or win an argument against the devil.

And If you truly believe that millions of innocent people deserve to suffer to prove a point in a cosmic dispute, then we have very different definitions of justice and empathy. My focus is on real-world compassion, taking responsibility, and treating people right, not justifying human pain through a divine court case.

How do you expect a wore not to transfer and birth a diseased baby?

Where have you seen an honest person in this world?

And if you are using fables of stup... people and Job's case to understand life, you are already proving that you are as silly as the people you believed for, Job's case even proves justification for everyone can see God was so happy with Job that He used him to taunt and ridicule Satan and then He put all His Bets on Job when satan chose to challenge God.

And in the end we all see how Job was greatly rewarded and over restituted for the pains he suffered from going through and winning God's challenge

So, are humans all over the world like job?
No! Rather they are like Sata.. so why would evils and sufferings and failures not follow them?

Or you want to tell me that it is just to reward this beach with goodness?
https://www.nairaland.com/8758071/christa-pike-survives-two-lethal

Please, you are talking rubbish

chieveboy:
The issue is coming from half knowledge copied into the Bible. Recall that story was not a Christian story, it was from another religion which the folks who formed Christianity decided to copy.

Mankind called the space beings who came to earth "God".

The story of Lucifer and God is an account of disagreement between one of them (Lucifer) and the King who the Israelis referred to as God.

Before that disagreement, conditions for suffering is already in place. A dead give-away is that the world was already one of duality where if a liquid existed ("water covering earth" ), then there must be a solid.

So if you keep building this dual relationships like liquid/solid, pain/joy, sickness/health, mountain/valley, enemy/friend, etc. You find that they self-explain that suffering/joy, fight/reconciliation already existed and the quarrel between 'God/Satan' did not commence it.


All existed before their fight, and they are not the only advanced beings in the universe. There are others more majestic and God-like than those who made men in their image and likeness.

Again,that they fought and got tempted in the first place-means temptation, jealousy, etc already exists, this is why they could experience it and have a fight or issues with one another. More so, what is the guarantee that was not the first time?

See another stup... contraption of delu. And of course you must say this sh.... because you are used to the normal good and evil and opposite life that people have out of the mercy of God and have never seen nor lived a life where only goodness follows a person just as Job and his friends saw.

God is only Light and there was no darkness before until God cursed satan to be the prince of darkness where you come from.

Dtruthspeaker:
How do you expect a wore not to transfer and birth a diseased baby?

Where have you seen an honest person in this world?

And if you are using fables of stup... people and Job's case to understand life, you are already proving that you are as silly as the people you believed for, Job's case even proves justification for everyone can see God was so happy with Job that He used him to taunt and ridicule Satan and then He put all His Bets on Job when satan chose to challenge God.

And in the end we all see how Job was greatly rewarded and over restituted for the pains he suffered from going through and winning God's challenge

So, are humans all over the world like job?
No! Rather they are like Sata.. so why would evils and sufferings and failures not follow them?

Or you want to tell me that it is just to reward this beach with goodness?
https://www.nairaland.com/8758071/christa-pike-survives-two-lethal

Please, you are talking rubbish

You’re missing the forest for the trees, and resorting to insults only shows that your logic has broken down. In fact, your tone is a perfect example of how being religious doesn't automatically make someone a better person.

Instead of presenting a reasoned argument, you attack and insult, that's the kind of mindset where someone is ready to hate or destroy others simply because they don't view God the same way.

The story of Job is the exact illustration of my point: a man was stripped of his wealth, his children were killed, and his health was destroyed, not because of anything he did wrong, but because of a bet between God and Satan.

Saying Job got restituted at the end doesn't erase the loss of his children or justify using human beings as collateral in a divine trial.

Also claiming that every suffering human on Earth is "like Satan" and deserves misery is a deeply cynical worldview. Millions of innocent children, victims of natural disasters, and decent everyday people suffer through no fault of their own.

If your conclusion is that humanity is inherently evil and deserves to suffer to prove a point in a cosmic dispute, we simply have completely different standards of justice, empathy, and logic. I choose to focus on real-world compassion and active effort rather than justifying human pain through a divine court case.

gbolaben:
You ask what purpose it serves to build a good life if we eventually die. Turn that question around: what purpose does it serve to accept avoidable poverty, poor health, or hardship today while waiting for a divine fix that never comes in your lifetime?

Humans don't need a guarantee of physical immortality for their choices to have meaning. Building a good life now means educating yourself, staying healthy, securing your family, and leaving a better world for the next generation.

That is a tangible purpose you can measure today, rather than a passive hope anchored in the ancient past.

Now, what is the origin of poverty, poor health, hardship and death, why do we even have to experience these things in the first place if our purpose here is actually to get the best things out of life?

gbolaben:
You’re missing the forest for the trees, and resorting to insults only shows that your logic has broken down. In fact, your tone is a perfect example of how being religious doesn't automatically make someone a better person.

Instead of presenting a reasoned argument, you attack and insult, that's the kind of mindset where someone is ready to hate or destroy others simply because they don't view God the same way.

The story of Job is the exact illustration of my point: a man was stripped of his wealth, his children were killed, and his health was destroyed, not because of anything he did wrong, but because of a bet between God and Satan.

Saying Job got restituted at the end doesn't erase the loss of his children or justify using human beings as collateral in a divine trial.

Also claiming that every suffering human on Earth is "like Satan" and deserves misery is a deeply cynical worldview. Millions of innocent children, victims of natural disasters, and decent everyday people suffer through no fault of their own.

If your conclusion is that humanity is inherently evil and deserves to suffer to prove a point in a cosmic dispute, we simply have completely different standards of justice, empathy, and logic. I choose to focus on real-world compassion and active effort rather than justifying human pain through a divine court case.

"Woe unto he who calls a wicked person, good". So also would i not call an unwise person, smart.

I have already presented my argument and this thread is because you people are suffering because you already destroying yourselves.

And before God boasted with Job, it was already very well with him and he did not suffer any of things you are crying about, so, you have no point here.

And finally, you are not the one to say which child is innocent for if your parents and family are among those just kidnapped today, you won't consider that the children of kidnappers are innocent https://www.nairaland.com/8758581/nysc-members-kidnapped-owerri-onitsha-road.

So, as i said, you are talking rubbish

Dtruthspeaker:
"Woe unto he who calls a wicked person, good". So also would i not call an unwise person, smart.

I have already presented my argument and this thread is because you people are suffering because you already destroying yourselves.

And before God boasted with Job, it was already very well with him and he did not suffer any of things you are crying about, so, you have no point here.

And finally, you are not the one to say which child is innocent for if your parents and family are among those just kidnapped today, you won't consider that the children of kidnappers are innocent https://www.nairaland.com/8758581/nysc-members-kidnapped-owerri-onitsha-road.

So, as i said, you are talking rubbish

Your argument has devolved into making up false claims, asserting that children aren't innocent, and insisting they deserve suffering based on their parents' actions. That tells me everything I need to know about your values and standards of justice.

How many suffering children in the world today do you personally know, and what specific actions of their parents make you think they deserve that pain? How do you account for millions of children who suffer from genetic diseases or natural disasters before they are even old enough to understand right from wrong? And if punishing innocent children for their parents' choices is your definition of justice, how does that make you any different from the very evil you claim to oppose?

Resorting to insults and moral superiority when your logic fails shows an inability to use critical thinking or analyze ideas objectively. It reveals a clear lack of basic empathy, logic, and self-awareness.

The core issue remains: using human suffering, including the loss of innocent lives as collateral in a cosmic court case is fundamentally unjust.
We have completely different values, so there is no point in continuing this loop. Best of luck to you.

gbolaben:
This is an interesting perspective, and you’re absolutely right on one major point: the biblical stories were adapted from much older traditions and religions, which is why treating them as absolute, ultimate truth falls apart under scrutiny.

Where we might differ is that whether someone views "God and Satan" as literal spiritual beings, ancient space beings, or symbolic archetypes of dualism, the main problem remains the same: people use these stories to justify human suffering and promote passivity.

My article focuses on the real-world impact of these beliefs. When people are taught that suffering is just an inevitable part of a cosmic balance or a fight between higher powers, it stops them from taking control, solving real problems, and building a better life today.

Regardless of how the story originated, we shouldn't let ancient narratives dictate our potential or cause us to passively accept hardship.

Very well.

If we want a much more truer perspective about suffering and pain, we need to revisit and observe them closely away from the religious paintings of the terms and condition then.

That said, suffering, pain, wealth, joy etc are 'states of conciousness' and are independent of any religious attachment. They did not come about because of religion.

In their respective states, pain, suffering, joy and all emotions can be seen as states of physics like gravity (when physical) and could have an emotive quality when felt with the emotions. In themselves, they are not "pain" or "suffering" for the sake of the emotion involved.

Think of every emotion or thing as existing like the strings in a guitar. Play the thicker one and you get a certain sound or condition in outputs your senses processes. If you like it its =pain, else=pleasure

Have a field day playing with the concept of duality or twos. Things existing as result of their opposites.

chieveboy:
Very well.

If we want a much more truer perspective about suffering and pain, we need to revisit and observe them closely away from the religious paintings of the terms and condition then.

That said, suffering, pain, wealth, joy etc are 'states of conciousness' and are independent of any religious attachment. They did not come about because of religion.

In their respective states, pain, suffering, joy and all emotions can be seen as states of physics like gravity (when physical) and could have an emotive quality when felt with the emotions. In themselves, they are not "pain" or "suffering" for the sake of the emotion involved.

Think of every emotion or thing as existing like the strings in a guitar. Play the thicker one and you get a certain sound or condition in outputs your senses processes. If you like it its =pain, else=pleasure

Have a field day playing with the concept of duality or twos. Things existing as result of their opposites.

I actually understand your perspective and am not inherently against it. Viewing pain, joy, and experience as neutral states of consciousness or balance within a universe of duality is a fascinating way to analyze existence on a purely theoretical or metaphysical level.

However, where my work and focus lie is in the immediate, practical reality of human lives.
While abstract philosophy views suffering as a neutral frequency or law of physics, millions of people around the world are actively trapped in manipulative religious systems that treat suffering as a divine requirement.

They are explicitly taught that their pain is a test, that hardship is a badge of honor, and that they should passively endure poverty, sickness, and oppression rather than taking action to improve their circumstances all because they are holding out for a promised future paradise.

That kind of indoctrination completely destroys human agency. It convinces people that striving for real-world success, financial stability, health, and personal fulfillment today is pointless or even sinful.

So while I respect the philosophical concept of duality, my priority isn't debating abstract states of consciousness, it's helping people break free from religious paralysis, take control of their own lives, and build a successful, meaningful reality right now.

gbolaben:
I actually understand your perspective and am not inherently against it. Viewing pain, joy, and experience as neutral states of consciousness or balance within a universe of duality is a fascinating way to analyze existence on a purely theoretical or metaphysical level.

However, where my work and focus lie is in the immediate, practical reality of human lives.
While abstract philosophy views suffering as a neutral frequency or law of physics, millions of people around the world are actively trapped in manipulative religious systems that treat suffering as a divine requirement.

They are explicitly taught that their pain is a test, that hardship is a badge of honor, and that they should passively endure poverty, sickness, and oppression rather than taking action to improve their circumstances all because they are holding out for a promised future paradise.

That kind of indoctrination completely destroys human agency. It convinces people that striving for real-world success, financial stability, health, and personal fulfillment today is pointless or even sinful.

So while I respect the philosophical concept of duality, my priority isn't debating abstract states of consciousness, it's helping people break free from religious paralysis, take control of their own lives, and build a successful, meaningful reality right now.

Appreciate your direction.

There is a catch though which might make the religious folks right in a sense.

By the time you investigate the role these neutral forces play, you will see that

They are explicitly taught that their pain is a test, that hardship is a badge of honor

comes out practically correct. Every distracting force is what is needed to achieve focus and every downward pull is the springboard for an upward push. So yes, hardship is a "test" borrowing the religious perspective


The exception though would be the passive state practitioners fall into. The effects of the forces of physics gives zero room for passivity and inaction.

gbolaben:
Your argument has devolved into making up false claims, asserting that children aren't innocent, and insisting they deserve suffering based on their parents' actions. That tells me everything I need to know about your values and standards of justice.

How many suffering children in the world today do you personally know, and what specific actions of their parents make you think they deserve that pain? How do you account for millions of children who suffer from genetic diseases or natural disasters before they are even old enough to understand right from wrong? And if punishing innocent children for their parents' choices is your definition of justice, how does that make you any different from the very evil you claim to oppose?

Resorting to insults and moral superiority when your logic fails shows an inability to use critical thinking or analyze ideas objectively. It reveals a clear lack of basic empathy, logic, and self-awareness.

The core issue remains: using human suffering, including the loss of innocent lives as collateral in a cosmic court case is fundamentally unjust.
We have completely different values, so there is no point in continuing this loop. Best of luck to you.

Are you ok? Does the thread not show that you are the one who asserted and claimed that children are innocent?

And now that I have practically put it to you and you cannot answer that if your parents and family was part of those kidnapped yesterday in Owerri you, you won't see the children of the kidnappers as innocent and you would be happy that they suffer, is why you are throwing all these tantrums.

Just rest, you don't have any valid argument to make, you just trying resorting to emotional blackmail and thereby committing the fallacy of appeal to pity (argumentum ad misericordiam)

OP, God and Satan are not word and opposite, like equal and opposite. Satan is God's cane for flogging recalcitrant people.

It all boils down to karmic justice, what a man sows, he shall reap.

Some people are lucky, their sins and the consequent punishment are received here and now, in their present incarnation.

Some are unlucky, they come back to eat the rotten fruits of their wicked behaviour and actions.

There is no escaping divine retribution and justice. No one escapes it.

This is a call to personal responsibility. The justice system in the universe is the most effective and efficient system. No one escapes it. No one escapes consequences.

chieveboy:
Very well.

If we want a much more truer perspective about suffering and pain, we need to revisit and observe them closely away from the religious paintings of the terms and condition then.

That said, suffering, pain, wealth, joy etc are 'states of conciousness' and are independent of any religious attachment. They did not come about because of religion.

In their respective states, pain, suffering, joy and all emotions can be seen as states of physics like gravity (when physical) and could have an emotive quality when felt with the emotions. In themselves, they are not "pain" or "suffering" for the sake of the emotion involved.

Think of every emotion or thing as existing like the strings in a guitar. Play the thicker one and you get a certain sound or condition in outputs your senses processes. If you like it its =pain, else=pleasure

Have a field day playing with the concept of duality or twos. Things existing as result of their opposites.

So what is the origin of these states of consciousness

gbolaben:
You ask what purpose it serves to build a good life if we eventually die. Turn that question around: what purpose does it serve to accept avoidable poverty, poor health, or hardship today while waiting for a divine fix that never comes in your lifetime?

Humans don't need a guarantee of physical immortality for their choices to have meaning. Building a good life now means educating yourself, staying healthy, securing your family, and leaving a better world for the next generation.

That is a tangible purpose you can measure today, rather than a passive hope anchored in the ancient past.

Now, what is the origin of poverty, poor health, hardship and death, why do we even have to experience these things in the first place if our purpose here is actually to get the best things out of life?

Truthseeker10:
So what is the origin of these states of consciousness

Over- consciousness or Absolute Consciousness itself . Call it God if you will.

The states of consciousness are the micro sub parts.

Think of it as a full human body and the billions of cells which in turn form organs which in turn form systems and so on. Each cell is a state of the full body.

A combination of cells even work to generate electricity in the body. Some simply make up a strand of hair.

chieveboy:
Over- consciousness or Absolute Consciousness itself . Call it God if you will.

The states of consciousness are the micro sub parts.

Think of it as a full human body and the billions of cells which in turn form organs which in turn form systems and so on. Each cell is a state of the full body.

A combination of cells even work to generate electricity in the body. Some simply make up a strand of hair.

Can you kindly define what "consciousness" on it own mean according to science today? Because it seems that you are just dishing out words for fun.

Truthseeker10:
Can you kindly define what "consciousness" on it own mean according to science today? Because it seems that you are just dishing out words for fun.

I dont have a scientific definition of consciousness. If you do, please present it and possibly the source.

In the mean sense, consciousness is simply the subjective awareness of having an experience. In other words being aware that you are aware or conscious.

chieveboy:
I dont have a scientific definition of consciousness. If you do, please present it and possibly the source.

In the mean sense, consciousness is simply the subjective awareness of having an experience. In other words being aware that you are aware or conscious.

So if "consciousness" is me having an experience according to you, who or what is this your "absolute consciousness"?

Truthseeker10:
So if "consciousness" is me having an experience according to you, who or what is this your "absolute consciousness"?

Lets make it interactive. We have already derailed the thread.

You asked a question and I answered. I asked a question and you did not answer but moved to another.

Kindly provide us with a scientific definition of consciousness and source if you have one. Then we deal with your question.

chieveboy:
Lets take make it interactive. We have already derailed the thread.

You asked a question and I answered. I asked a question and you did not answer but moved to another.

Kindly provide us with a scientific definition of consciousness and source if you have one. Then we deal with your question.

I don't have one. You are actually my teacher here. Now answer.

So if "consciousness" is me having an experience according to you, who or what is this your "absolute consciousness"?

Truthseeker10:
I don't have one. You are actually my teacher here. Now answer.

okay.

So if "consciousness" is me having an experience according to you, who or what is this your "absolute consciousness"?

First lets deal with the "according to you". Asides scientific definition or explanation of consciousness, do you personally have one? A personal explanation of consciousness.

If not, are you conscious?

chieveboy:
okay.



First lets deal with the "according to you". Asides scientific definition or explanation of consciousness, do you personally have one? A personal explanation of consciousness.

If not, are you conscious?

You just claimed that my experience is me being conscious. So kindly tell us about this your over-consciouness. Who or what is it?

Truthseeker10:
You just claimed that my experience is me being conscious. So kindly tell us about this your over-consciouness. Who or what is it?

Still no definitive response. If you have nothing of your own, how do we even begin to put things together into your head? Its an effort in futility.


If you want proper "teaching" as you call it, you have to among others:

1: Display capacity to be teachable

2: ...and or display capacity to understand and research.

3: Then you open a thread for it with a suitable subject header and invite others as a challenge or open discussion as deemed fit.


But then criterias 1 and 2 need to be met first especially if you are involving me in it.

chieveboy:
Still no definitive response. If you have nothing of your own, how do we even begin to put things together into your head? Its an effort in futility.


If you want proper "teaching" as you call it, you have to among others:

1: Display capacity to be teachable

2: ...and or display capacity to understand and research.

3: Then you open a thread for it with a suitable subject header and invite others as a challenge or open discussion as deemed fit.


But then criterias 1 and 2 need to be met first especially if you are involving me in it.

Lol....just when you realized that your explanations makes no sense you resort to diversion.

You were the one who used science to compare your ideas of states of consciousness. After scrutiny, you suddenly had no scientific explanation of consciousness. We should just swallow your jargons and make sense out of your consciousness/"absolute consciousness" gimmick.

Truthseeker10:
Lol....just when you realized that your explanations makes no sense you resort to diversion.

You were the one who used science to compare your ideas of states of consciousness. After scrutiny, you suddenly had no scientific explanation of consciousness. We should just swallow your jargons and make sense out of your consciousness/"absolute consciousness" gimmick.

Interesting. My assumption about your mental capacity at basic understanding and a perturbation of it is yielding results.

You were the one who used science to compare your ideas of states of consciousness

Starting with this, can you kindly provide a quote where this happened? Do well to explain to us how you understood or misunderstood the instance the above occurred.

You are actually the teacher and we are here to learn from you today.