This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SteelHands · 61-69, M
It's not flawed. It poses challenges for the adaptation and improvisation of the hosted life forms for a chance to strengthen, improve, and triumph over it's many conditions.
It does not always. For example. The apple tree makes a good case. Nature and natures god sets the contests. Nature makes a small number of perfect apples for every tree, most are average, and some fall prematurely from the tree for lack of sunlight or other things like a strong stem.
By the time perfect ones become visible after the growing season and the leaves have fallen, they're too old, too ripe, and too shriveled of ther life to recognize them.
It does not always. For example. The apple tree makes a good case. Nature and natures god sets the contests. Nature makes a small number of perfect apples for every tree, most are average, and some fall prematurely from the tree for lack of sunlight or other things like a strong stem.
By the time perfect ones become visible after the growing season and the leaves have fallen, they're too old, too ripe, and too shriveled of ther life to recognize them.
FCNantes · 22-25, M
@SteelHands "there is constant suffering. how can this ever be fixed?"
I think the argument the OP was making was that the 'system of life' requires events that cause suffering &'s therefore flawed. What you say's true but what you mean by flawed seems to be different.
I think the argument the OP was making was that the 'system of life' requires events that cause suffering &'s therefore flawed. What you say's true but what you mean by flawed seems to be different.
SteelHands · 61-69, M
@FCNantes The obstacles in life are many, varied and different. To measure the woes or triumphs of another based on your own knowlege of triumps or woes is, a mistake.
FCNantes · 22-25, M
@SteelHands "To measure the woes or triumphs of another based on your own knowlege of triumps or woes is, a mistake."
I agree. But my point was that "the 'system of life' requires events that cause suffering", not how much suffering it entails.
My point (currently) stands.
I agree. But my point was that "the 'system of life' requires events that cause suffering", not how much suffering it entails.
My point (currently) stands.