Why is there suffering and death?

1. 56

   Obscure_Treasuresposted 12 years ago

   is there any proper reason behind it?

   replyreport
   1. 80

      earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well there is a reason yes.
      
      Some call it dirty DNA.
      
      It is not a simple subject, but I can provide links if anyone is interested in knowing about pain and suffering of sentient life.
      It is on a huge site and will take me some time to find, so only if someone wants to know.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      kessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      One could not attain perfection without the knowledge of such...
      
      So Life is not Life unless there is in the realisation of the benefits of death...
      
      ....but Life itself is not inclusive of death.. but totally separated and apart from it....
      
      
      This is the extent of Life is that the Living can never die.

      replyreport
   3. 0

      klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      without it we wouldn't be able to understand how good we have it most of the time.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I reckon I could work out the difference without the pain and suffering stuff.
         Alright for some dolphin patting people on vacation! (Not pointing the finger at any particular person)

         replyreport
         1. 0

            klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Like Carlos Santana said in his concert - You just gotta ride the snake, baby... ride the snake! LOL

            replyreport
            1. 80

               earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Hi Klara. I honestly have never heard of "ride the snake"
               Must have lead a sheltered life.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p … +the+snake
                  
                  I'm sure you haven't.

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Thank you for the link. Consider me ride the snake literate!

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        Ha Ha! I knew it!

                        replyreport
   4. 0

      SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The Bible says, "The wages of sin is death."

      replyreport
2. 0

   Emile Rposted 12 years ago

   That's life.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Well I know where you can find around 100,000 pages on the subject, but to be brief... Yup! That's life alright!

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         You're right. There has been great deal written on the subject. All of it written to help us learn to deal with a fact of life.  I don't see rhyme or reason to suffering and death, other than it is part of the circle.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            A friend of mine has been collecting all the scientific data about where the future will be and how to bring about an end to pain and suffering for all sentient animals, and is a brilliant researcher, animal and human lover and is dedicated.
            
            He has a huge following for his massive very intellectually stimulating site. I hope his hard work makes a difference to the world.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Sounds interesting. You should post a link. I doubt I'm the only one who would be curious to read more.

               replyreport
               1. 80

                  earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  There are so many links I could post, I will also need to find one I haven't posted before or the forum algorithm will boot it out. Back in a minute or two.
                  
                  http://www.hedweb.com/confile.htm

                  replyreport
3. 0

   Sherlock221bposted 12 years ago

   Because our cells continually replicate themselves, but each time they do the replacements are inferior to those they are replacing.  It is like making a photocopy.  The first copy is ok, then you make another copy, using the first copy, and so on.  With each copy, there is a fading, making each copy even more imperfect than the one before.  This is why we age, because each replacement cell has more faults than those it replaces.  The same process causes certain illnesses.  It is for this reason that the older someone is, the more likely they are to get cancer.  On the one hand, we need our cells to replace themselves, on the other, it is the reason why we age, and become more prone to illness, and ultimately why it is not possible to live forever.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There has been a recent (about 2 years ago) breakthrough by an Australian husband and wife team, that has started to find out how this death thing works after they found a certain emzyne.
      
      They said in the ABC radio interview that they had "switched the light on in a dark room" and could now start the work of seeing what lies inside, and expect to find the cause of poor cell reproduction and untimely cell death, in fact the cause of aging and perhaps even death itself.
      
      Exciting stuff!
      
      Davis Pearce on his hedweb site makes it clear that it is now sociological questions that need answering more than scientific ones about death.
      He goes in to such matters as food supply theory and population if death is to end.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sherlock221bposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I have a feeling that if such a discovery were made, it would be only  available to the rich.  Immortality would depend on whether you could afford it.  This would make for a very unstable society, because there would be so much resentment of the immortals.  Having a "cure" for death, that was available to only some in society would be the cause of revolutions and wars.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I agree, it will pose many social problems. I have not thought this through, but as I recall David Pearce at hedweb has some ideas on the very real problem you have postulated.
            
            I am trying to imagine the wars and conflict if only the rich could afford to live!
            
            If some sanity were to be introduced to the process it would have to be all or none I imagine.
            Good comment!

            replyreport
4. 0

   Sherlock221bposted 12 years ago

   People usually say that they wouldn't want to live forever, but I usually doubt it.  I think they convince themselves of this, beacause they know they don't have a say in the matter.  If a cure for death could be found, I'd be the first in line to take it.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      How old and decrepit would you like to be? Longevity doesn't guarantee mobility and robust health.

      replyreport
      1. 80

         earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Proper cell replenishment does.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I looked at your link.  Very interesting. I was kicking myself in the head, for not being younger; but then it occurred to me, if they find a way to arrest the process; I guess maybe they can also reverse the process somewhat. If I'm going to live forever I'd like to feel like I'm in my prime.

            replyreport
            1. 80

               earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               The whole death thing will come to a head in our lifetimes I imagine, and yes, it could theoretically reverse aging.
               
               I could handle an extension of a few thousand years, curiosity in my case.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't know.  It sounds like a dream come true; but there are a lot of hurdles that would have to be jumped in order for it not to become a nightmare. We need to learn to live and play well together on this planet first.

                  replyreport
                  1. 80

                     earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I agree completely!
                     
                     If we could dose the planet with the love drug first perhaps?
                     
                     Maybe put MDA in the water?

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        I don't know about MDA, but I guess the Love drug would be all right.  I have a strong aversion to drugs used for anything other than recreational purposes.
                        
                        Just kidding.  Didn't they make a futuristic movie about that once? Everyone had to take a drug to keep them from committing crimes. I think it starred Tom Cruise.

                        replyreport
                        1. 80

                           earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           It sounds like the sort of movie I would have missed.
                           
                           Not a fan of Mr. Cruise, and American movies like this are usually ridiculous and written by the family pet.

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              Emile Rposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Probably the reason I can't remember much more than that.  Although I am a fan of sci fi.  I don't mind admitting it.

                              replyreport
                              1. 80

                                 earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 We have that in common. I love sci-fi as well.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 58

                                    A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    Same here, I saw they're filming another remake of "The Thing"

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 80

                                       earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       Vague memories. I can't remember it, was it good?

                                       report
                                       1. 80

                                          Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                          Big frozen guy in  the Arctic

                                          report
                                          1. 80

                                             earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                             I think I hated it!

                                             report
                                    2. 0

                                       SirDentposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                       If I recall correctly the original of this movie featured James Arness (Matt Dillon of Gunsmoke) as the Thing. 
                                       
                                       The second take starred Kurt Russell I think.  May be wrong on this.

                                       report
                                       1. 58

                                          A Troubled Manposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                          Right on both counts SirDent!
                                          
                                          The 1951  version was also a Howard Hawks production. He made a number of great movies. John Carpenter made the next one so it's more of a darker movie than the original.
                                          
                                          Looking forward to the new remake but unfortunately, they put a woman in the lead role. Not that I have anything against lead roles for women, but not for a film like this.

                                          report
5. 64

   mhaydockposted 12 years ago

   Yes. Because we live in a fallen world. But Jesus said that in this world we would have troubles, but to take heart for He has overcome the world. But yes, it's a tough thing to swallow isn't it that a God who loves us so dearly would allow us to suffer and die. That innocent people would suffer pain and sickness. Always remember that although the prince of the earth has been allowed to have his way with us until Christ's return, God is always in control.

   replyreport
   1. 70

      Cagsilposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
6. 53

   ibneahmadposted 12 years ago

   It is life and death; suffering is to maintain life and escape from death.
   
   Life is a bounty bestowed on man by the Creator God.

   replyreport
   1. 53

      ibneahmadposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Suffering is that we can value the life; death is to understand purpose of life.

      replyreport
7. 59

   Jeramiposted 12 years ago

   If we were to end death and suffering ;   would we not eventually have to put an end to birth ?
   
     Otherwise ...   soon there would be standing room only.
   I'd rather die.

   replyreport
   1. 80

      earnestshubposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Apparently not. Population is about to top out anyway.

      replyreport
      1. 56

         Obscure_Treasuresposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         thanks everyone for sharing such useful information

         replyreport
8. 60

   grazeilselposted 12 years ago

   the competition for sustaining energy results in a battle for existance

   replyreport
9. 78

   heartwortposted 12 years ago

   Death is inevitable.  Suffering does not always have to be.  Much of the suffering at the natural end of life is because people (or their acting POAs) are not ready to accept death and they fight it, or should I say, medical providers fight it on their behalf.  With increasing medical technology, good nutrition and lifestyle, life spans are increasing, but not quality of life for every one.  When medicine intervenes prolong our lives bare many costs which often result in suffering.

   replyreport