God provides for all?

[Guest]

Those who're saying it's result of bad karma, 

So that also means all the good you got is because of your nice karams, then why thank god ?

Are you getting my point here ?

This karma vs grace is a very big conundrum . 

[imhosingh]

If you look at the amount of food produced in the world there is plenty for everyone. So you could say that God provides plenty for all...it  is the humans who create economic systems that mean some people don't get food. 

[Redoptics]

14 minutes ago, imhosingh said:

If you look at the amount of food produced in the world there is plenty for everyone. So you could say that God provides plenty for all...it  is the humans who create economic systems that mean some people don't get food. 

Yeah and those governments will be punished with bad karma 

[Koi]

55 minutes ago, Redoptics said:

Yeah and those governments will be punished with bad karma 

But those governments haven't dropped out of the sky, have they? They are people from the society, our society. Governments, media, police systems etc. are only a reflection of the society itself. For example: if everyone stopped smoking, stopped drinking and stopped taking drugs, would we have smoking cessation programs, alcoholics anonymous, or drug prevention programs? No, because we wouldn't need them. If everyone looked after their parents in old age, would we have old folks homes? No, because we wouldn't need them. And if everyone was honest, would we have corrupt governments? No, because there would be no corrupt people. And this is the underlying point. The corruption of these institutions only exists because of the greed and corruption of the people...

[Akalifauj]

10 hours ago, Koi said:

It's always happening, whether it's in front of our eyes or not. And that's exactly what the original poster is going for. The issue is that it's happening all over the world all the time. Even if you feed half a dozen people in front of your eyes, that's still going to do nothing for the rest. 

You provided a specific example and I replied to it.  If it's happening before your eyes, than feed the child.  If its happening 1000 miles away and Guru sahib has given you the ability and means to feed the child than do it.  Its that simple.   The original poster is speaking from an atheist point of view.  Such a view is full of holes because there are homeless people in that city, why don't they help them; God doesn't exist and currently they (athiest) are the most powerful species on the planet that can help.  Saving this world of hunger, poverty, war, etc is not the ultimate goal according to Gurbani.   Gurbani says help others because of the virtues given to Sikhs like compassion and contentment.   There is an instinct to help others.  Some people have more inclination and others have less.  Such inclination are not pure and increase ego on both sides.  God has created his creation perfectly and gives those who he chooses and takes from the same later on.  Creation (humans) has no say in who receives.  Humans forget that we are a part of creation and grow this ego over time because humans believe we can do something.   If you want to feed the starving child 1000 miles away.  Than get rid of your ego and dive deep into the ocean of Gurbani.  Than Guru Sahib will use you as a tool to provide help for the starving children.  The problem is, no one wants to be the tool of the Guru.  Everyone wants to be the creator,  and saving grace.  

 

[Koi]

1 hour ago, Akalifauj said:

You provided a specific example and I replied to it.  If it's happening before your eyes, than feed the child.  If its happening 1000 miles away and Guru sahib has given you the ability and means to feed the child than do it.  Its that simple.   The original poster is speaking from an atheist point of view.  Such a view is full of holes because there are homeless people in that city, why don't they help them; God doesn't exist and currently they (athiest) are the most powerful species on the planet that can help.  Saving this world of hunger, poverty, war, etc is not the ultimate goal according to Gurbani.   Gurbani says help others because of the virtues given to Sikhs like compassion and contentment.   There is an instinct to help others.  Some people have more inclination and others have less.  Such inclination are not pure and increase ego on both sides.  God has created his creation perfectly and gives those who he chooses and takes from the same later on.  Creation (humans) has no say in who receives.  Humans forget that we are a part of creation and grow this ego over time because humans believe we can do something.   If you want to feed the starving child 1000 miles away.  Than get rid of your ego and dive deep into the ocean of Gurbani.  Than Guru Sahib will use you as a tool to provide help for the starving children.  The problem is, no one wants to be the tool of the Guru.  Everyone wants to be the creator,  and saving grace.  

 

Whilst I'm not disagreeing with you entirely, I don't feel it's that black and white. For some individuals (atheist or not), the answer that God will feed a child hundreds of miles away is simply not good enough, especially if the child dies of starvation. Some would view that state of mind as compassion, others as atheism. The idea that God would let a child who has done nothing wrong die of hunger is too much to stomach for some. And this brings light to the age old anecdote that if there is a God, why is there so much bad in the world. 

And yes, this is indeed a matter of the individuals ego as well, because (I feel) the question is overly simplified. Sometimes it does come down to the fact that we as mere mortals simply cannot see the bigger picture.

This question/thought process is not a result of atheism, but it is born out of compassion (dayaa), the place where all dharam begins....

[Akalifauj]

25 minutes ago, Koi said:

This question/thought process is not a result of atheism, but it is born out of compassion (dayaa), the place where all dharam begins....

Seeing a child starving 1000 miles away is not born out of compassion but instinct and learned behaviors over human history. Each tribe, region, ruler has their own definition.  The level of 'compassion' is not pure as some will have more and others will have less.  So who's level of 'compassion' will dictate what is right or wrong? History has told us the army that wins has dictated what level of 'compassion' will be used on the conquered people. Sikhi does not begin with this arbitrary level of regard for another human being, which you call compassion out of ignorance. Compassion as described by Gurbani is brought forward by following the teachings of the Guru.  If  true compassion existed in the world, than why did Guru Sahib have to come and teach true compassion?  You are talking about level of regard a person has for another.  You are mistakenly equating it to Sikhi taught compassion by the Guru.  Many people do this out of ignorance and it doesn't matter how much Gurbani they read a day or have taken part in punj pyare or have done thousands of akhand paaths.

[Koi]

52 minutes ago, Akalifauj said:

Seeing a child starving 1000 miles away is not born out of compassion but instinct and learned behaviors over human history. Each tribe, region, ruler has their own definition.  The level of 'compassion' is not pure as some will have more and others will have less.  So who's level of 'compassion' will dictate what is right or wrong? History has told us the army that wins has dictated what level of 'compassion' will be used on the conquered people. Sikhi does not begin with this arbitrary level of regard for another human being, which you call compassion out of ignorance. Compassion as described by Gurbani is brought forward by following the teachings of the Guru.  If  true compassion existed in the world, than why did Guru Sahib have to come and teach true compassion?  You are talking about level of regard a person has for another.  You are mistakenly equating it to Sikhi taught compassion by the Guru.  Many people do this out of ignorance and it doesn't matter how much Gurbani they read a day or have taken part in punj pyare or have done thousands of akhand paaths.

Of course the various levels of compassion are subjective, and of course Gurbani is the highest judge, no question. But that's not what's being questioned here. To a compassionate individual who sees so much bad in the world especially to completely innocent people, the concept of God having a divine plan for all is simply not enough. 

Various mahapursh have spoken on the suffering of individuals to explain why they are suffering in this life. However, again, for a normal individual who sees innocent people suffering, who has no knowledge of the previous lifetimes, "God's divine plan" is simply not enough. That does not, however, invalidate or lower their compassion in any way. Their understanding for the reasons of suffering does not invalidate the compassion they have have to alleviate the suffering. 

Hope that makes sense

[Akalifauj]

7 minutes ago, Koi said:

Of course the various levels of compassion are subjective, and of course Gurbani is the highest judge, no question. But that's not what's being questioned here. To a compassionate individual who sees so much bad in the world especially to completely innocent people, the concept of God having a divine plan for all is simply not enough. 

Various mahapursh have spoken on the suffering of individuals to explain why they are suffering in this life. However, again, for a normal individual who sees innocent people suffering, who has no knowledge of the previous lifetimes, "God's divine plan" is simply not enough. That does not, however, invalidate or lower their compassion in any way. Their understanding for the reasons of suffering does not invalidate the compassion they have have to alleviate the suffering. 

Hope that makes sense

The person who is judging God based on all the bad in the world is using a level of 'compassion' he sees fit and what he defines as compassion. So this level of compassion changes from person to person.  So this discussion is about the level and what is defined as compassion. 

You cannot label someone compassionate without bringing the definition of compassion from Gurbani into the discussion. Otherwise I can tell you mine is greater or vice versa.  And there would be no conclusion. The person who looks at the bad in the world and says there is no God because innocent people are suffering is not compassionate by Gurbani standards. This type of person is egotistical and arrogant. Yes, in a room filled with people who don't have the knowledge of Gurbani and don't go by Gurbani, which means arrogant and/or ignorant people.  Your person may be considered compassionate, if everyone in the room would agree.  Your normal person  in the room would be majority of those who agree on what is compassion.  This number based normality for defining compassion does not stand the test of Gurbani.  In reality there is no normal person take on compassion.   What you define as normal is what majority see and react too.  In reality according to Gurbani there is the true definition of compassion as Gurbani describes it and then there are billions of definitions by billions of people who use their instinct and learned behaviors to define compassion.  

[GurjantGnostic]

I think we're also making the conclusion that if they are suffering they have bad Karam. But it could just as easily be the opposite.