Many religions acknowledge that life, Most of it is suffering, Buddism postulates that all suffering comes from desire and to avoid suffering to lead the best life possible one must avoid the things that you think will give you pleasure, I've seen friends over does on drugs, Die of aids, Cancer, Cirrosis of the liver life is pain and most pleasures are toxic, To aviod suffering in life is the best you can do
Although it is suffering i think people should enjoy life before they die, therefore as a Christian I believe life is sufferings but when you die and believe in Jesus as your Lord and savior. You will go to Heaven where there will be no more death or pain that is what I believe folks.
Its odd to debate a statement of fact. Suffering is only experienced because you are alive. There is also the wonders your favorite chocolate desert, and thats not suffering to me. Its simply a dilemma of cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am). If life is suffering, surely death is pleasure...Right? Well, if death is pleasure you could go ahead and skip to it, but you might not be conscious to enjoy it. I suppose it comes down to whether you want to be stuck in depressive gumption traps your entire life or whether you want to eat that chocolate cake. Go get it.
I believe that in life there will be suffering. I believe the sad truth is that you can try and avoid it but in your life you will feel pain and sadness and there is no way of escaping it.
HOWEVER, in life you will make amazing memories, meet amazing people and make memories for other people. We have a choice to live a good life. And even if we choose that, there will be suffering on the way. But our happiness will definitely outweigh our sadness if we take thtt choice.
Life is undiscriminating. Be you plant, animal or human being, life- a state of physical matter that is in essence, time-bound movement, that until such time arrives (death; the complete nullification of the ability to produce any motion), we remain in perpetual motion-, is simply the default state of any living thing. However, even though it is an eternal constant that possesses absolute rigidity, to live (life) is to be able to form value judgments (formed through experiences, learned through unguided personal encounters and observations, or taught) of what is basically, to the living, individual of limited cognitive powers, bad and good. Bad, which can be as mild and inane as a blast of air being blown into your face unexpectedly, equals suffering. While good can be as primitive as taking a leak. And thus, to preserve our lives, or more accurately to minimize our experiencing of the bad (pain from a tummy ache from missing lunch, misery from feeling time used poorly, frustration experienced when still living with your parents at the age of 40), we seek to maximize our pleasures- the very foundation of what we use to define what is to us, our unique idealization of what is personally meaningful- to lubricate the wheels of our progress into death's embrace, because if you are not experiencing pleasure, you are experience suffering- there is no middle ground; neutrality is just an absence of suffering to upset the balance of a relatively sensitized iteration of happiness (for instance, masturbation can only be so much fun, for so long).
As such, the "suffering" aspect that has enthralled so many who are looking for something tangible than God to blame, is not life, but rather the person's inability to maximize pleasure and minimize suffering. For example, an infant is born without hands, and since there is no measurable way to ascertain if the infant is indeed experiencing gut-wrenching sadness from having no hands or is merely mimicking the emotional expressions of convention-drunk parents, despite never having known the many benefits of having hands, we can only assume the child is crying for every same reason as every other infant, and smiling for same reasons. And so, I suppose it is reasonable to assume that infants don't cry for hands or feet, or hair, but cry for food because their tums tums go rumble rumble, or they are uncomfortable sitting in their own poop. Hence demonstrating, to some extent, that life does not put frowns on our faces, rather, it is what we desire (maximizing our pleasures) and our inability to satisfy that desire (failure to minimize suffering)- as suicides show, our foremost interest is not to preserve our ability to breathe and receive sensory data, i.E., life, but to take action to minimize pain, misery and frustration; maximizing our pleasure is secondary, and as we become sensitized to the pleasures of, say, drinking water, we know Coke exists and so we thirst for it, and thus our suffering is renewed.
Life cannot be defined as suffering. Moreover, what does "suffering mean in the context in which it was used? Characterizing life as suffering implies that the human experience is inherently identical, as though all human suffers incessantly throughout the human experience. A substantial number of people, especially the privileged, sustain a state of euphoria through entertainment, recreation and other means--seldom encountering the unforgiving, unpitying hands of suffering, hands that you and I are perhaps to familiar with, which is why we, the underprivileged are privileged enough to have this discussion.