Why you believe what you believe I

[inked]

umm, is that belief with or without data or in spite of data, brownjenkins

[Ñólendil]

What are some of the core beliefs of Hinduism? Of Buddhism?

It is hard for me to summarize the core beliefs of Hinduism in general, or Buddhism. But as for Vedanta, a philosophy of Hinduism, some of the core beliefs are that our true nature is Divine, and that the ultimate goal is to realize this Divinity. Vedantists also believe in the harmony of all religions, and the oneness of everything. It's also important to note that Vedanta is based around certain scriptures. "Vedanta" means "the end, or the goal, of the Vedas". The Vedas are the oldest known scriptures in the world today--there are four of them, and attached to the end of the Vedas, written later, are the Upanishads. So Vedanta is based primarily on the Upanishads, which are a collection of beautiful stories told by gurus and other teachers to disciples, consorts, and kings.

Of Buddhism, one of the two main kinds is Mahayana Buddhism. The core belief, I would say, of Mahayana Buddhism is boddhiccita, if I am spelling it correctly. Boddhicitta is the desire to attain enlightenment for the sake of all sentient beings. According to Mahayana, it is not enough to seek enlightenment, one must desire to help everyone else attain this goal as well.

[quote]Nolendil, does that accurately reflect your understanding or Hindu understanding of Truth?['/quote]

It somewhat accurately reflects my own understanding of Truth.

Nolendil, if the loss of selfhood is the goal of absorption into the divine (per above), then you believe that the abnegation of self-consciousness is the goal of all being. How is this not ultimately futile even for the All? And if retention of the self-awareness is the perogative of the divine and we are sparks of the divine, how shall we achieve this utter negation of the ground of being and become (for lack of a better tem) voided/negated/nothing?

The only thing that is being voided is falsehood. "Selfhood", as I said, is a confusing word to use in this sense. This is true also, especially of s"self-consciousness". I believe that we do not live in a state of true self-consciousness. We actually do not realize who we really are. We think we are the body, or our thoughts, or our feelings, or our senses, our minds. What we must cast away is all these things which I will collectively call the "ego". By casting these away, we are not actually losing anything. We are realizing what we have had all along: everything. The Truth. Peace. The ground of being is not being negated! The ground of being is being realized. God, under this idea, is the grounds of being. Our egos are merely the illusion.

It is like this--we have the Atman, the soul, and Atman is real. Atman is the manifestation of Brahman, the Absolute. Giving us the sense of seperation, and pain, are our egos, which veil the Atman. Thus, the ego must be transcended, cast away. When the Atman is realized, we become one with Brahman, become one with God. It is the opposite of void, or nothing. In terms of notions, and seperateness, and suffering, and I and mine, there is void, because those things are no more. In fact they never were, it was only the illusion.

I think you might be coming from the perfectly understandable stance that it would really be horrible to lose that sense of individuality. To lose the sense of "me". I don't know how it works really, but I don't believe there is pain or suffering or nothingness in the Divine. It is not as though by merging with Brahman one becomes an "it" automatically, and retains no personal aspects. Brahman is pure consciousness. It is hard to explain, or understand. I just know that all will be well.

Of course, there are different schools in Vedanta that disagree on this very point. Dvaita Vedanta, the dualism school, believes that even in Brahman, we remain individual, seperate souls, who are, yes, at one with Brahman because of the true nature shared. Then there is the Advaita Vedanta school, the non-dualism school which I agree with more, in which there is really only one Atman, and one Brahman, and Atman is at one with Brahman, and we retain no seperateness once we realize Atman. To me, this is total bliss. It does not strike me as a loss of anything, because I cannot believe that anything can be wrong with Absolute Nature. I think you will still know your mother and your father and your friends, and all the lives you ever lived, for you will be at one with your mother and your father and your friends, and all the lives you ever lived. Everything that is real is right there, in Brahman.

Is there anything about your religions that you doubt?

I'm not sure if I "doubt" anything, but I will reiterate that I'm not absolutely sure about anything I have said so far. I truly believe the things I have said, but I would not say "I am right, and those who disagree are wrong, because this is the way it is". As I said, I won't beat myself up if I'm wrong. There is only one thing I feel I know, and do not question. Just one thing. It may sound sappy to those who hear it, but I honestly never question this thing: In the end, everything will be alright. That's it. It's the one thing I'm absolutely sure about in every way. It's a convenient thing to be sure about too, as, with this knowledge, everything else sort of falls into place.

Thanks again Noledil....Hinduism sounds very ...gentle...!?...I like that.

The philosophy is gentle, yes. The mythology on the other hand is rather strange on the surface ... colorful, vibrant, violent, and strange. One thing about Hinduism is that you cannot take it literally ... the myths are just not literal stories, you have to look under the surface at the metaphors, or the sermons, or the lessons being made, spoken, and taught.

Take for example, a story of Hanuman. This is a tale from the Ramayana, a Hindu epic. The characters you need to know are Hanuman, who is part monkey, part deva (divine), and is the perfect devotee, also there is Rama, an incarnation of Vishnu (God as Preserver), and Sita, his wife, an incarnation of Lakshmi (God as Grace, Beauty, and Purity). Near the end of this tale, after the antagonist has been vanquished, Rama and Sita are sending out gifts to all those who helped them. Hanuman receives a present, and opens it up. His friend is standing near him. It is a beautiful necklace, and the friend is awed by the generosity of Rama and Sita. But Hanuman takes one look at the necklace, and throws it into the river. His friend is shocked! "How could you throw away a gift from the Blessed Lord?"

Hanuman replies, "It did not have his name on it."

The friend retorts, "Would you throw yourself away, then?"

At that Hanuman dug his own hands inside his own body, and tore his chest apart--and there, sitting in Hanuman's heart, were Rama and Sita, and upon every bone of his body was written "Ram, Ram, Ram."

This story can be very disturbing. But it is actually a lesson about God being within every person. The name of God is written on our bones, even if we don't see it. A peaceful message told in seemingly not so peaceful imagery.

Rian, I'm going to have to give myself more time for your questions

[Pytt]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

while wandering the web i pulled out a term that fits me pretty well...

agnostic atheism ~ the position that holds both atheism and agnosticism to be true. A person holding such a position does not believe that any God or gods exist, and also that it is impossible to prove or disprove this position.

the best of both worlds

that was superb, brownj. from now on, that is ehat i am! suites me perfectly

[Ñólendil]

3a. Re your friends - what made you choose to call them your friends? If they're friends, I imagine you spend more time with them (or at least would like to spend more time with them) than you do with people you don't like - why? What is it about them that would make you want to spend more time with them? If possible, please give examples of two different friends (you can change the names to protect the innocent )

What's your curiosity?

I spend time with people I do like, and not people I do not like, because of the way those people make me feel. When I am around people I don't like, I think I (would) feel bitter towards them, for some attitude or outlook I feel they have towards myself and the world, or for some past event. But I can't think of anybody I don't like who is not my friend. Sometimes I don't like my friends ... or more accurately, sometimes I really don't like things about my friends, things that bother me. I usually spend time with them anyway, and I rarely allow myself to think of the nuisance until they are not in my presence. I don't think this is a healthy thing ... I am only beginning to get good at expressing my anger, or displeasure.

I call my friends my "friends" because I know something of them, and care about them. It is not difficult to be my friend. I have friends that I do not know very well. Then I have friends I do know very well, and those I tend to care about a lot, naturally. Unfortunate events occuring in their lives, even if they have nothing to do with me, depress me. This is not a good thing either--it is good to be empathetic or sympathetic or caring, but it is not healthy to take other people's feelings and put them on yourself.

So I am defining my "friends" as people I know and care about ... that would imply, if taken quite literally, that I don't care about anyone else. Of course that isn't true, but just like the next person, truthfully, I care much less about people I don't know. I actually care about people I don't like more than people I don't know. I think this is because, in order for me not to like you, I would have to know something of you. There is someone in particular I am thinking of ... I think he is, honestly, a sociopath. Something is very unhealthy about him, where he doesn't seem to care for other people at all. He doesn't have what other people have, that thing which says "stop that because you are hurting others". I do not know if he mentally ill, but I met him in a special education school. He took me as his friend, I think because I was never openly mean to him, or I don't know why. I would hear stories about his father, who bore the swastika as a tatoo. I wonder: what made him the way he was? Was it just his upbringing? Was it a chemical imbalance? The choices he made? I don't know. But I know, in the back of my mind, that no one can inflict suffering upon another, unless that one is suffering already. That is something the Dalai Lama wrote about. So, because I know this person, I may detest him, but I would also care if anything happened to him.

In the end I'm not much different from the next person--my friends are my friends because I know them well enough and care about them, and I spend more time with them, or would like to, because they make me feel good.

You asked me to give examples. I will give you one, and just one as it's taking up so much space. I have a friend named Des. She's not likely to read this, or know what this is, so I'll use that name. She's 20, a couple years older than I am, and I first met her when I was in elementary school. She was going to junior high with my brother, and one day we all went up to the mountains, and I met her then. She was rather perturbed by me, because I kept making sarcastic, dry remarks in a completely straight face, and she didn't know how to react. I didn't care one way or the other about her then, as I wasn't very friendly in those days, but years later, about three years ago, I met up with her again when a mutual friend was getting married.

Now I know her pretty well. She's very energetic, and has a rediculous sense of humor. Most of the stories she tells are utterly incomprehensible to most, because they consist largely of sound effects and funny squirrel noises. I call her Squirrely as a result, and it's caught on. She's always been very nice to me, even when she's angry, she seems incapable of taking it out on me. Whenever she's sick she calls us (my brother and I), because we are soothing to her. She comes over and cuddles, and coughs on our pillows (well because she doesn't want to cough on us). She finds us uncontroversial, which is good, because our ring of friends are at eachother's throats a lot ... "drama" and all that. Some things about Des bothers me greatly. We come from very different outlooks. Religiously, she's a very conservative Christian. She's interested in my beliefs, but to me, she doesn't seem to have any room for them. Whenever we talk about our differing beliefs, I think she comes across as very ... tyrannical is too strong a word, but she doesn't sound very accepting of anything outside her own view. I hope I don't sound the same in her own ears.

This bothers me alot. It's the way she argues with me about vegetarianism. I'm a vegetarian, she's not. She speaks in way that suggests I MUST realize I'm wrong. It's the way she tries to convince me that marketing in general is an ethical thing. It's the conclusions she comes to and shares with you after a sociology class (for instance that China is an undesireable place to go too, because it's overcrowded and ignorant).

I love her all the same. I feel like I've said more negative than positive, but I don't mean to. The important thing about her in relation to me is that she's the kind of person I don't ever want to lose contact with. I want to be an old man, sitting on the couch with her, watching an old dvd of 13 Going On 30, cause she thinks it's a cute movie.

[Ñólendil]

Anyway, I had heard a story that men and gods are just a dream of Brahma, and when he awakens, they will perish. I had wondered if you had heard that story - have you? The story you've heard seems to be quite the opposite.

Not to be disrespectful, but if the story I've heard is true, I sure hope he keeps sleeping, because there are many "dream people" that I know and love, and hope to know for all eternity.

I don't think I've heard that story. I think the idea behind it, though, is not one about our annhiliation. My best guess would be that it is a lesson about the unreality of the world we live in. A key concept in Hinduism is Maya, which may be safely considered "Illusion". The disharmony of what should be and what is, that is Maya. Suffering is Maya. Everything you sense is Maya. Maya is the paradox that is life, the bad thing that happens to good people, the good things that happen to bad people, pleasure, and pain, all that is Maya. Maya is a lot of things, but Maya, nonetheless, is not negative. Maya is necessary, but I would say it is niether good nor bad. It is the world we live in, and the nature of the world we live in. "Mahamaya" is another name for God. Mahamaya is a feminine aspect of God that provides for us the means of life, rather than the ends. We must be deluded, before we know truth, for, I suppose, whatever reason it is that God manifests Herself as the soul, and the egos are created. It is a concept that I am honestly not very good at understanding. One writer suggests that Mahamaya is the personification of a state attained by yogis called "meditation-sleep", in which the yogi is only aware of the mind, and not the outside world. Mahamaya then is that sleeping state--She teaches us that we are like that, asleep to the world, aware only of ourselves.

I am saying all this because I want to drive home the point of dream symbolism in Hinduism. To say that we are all a dream, and that Brahma will wake up one day and we will be gone, is not to say that we have no value, or that we are unreal. It is to say that something about us and the "gods" we believe in, is unreal. The idea is this: everything that is not Absolute Reality is NOT reality. It is like a dream, and someday it will all be gone. Brahma will wake. But our true selves, according to the philosophy of the religion from which this tale has come, are a PART of Absolute Reality. We will be preserved.

The story you give is a unique tale, I must say. Brahma is not a very popular deva these days... hasn't been for thousands upon thousands of years. So, to give him credit over Vishnu or Shiva or Shakti as the one who is dreaming up the world, suggests it is an older story. It's definitely symbolic, because if you take it more or less literally, Brahma is sort of the highest authority. In Vedanta, Brahma, and Shiva and Vishnu and Ganesh and Lakshmi and all the rest are technically viewed as second to Brahman (not to be confused with Brahma). Brahman is the formless, absolute reality. Brahma is a form of that Reality, as Creator, and Knowledge, etc.. If it was more of a "take it as you read it" story, I think it would be Brahman from which the dream arises, though that would be giving the Absolute characteristics.

I'm sorry if any of this is unclear, or vague, or over-long, it's 3:30 in the morning. (I can't sleep)

5. In your first Tolkien cycle (if that makes sense), what was it that kept you so interested in Tolkien's works that you moved onto the Sil and HoME to such an extent that you are very knowledgeable?

Thanks for the compliment. I'm not so knowledgeable anymore though, I've forgotten so much.

I don't remember what drove me to read the Silmarilion. I think I just picked it up at Barnes & Noble, and read the first sentence of the Ainulindale. I was hooked from then on. History of Middle-earth books were bought for me, and I didn't really know what they were. Once I found out I ended up getting all of them (except for one of the HotLotR books). I read them to the extent that I do, or did, because they take me somewhere else. I nourish a very specific drive of mine, a drive to be creative, and different, and real in a different way. Tolkien's works held me so captivated because they let me experience a world outside of our own. I don't know what's so captivating about that, to me. I've always wanted to get away, utterly away. I'd invent my own word as a little kid, then later I'd write about it. I'm still writing about it. Sometimes I've wanted to escape in an unhealthy way. I was delusional once, for several reasons, but one of the small factors going into that was my old desire to have something more than what I saw. Ea is a more healthy outlet, and I am thankful for it. I felt it had its own value, of itself. I felt it needed be studied. I don't really know why it needed to be, but it did. I was especially interested in the racial differences of the Elves before the Ages of the Sun, and the genealogies of the chief Elven families. Even in this other world of Arda, I had to go back in time to a world alien to the common characters of the Third Age, I had to go back to the Awakening of the Kwendi, and work forward. I'm not sure I'll ever understand the whole of it.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Names are fine, and helpful, it's the need for names that bothers me. I think people get too attached to the word, and not that which is given the word.

People want cookie-cutter labels, I think, so that they can clearly understand where someone is coming from and what he/she believes, and how he/she relates to themselves. Without words and names, we just can't communicate and function in our societies. But I think we put too much stock in them. Labels can seperate people who ought not to feel seperated.

I agree. We encounter the same thing in Christianity.

I'm still digging up things from page 15 to respond to, as I read the thread.

I believe in the mystery of the nature of God, and Reality. Christians may use the name "Kingdom of Heaven". Buddhists may call it "nirvana". Hindus may call it "Brahman." Atheists may simply call it "happiness". You may disagree with this last sentence. Yes, Atheists may call it "happiness". Everyone has a different idea of what the goal in life (or after life) is, but to me, they are all the same. Some atheists are depressed, and feel happiness doesn't matter--others know well that happiness in life is important, and they strive for it. They may not believe in God, or the nonsense of "Ultimate Reality", but they understand that it is important to be kind to one another, and to try to be happy.

Here lies one extreme difference, in my view, between Christianity and Hinduism. With Christianity, happiness is not the objective. Kindness, though closer, by itself cannot help but fall short. Holiness is the objective of Christians (er . . . true Christians). Christianity has led vast numbers of people to tortured deaths, profound unhappiness, as they're persecuted for their beliefs. They have shown themselves willing to give up their lives for other people, also. These things are beyond kindness, and utterly different from happiness. It is holiness that drives them to take place. Kindness is something that can flow from holiness. Any kindness without holiness cannot endure in trouble. Happiness is weak, however, and something that in my opinion is not worth striving for. A need to seek happiness is never to be found in scripture. Self-sacrifice is the message of scripture, and is a large part of the message Jesus speaks. It is a hard message, and something that Atheists' world views don't see any great reason for. Kindness is closer to Christianity, for it has to do with pouring out to others, rather then simply accepting things to ourselves. It too falls far short of God's will for us though, and cannot endure if it does not flow from holiness.

If Jesus had been striving for happiness and kindness, everyone would have liked him. Instead, he got crucified. Something doesn't seem to fit.

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

Yeah but you remember being a baby don't you? And you remember that you did eat lunch three days ago. If reincarnation did occur you'd at least remember glimpses of your past life.

Om . . . Telcontar? Some Hindus do actually claim to have memories from past lives.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Draken

how do we know what that god intended? There are profound differences between the religions on offer.

I definitely agree, and you ask a very good question. One of the great things about Atheists is that they believe in absolute truth. Even though they tend not to believe in spiritual things, the belief in absolute truth to me is very helpful as an area of common ground. So now I'm happy .

Originally Posted by Draken

Many rely on ancient texts - are we really sure these convey what they were originally intended to convey? Via manual transliteration, translation and, yes, downright editing? Is the New Testament that took shape under Paul what Jesus intended?

Excellent question! I'm afraid I can't answer it in great detail at this moment; I wish I could. However, I can make a few different points on the subject from memory, without referring to my favorite source book (The Case for Christ).

1) The early texts that exist to the Bible are far closer to the events they describe then many, many other historical documents are. The historical documents I speak of here are ones that are very broadly accepted as having been written by those that it is claimed they are written by. It is broadly accepted among scholars that the first Gospel manuscripts were written within the lifetimes of the people they describe.

2) There is an enormous number of early manuscripts available for the New Testament Biblical books. The reason this is significant is this. The more manuscripts there are, the more possibility is that error or differences will be found between the different books. However, very, very, very few differences between these manuscripts have been found. And now the really amazing point: There are more early manuscripts for the New Testament then for any other ancient history books!

Modern translations refer directly back to the ancient texts. The earliest text piece, a fragment from the Gospel of John, I believe has been dated to 180 AD. Most of the modern documents are in the second and third centuries AD. However, this is far closer to the events they describe then many, many other ancient historical documents. Legend generally infiltrates history after five or seven centuries. Sure enough, false accounts of Jesus life have been found that date from that period, blatant legend. Those are some Apocryphal books, like the Book of Thomas. Anyway, the Gospels and Epistles are completely separate from that category.

Originally Posted by Draken

I would have to say that belief is resorted to in the lack of knowledge. It's akin to prejudice in a sense: we probably can't eliminate it from the way we think, but those that come to rely on it rather than the data that knowledge provides inevitably cause problems for themselves and others.

Hmm. This is a rather more difficult point to address, for it's not straight evidence. Anyway, I would view it rather differently.

First of all, you're clearly not referring to all belief. You're referring to belief that is in contradiction of evidence, and is unsupported by evidence. Often that can just be prejudice, like you say. I assume you're talking about evolution vs. creationism on this point.

However, belief that is belief without evidence can still have some supporting evidence that isn't directly bonded. For example, if I have a loving wife and she tells me we're out of flour, I'll believe her instantly. No need for evidence; belief is enough. I'll go and buy flour on her word.

This explains some of Christian beliefs. When we know God personally, that becomes an evidence in support of the unseen. The unseen is not simple belief then, but is belief based upon someone's word.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

It is like this--we have the Atman, the soul, and Atman is real. Atman is the manifestation of Brahman, the Absolute. Giving us the sense of seperation, and pain, are our egos, which veil the Atman. Thus, the ego must be transcended, cast away. When the Atman is realized, we become one with Brahman, become one with God. It is the opposite of void, or nothing. In terms of notions, and seperateness, and suffering, and I and mine, there is void, because those things are no more. In fact they never were, it was only the illusion.

Ñólendil, tell me this. Where does the separation come from? Where does the illusion come from? Why is it chosen that they should exist? Surely they must come from God. What is the reason for souls to go through this cycle of reincarnation up to ultimate consciousness? What is the reason for the dream, or is there no reason- only what is?

[Ñólendil]

Here lies one extreme difference, in my view, between Christianity and Hinduism. With Christianity, happiness is not the objective. Kindness, though closer, by itself cannot help but fall short. Holiness is the objective of Christians (er . . . true Christians). Christianity has led vast numbers of people to tortured deaths, profound unhappiness, as they're persecuted for their beliefs. They have shown themselves willing to give up their lives for other people, also. These things are beyond kindness, and utterly different from happiness. It is holiness that drives them to take place. Kindness is something that can flow from holiness. Any kindness without holiness cannot endure in trouble. Happiness is weak, however, and something that in my opinion is not worth striving for. A need to seek happiness is never to be found in scripture. Self-sacrifice is the message of scripture, and is a large part of the message Jesus speaks. It is a hard message, and something that Atheists' world views don't see any great reason for. Kindness is closer to Christianity, for it has to do with pouring out to others, rather then simply accepting things to ourselves. It too falls far short of God's will for us though, and cannot endure if it does not flow from holiness.

If Jesus had been striving for happiness and kindness, everyone would have liked him. Instead, he got crucified. Something doesn't seem to fit.

"Happiness" was, I said, a word Atheists would use. My quote that you are responding to here is not representative of Hinduism. I was naming that thing which all religions (or non-religions) share, Heaven, nirvana, Brahman, happiness. This all amounts precisely to holiness, but Atheists would not use that word. Holiness is most definitely the goal of Hinduism, and in my opinion, everyone's goal, though not all will call it "holiness". When I say "happiness", I do not mean the happiness gained from eating a nice dinner, or from living a good life. I mean ultimate happiness. To me, holiness and true happiness are the same. "Brahman" is the Absolute--that is holy. We must become one with Brahman. We must become holy. I simply have not yet used the word "holiness" to describe what I have been talking about.

So I don't think we disagree. I DO think Jesus was striving for happiness and kindness, but the happiness and kindness he was talking about was not the popular kind.

I think happiness is far from weak, and I think it is very important. We all want to be happy. What happiness can be greater than total bliss, total love, and total peace? What happiness can be greater than that which we all strive for, by whatever name? For you, it is called holiness.

Ñólendil, tell me this. Where does the separation come from? Where does the illusion come from? Why is it chosen that they should exist? Surely they must come from God. What is the reason for souls to go through this cycle of reincarnation up to ultimate consciousness? What is the reason for the dream, or is there no reason- only what is?

My own personal beliefs is that we must know suffering in order to know peace. I simply do not know why or how the egos came to be ... why there is or was a need, if it was a need, to "fall from grace", or to be manifested in a world of suffering. I do not know. I am sure that there is a "reason for the dream". But I don't feel capable of suggesting one. It is a question that I may put to the monks at my temple, next time I go see them.

[Lief Erikson]

From your post, I'm getting that holiness and the happiness Atheists experience is supposed to be essentially the same thing. Is that correct?

[Ñólendil]

No, I would not put it so.

Holiness and the happiness atheists may strive for, is the same thing.

I am not saying "Look at that atheist over there, he is happy, and so he is holy."

I am suggesting that true happiness is the same thing as holiness. Some atheists can agree with me, in that the goal of life is the attainment of happiness. Happiness, to me, may justly be called holiness.

So it is more like, "Look at that saint over there, who has attained happiness."

Christians want to be like Christ, Buddhists wish to be Buddhas, Hindus want to be one with Brahman, non-religious people seek happiness and peace of mind--all the same thing to me.

[Lief Erikson]

Happiness involves pleasing oneself, though. Holiness involves giving of oneself. A non-religious person seeking happiness seeks to fulfill their own desires, to gain the different things that the world has to offer. Religious people give up the things of the world. You're equating opposites, or at least saying that opposites lead to the same thing. Christians would say that freedom is to be found in Christ, and from the world is to be found slavery. If you accept that teaching, then you're saying that seeking slavery is the same as seeking freedom. As Jesus said, "I do not give to you as the world gives."

"Look at that saint over there, who has attained happiness."

The saint would have found joy, rather then happiness. Happiness is more like temporary satisfaction. I get a large raise in my job, my wife gives birth to a son, I fulfill my passion in life. These fill the soul with delight. Joy is not pleasure at things though, really. It is a way of life, a continuous rejoicing in God. Like I believe the Apostle Paul said, "I praise him in all things." There is a deep spiritual world out there that is completely ignored by most atheists. It's a difference between living for oneself and living for God. Living for oneself may bring some temporary happiness, but living for God brings continuous joy. So I view them as quite different things, still.

What happiness can be greater than total bliss, total love, and total peace? What happiness can be greater than that which we all strive for, by whatever name? For you, it is called holiness.

For any person who has met Christ personally, they'll tell you that their life of seeking their own happiness before was utterly and completely different from the new life that Christ brings. Total bliss, total love, and total peace I would say involve holiness. However, you don't seem to recognize that there are more kinds of love then one. Agape, the self sacrificing love, is utterly different from the self serving love that expects something in return. There are more kinds of peace then one also. There is a peace that is in comfort that this situation is not going to get out of hand, and then there is a broader peace that says, "even if it does get out of hand, God is actively working in this, and I accept his will for my life." Then all circumstances are subservient, rather then comfort that one situation is not going to break away from your control. Total bliss . . . well . . . I've only experienced one kind of bliss, and that was from Christ. I can't speak for other people's experiences of bliss. Bliss to me is something so otherly that it has to be from the divine. The two times in which I experienced divine bliss, I had tears rolling down my face I was so moved. Love throbbed like waves through me one time, and the other it felt almost as though I'd been set on fire. Those experiences were so strong that I'll never forget them. Those were bliss. I know that some mystics to other religions also experience bliss, though I don't know what it's like, or how strong it is. There is no point of reference, so no possibility to compare. However, I am certain that no atheist experiences bliss, in this same sense. Of this fact I have no doubt. No human could experience such bliss without knowing beyond a doubt that God exists.

So anyway, I still see massive dividing differences between the peace, love and bliss that are separate from Christ's. They are different things, as any convert to Christianity that has experienced God will be able to tell you.

There are my opinions. I look forward to your response.

[inked]

Just for illustration, IYDM, CS Lewis observed that the difference between happiness and joy can be analogous to beer in a tankard. The frothy foam is comparable to happiness; it arises from joy and is transient and lighter. Joy is like the beer itself.

I like to think of it visualizing and (preferably) imbibing a draft Guinness Stout (which, I am sure they will serve in Heaven )!

[Ñólendil]

Happiness involves pleasing oneself, though. Holiness involves giving of oneself.

I am not using happiness in this sense at all. I don't think pleasing oneself in the usual way really makes us happy. Making money, for instance, is closer to suffering than it is to happiness, because money is fleeting. Money is finite, it will not last. One day, you will die, and there will be no money for you. We are now playing a word-game. You are objecting more to my use of the word "happiness" than anything else, I think.

"Happiness" is used often by Buddhist speakers, I have noted, especially the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hahn. Maybe "happiness" as a word used for something that is lasting and valuable is more of an eastern idea, I don't know. I think there are things which we call happiness, that are not actually real happiness. Having sex purely for the physical pay-off, is not happiness. Eating ice-cream because it tastes good, is not happiness. Receiving a wonderful gift from a friend, is not happiness. I am speaking of total peace, total contentment, total knowledge, total fulfillment. I am speaking of oneness with divinity. That is happiness.

A non-religious person seeking happiness seeks to fulfill their own desires, to gain the different things that the world has to offer.

You would seem to say that the fundamental drive of a non-religious person is selfish. I don't agree. There are people, religious and non-religious, who wish only to fulfill their own worldly desires. In fact I think most people, whatever they would like to be, fall into this category. I think I probably do too, if I really examined myself. But any atheist or agnostic or whatever is perfectly capable of desiring peace. They don't want to suffer! I think that drive is deeper than the drive for material gain. An atheist may desire peace. And an atheist may attain peace.

So I don't think I'm equating opposites, or saying that opposites lead to the same thing. I am saying that there are no opposites, in truth, and we all want the same thing.

The saint would have found joy, rather then happiness.

You may call it joy, if you wish. We are now playing the word-game again. What is important is what we both mean, and I don't think we are in disagreement. Let us use the word joy.

We all want joy. Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Jains, Pagans, Taoists, Atheists, Agnostics, and completely unaffiliated people all want joy. No one wants to suffer, in truth. Joy is not easy to attain, but I believe every human being is equally capable of attaining it, regardless of faith, or worldview. Joy is the beginning and end of all things. Joy is what we must find. Or call it holiness. Really, it doesn't matter if you call it Coca-Cola, as long as you are still talking about joy.

There is a deep spiritual world out there that is completely ignored by most atheists.

There is a deep spiritual world out there that is completely ignored by mostly everybody, I would say. But some atheists, and some Christians, and some of everybody, do seek that spiritual world. I think--and I said this in one of my e-mails to you and never explained myself--that one may be spiritual without being religious. Spirituality is not about organised doctrines, and dogma, and sermons ... spirituality is about the determined search and dedication to things like love, courage, and truth. It is about delving into and experiencing the mystery of our selves and others, and God, if that's where it leads you. You can be religious without being spiritual, and you can be spiritual without being religious. An Atheist who does not believe in spirits, souls, may not call it "spirituality", but what names do we reserve for Atheistic morality? Do most of us even acknowledge that atheists can have perfectly sound ethics? I think they can, and I think many do, just like any religious group. Certainly, by definition, the idea of God is ignored and denied by atheists. But the deep world of spirituality is deeper than the idea of God. God transcends even the sacred names and images and ideas we attach to Him.

So to reiterate my point, Atheists seek what we are seeking. "Joy" if you like, or any other name that seems fitting. "Joy" is a good word, because I think Atheists can agree with "joy". "Peace" is also suitable.

For any person who has met Christ personally, they'll tell you that their life of seeking their own happiness before was utterly and completely different from the new life that Christ brings. Total bliss, total love, and total peace I would say involve holiness. However, you don't seem to recognize that there are more kinds of love then one.

I was certainly only talking about one kind of love. There are other things which we call "love", but I was speaking of the love can be equated to peace and bliss.

[Ñólendil]

Total bliss . . . well . . . I've only experienced one kind of bliss, and that was from Christ. I can't speak for other people's experiences of bliss. Bliss to me is something so otherly that it has to be from the divine. The two times in which I experienced divine bliss, I had tears rolling down my face I was so moved. Love throbbed like waves through me one time, and the other it felt almost as though I'd been set on fire. Those experiences were so strong that I'll never forget them. Those were bliss. I know that some mystics to other religions also experience bliss, though I don't know what it's like, or how strong it is. There is no point of reference, so no possibility to compare. However, I am certain that no atheist experiences bliss, in this same sense. Of this fact I have no doubt. No human could experience such bliss without knowing beyond a doubt that God exists.

Wonderful descriptions you give. I think it is different for everyone. I have never had any experiences quite like what you described. I feel I have had a miracle touch my life ... I remember when God and I worked together to save myself.

I don't know what to say to your convictions about atheists. I object to the attitude that that God only reveals Himself, in bliss, to those who say they believe in God.

I will NOT say that "Atheists believe in God", because that would offend atheists and make me look rather idiotic at the same time. Might offend the theists too. What I will say is that you can accept everything that God is into your heart, without ever "believing in God". I think God is more than "God". I think God is within us all, pervading the entire universe, whilst transcending it. God is within the Atheist who denies belief in His existence.

I knew an Atheist once who said didn't believe in God because he didn't buy into all the Kingly Ruler stuff. The monarch God was shoved down his throat, and he didn't like it, so he became an atheist (and later an agnostic). Did he really object to God? He certainly would have said "yes", and that's fine, and you would say "yes", I suppose, and that's fine, but that's because we're talking here on a surface level. We're talking about consciously rejecting a notion. But this man never rejected happiness (the higher kind of happiness I have been talking about), he never rejected joy, or truth, or love, or peace, or indeed bliss, or contentment. God is all of these things, to me, God is pure happiness, pure joy, pure truth, pure love, pure peace, pure bliss, pure contentment. And that Atheist can experience it all.

So anyway, I still see massive dividing differences between the peace, love and bliss that are separate from Christ's. They are different things, as any convert to Christianity that has experienced God will be able to tell you.

I do not believe in any peace, love or bliss that is seperate from Christ. I don't think anyone is seperate from Christ, in their essential nature. The peace, love, and bliss I have been speaking of are the ultimate peace, love, and bliss that are at one with God. My point is that you don't have to call Him, Her, or It, "God". You can use a different word, and a different idea, like "peace", "love", or "bliss". It's all the same to me.

[Lief Erikson]

I'm saving your posts for a moment, Ñólendil. I'll get to them tonight, but first I want to respond on the Theology thread. This is deep, deep stuff, and will require thought and time in the response.

EDIT: Okay, coming to it now.

[Lief Erikson]

Ñólendil, what would you say about people that convert to Christianity from other religions, and claim powerful conversion experiences? If atheism was as effective as Christianity in producing the needed results, then such powerful conversions shouldn't be needed, should they? Or was atheism simply not the proper path for those people that converted? Was their experience of atheism not proper for them, while it was for right those atheists that didn't convert?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I am not using happiness in this sense at all. I don't think pleasing oneself in the usual way really makes us happy. Making money, for instance, is closer to suffering than it is to happiness, because money is fleeting. Money is finite, it will not last. One day, you will die, and there will be no money for you. We are now playing a word-game. You are objecting more to my use of the word "happiness" than anything else, I think.

My main problem is the equating of things that to me shouldn't be equated. Christian holiness and Atheist happiness don't produce even near the same results, or seek the same ends.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

"Happiness" is used often by Buddhist speakers, I have noted, especially the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hahn. Maybe "happiness" as a word used for something that is lasting and valuable is more of an eastern idea, I don't know. I think there are things which we call happiness, that are not actually real happiness. Having sex purely for the physical pay-off, is not happiness. Eating ice-cream because it tastes good, is not happiness. Receiving a wonderful gift from a friend, is not happiness. I am speaking of total peace, total contentment, total knowledge, total fulfillment. I am speaking of oneness with divinity. That is happiness.

You would seem to say that the fundamental drive of a non-religious person is selfish. I don't agree. There are people, religious and non-religious, who wish only to fulfill their own worldly desires. In fact I think most people, whatever they would like to be, fall into this category. I think I probably do too, if I really examined myself.

Agreed. The happiness definition I'll accept for now, also. Nearly exactly the same as holiness, but that's all right.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

But any atheist or agnostic or whatever is perfectly capable of desiring peace. They don't want to suffer! I think that drive is deeper than the drive for material gain. An atheist may desire peace. And an atheist may attain peace.

I tend to think the drive for material gain is just too great for anyone to resist. There is a need for God that exists in every soul, but that need is often not going to be dealt with. The drive for God is something that is not inherent in men, but which God places in men to draw them to him. I experienced that, myself, when I came to know God personally. He called me in an extremely definite way. I felt hunger almost like a physical hunger, hunger that would not give me peace. Sometimes I was tempted to try eating more food, to see if that would fill it, but it never could. That hunger wasn't natural to me, but was the calling of God on my soul.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

You may call it joy, if you wish. We are now playing the word-game again. What is important is what we both mean, and I don't think we are in disagreement. Let us use the word joy.

We all want joy. Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Jains, Pagans, Taoists, Atheists, Agnostics, and completely unaffiliated people all want joy. No one wants to suffer, in truth.

On the contrary, everyone wants to suffer, if by suffering you mean participating in the illusion. People long to suffer so much that they won't accept the joy, even though they want it. Sometimes, in fact, they want the suffering so much that the joy is detestable to them. That is what happened with Jesus Christ. He was killed because the joy he offered was more detestable then the suffering that they had.

For readers aside from Ñólendil, you'll just have to bear with me as I shift out from using normal Christian jargon and word meanings.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Joy is not easy to attain, but I believe every human being is equally capable of attaining it, regardless of faith, or worldview.

Another point where we differ. In my opinion, joy cannot be attained. It can only be given to us, brought into our lives by God of his own choice.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Joy is the beginning and end of all things.

What precisely do you mean, here?

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Joy is what we must find. Or call it holiness. Really, it doesn't matter if you call it Coca-Cola, as long as you are still talking about joy.

Agreed. Except of course that we can't really find it, but the search is nevertheless good. God calls us to search, so we search. If we're searching in truth, God is behind the search and will reveal himself to us. Sometimes we might launch out on a fake search, of course, a search that's meant to justify ourselves or find something we're comfortable with, rather then a real soul-searching search for the truth.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

There is a deep spiritual world out there that is completely ignored by mostly everybody, I would say.

Agreed.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

But some atheists, and some Christians, and some of everybody, do seek that spiritual world.

Perhaps. Though not all of that spiritual world is godly, one must remember. If one is including the ungodly part of the spiritual world, then I think probably everyone is connected with the spiritual world. You're speaking of the godly, of course. The godly spiritual is sought by some of the many that claim to seek it, and I won't say that only Christians find it. Here I'm getting onto much more shaky of soil, though. Christ claimed to be the only way to God, and I believe that. I do think it's possible to be seeking Christ, and possibly even to find him to some extent, without realizing who you're seeking for. I think that may be possible. Again though, I'm very tentative in saying this. I'm sure you wish I were less tentative .

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I think--and I said this in one of my e-mails to you and never explained myself--that one may be spiritual without being religious. Spirituality is not about organised doctrines, and dogma, and sermons ... spirituality is about the determined search and dedication to things like love, courage, and truth.

The dotrines, dogma and sermons are exposition of those things like love, courage and truth.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

It is about delving into and experiencing the mystery of our selves and others, and God, if that's where it leads you.

The doctrines and scriptures are useful as safety harnesses, in part. Do you see any need for these safety harnesses?

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Do most of us even acknowledge that atheists can have perfectly sound ethics? I think they can, and I think many do, just like any religious group.

I won't argue with that.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Certainly, by definition, the idea of God is ignored and denied by atheists. But the deep world of spirituality is deeper than the idea of God. God transcends even the sacred names and images and ideas we attach to Him.

He gave those names to himself, to show us who he is. However, I won't say they're his only names. What do you mean by "the idea" of God?

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

So to reiterate my point, Atheists seek what we are seeking. "Joy" if you like, or any other name that seems fitting. "Joy" is a good word, because I think Atheists can agree with "joy". "Peace" is also suitable.

I was certainly only talking about one kind of love. There are other things which we call "love", but I was speaking of the love can be equated to peace and bliss.

You seem to be speaking in the same kind of very strong uses of the words that I am using. Nevertheless, I simply cannot see them as being the same, between atheist and Christian. I see the illusion as ruling in a masterful, powerful position that ruthlessly controls people's lives. Holiness is in fact despised, even though many claim to have it and claim to desire it. God can rescue people from the illusion, but it takes rescuing. There is no innate goodness that drives us toward God; we've smashed the goodness within ourselves. This is my far bleaker view of reality, bolstered by personal experience. Only through Christ can people be freed, and he will not free everyone. He will only free those whom he chooses to free.

Ñólendil, according to you, what is evil? If all religions are ways to God, what of those who worship gods that demand the destruction of infants? Is evil a part of God's nature, or a deception in the minds of men, part of the illusion? Is all evil part of the illusion, and all misconception?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I do not believe in any peace, love or bliss that is seperate from Christ. I don't think anyone is seperate from Christ, in their essential nature.

Then Christ's dying for the world was meaningless.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

The peace, love, and bliss I have been speaking of are the ultimate peace, love, and bliss that are at one with God. My point is that you don't have to call Him, Her, or It, "God". You can use a different word, and a different idea, like "peace", "love", or "bliss". It's all the same to me.

They're all different attributes of God, and God can be revealed to different people in different ways. People can believe in false gods though, in my opinion. A god that is in nature essentially different from the god I believe in is a different god. The Muslim God, for example. With Allah, there is justice and there is judgment. There is no mercy or forgiveness. While justice is part of the nature of my God, Allah is an incomplete portrait of my God. In fact, the emphasis on justice makes Allah behave in different ways then God the Father would. Allah isn't a Father either; the Trinity concept doesn't exist with the Muslims. When a god is one who behaves in a manner that my God would never do, then he is not the same god.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I object to the attitude that that God only reveals Himself, in bliss, to those who say they believe in God.

Could you show a card trick to someone who refuses even to look at the deck?