Why you believe what you believe I

[Ñólendil]

Ñólendil, what would you say about people that convert to Christianity from other religions, and claim powerful conversion experiences?

I'd say good for them.

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?

I don't think any one religion is for everybody. I really do think that people should believe what seems right to and for them. I don't think people have powerful conversion experiences because their old faith (or lack of it) was inadequate as a belief or worldview. I think that people have powerful conversion experiences because they see the truth in a way they were not able to before. For some people, Christianity is the way. For others, it is Islam. And so on. Because I see all these religions as different views of the same thing, or different paths to the same place, I naturally believe that people are better suited to different paths, but that no one is wrong, or that no one is right ("right" as opposed to wrong).

In response to your first question quoted here, I would like to say that a great deal of people "convert" to Atheism after Christianity. Because Atheism is not a faith, there really aren't many (I have not heard any) reports of spiritual experiences when Christianity was dropped. The idea seems almost silly.There wouldn't be, would there? Atheism is simply the denial of the existence of God. It's not a religion about faith. But those atheists who deny the existence of God can still have miraculous experiences in their lives. They may not feel it as the presence of the Spirit in themselves, but they may indeed feel it as other things. I think some people who stop believing feel great relief in themselves, and freedom, and power. I do not speak here of any of the negative senses that may come with "power". The power to change the world, for the better. For others, Atheism is utterly depressing and hopeless ... perhaps as depressing as another person may find Christianity, or Hinduism, with their perceived oppressive natures.

I'm almost at a loss here to explain myself, and it's partly because, I think, that I haven't thought much about physical sensations of the Divine, and people who claim to have felt God. I think I have, as I said, felt the effects of what God has done for me, and it was an amazing experience. Really I don't have much right to speak for Atheists on the subject, or for Christians. I can only suppose, and this is what I have done.

So I would say, if an Atheist becomes a Christian, and that seems right for that person, then that is perhaps the right thing for that person. And vice-versa. It's different for everybody, to me. One should believe what is comfortable for that person. I don't mean "convenient". I mean, if it fits with what you believe, if you gain something good and worthwhile from it, and it makes sense to you, become a part of it.

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.

Perhaps part of the disagreement here is that you are thinking, I am guessing, very much in the present sense. Would you say that many Christians experience holiness, today? If so, then I can see why you wouldn't agree that Christian holiness and Atheist happiness are the same thing. If Christians experience holiness by accepting and living with Christ, how can Atheists experience the same thing by simply being "happy"?

You didn't say any of that, but I am using these quotes (which I came up with) to make a point, which may I feel may be needed here. I am speaking of the holiness that is realized in life, at some point, when you become what the easterns call "enlightened". I am speaking of retaining only the necessary ego to interact with other beings, to help them attain what you have attained. But I am also, especially, speaking of the holiness that you become one with when the ego dies. I am speaking of a Heaven which is experienced in a lower sense while you are still interacting with this world, and then in full when you move on. I am speaking of that kind of Reality. I am not speaking of the joy you have when you accept Jesus into your heart, the joy (or happiness) you have when you decide there is no God, or when something really nice happens to you. The only word I could think of, at the time, for this Reality, that would be acceptable to Atheists, was "happiness". And that is why, technically, I equated happiness with holiness.

The key in all of that, that you would probably still disagree with, is that this "happiness" that Atheists can understand, I believe can be experienced and attained by the said Atheists, without converting, or believing in God.

So, I think true happiness and holiness are the same, because I am using both words to describe the Absolute. I use both words because one can be agreed upon by theists, and the other by Atheists, and I believe both can experience the Absolute.

[Ñólendil]

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 think God Herself is inherent in human beings. And I think you're right, there IS a need for God that exists in every person. I would not say "soul", our views of the soul differ, but we needn't bring that up just now. I think every person needs to know God. However, I don't believe every person needs to think of it as God, or call it God, or even conceive of it as being a higher power, or a personal entity. What's important, regardless of your notions about It, Him, Her, is that It, He, She, is realized.

To make things clearer (I hope), I don't disagree with the above quote at all. But that is partly because my own definition of the meaning behind "a need for God that exists in every soul" is probably different from yours. If you had said "There is a need to believe in a higher power that exists in every soul", I would disagree.

I realize now that I have a rather unconventional way of defining God as something which doesn't have to be "God". Not sure if I sound completely sane, but it all makes sense to me.

As for your own experience, I cannot possibly argue against that. I don't disbelieve you, that much is certain. But I do disagree about Atheists needing to be Theists, if that is part of what you are implying.

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.

Certainly there are parts of ourselves that don't understand what is suffering, and what is peace. It is why I added "in truth", in my sentence "No one wants to suffer, in truth." Others DO understand what is suffing, and what is peace, but they choose suffering anyway. If my argument was that no one ever tries to get hurt, I would be wrong. How would you explain suicide, in such a case? But my belief is that there is another, deeper part to ourselves, which is actually working consciously, that does NOT want suffering. I guarantee you anyone who has ever tried to commit suicide was conflicted about it. No one truly wants to suffer. I don't think it though the people who killed Jesus did so after seeing the truth and choosing falsehood, or seeing the road to peace for what it was, and choosing suffering.

So I think people move away from peace because suffering is not usually thought of as suffering, and seems more desirable. But what they want is joy, even if they don't know what joy is. They want the end of suffering.

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.

I think God works through us somehow, but that we ourselves must attain joy. There is not much difference to me, between the man who looks at an enlightened one, and says "You must be grateful for God's deliverance." And the one who looks at the same enlightened one, and says "You have done a great thing." They are both right. God delivers us, I believe, by working through us. Without our own will, it would not happen. And without God, it would not happen. I understand, I hope I am not mistaken, after reading a couple other posts of yours that you are not a believer in free will. As such you will probably disagree with me, when I say joy would not be attained without our own will.

So yes, we disagree on this point.

I said that Joy is the beginning and end of all things.

You said:

What precisely do you mean, here?

I mean that Joy = God. Think of it in that way. Everything came from God, and everything goes back to God. One way I think of God is as pure Joy. Before the Beginning, there was only that Joy. Then, out of the Joy, everything else was manifested, or incarnated. Then, those things, in the end, go back to Joy. This sounds almost rediculous in my own ears, as Joy is now merely a euphamism, but you get the point. It all comes and goes back to pure consciousness. It all comes and goes back to that thing I keep referring to in many names.

So, I was taking about that thing which I keep calling "Brahman" and "Heaven", and "nirvana" and all that.

[Nurvingiel]

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.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Then Christ's dying for the world was meaningless.

Only Christians believe that Christ died for our sins IIRC. Just because people in other religions don't believe that doesn't make it meaningless.
Even if you mean meaningless to the people in other religions, I don't think an act of such love and compassion could ever be rendered meaningless no matter what its significance to you is.

Feel free to go into your views on souls anytime Ñólendil.

[Lizra]

Let me proclaim and radiate.......I'm so happy!!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Only Christians believe that Christ died for our sins IIRC. Just because people in other religions don't believe that doesn't make it meaningless.
Even if you mean meaningless to the people in other religions, I don't think an act of such love and compassion could ever be rendered meaningless no matter what its significance to you is.

Don't worry Nurvi, I've not been convinced that Jesus' sacrifice is meaningless. I was pointing out an extreme point where it seems Hinduism and Christianity diverge.

Originally Posted by Lizra

Let me proclaim and radiate.......I'm so happy!!

Lol!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I think God Herself is inherent in human beings. And I think you're right, there IS a need for God that exists in every person. I would not say "soul", our views of the soul differ, but we needn't bring that up just now. I think every person needs to know God. However, I don't believe every person needs to think of it as God, or call it God, or even conceive of it as being a higher power, or a personal entity. What's important, regardless of your notions about It, Him, Her, is that It, He, She, is realized.

I think there is some truth in this. When people appreciate the magnificent qualities of God, they are appreciating God. When people reject one of those qualities, they are rejecting God. Rejecting an image of God isn't always the same as rejecting God, though rejecting an image of God can lead to complete rejection of God. For example, if one rejects Christ as God because of an unfriendly idea attributed to Christ, one isn't exactly rejecting Christ. However, people who reject this idea of God often are left without an idea of God. Then they embrace the illusion. Money, immorality of various kinds, pleasures of the world, they embrace because there is no solid God left for them.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Certainly there are parts of ourselves that don't understand what is suffering, and what is peace. It is why I added "in truth", in my sentence "No one wants to suffer, in truth." Others DO understand what is suffering, and what is peace, but they choose suffering anyway. If my argument was that no one ever tries to get hurt, I would be wrong. How would you explain suicide, in such a case? But my belief is that there is another, deeper part to ourselves, which is actually working consciously, that does NOT want suffering. I guarantee you anyone who has ever tried to commit suicide was conflicted about it. No one truly wants to suffer.

You defined suffering as including striving for temporary happiness (unreal happiness). Real suffering as in physical pain or suicide aren't worth focusing on as examples here, in my opinion. People don't seek those very often. Other forms of the illusion people do, DO strive for. When they achieve the objective, they find emptiness and pain. Sometimes they despair. Other times they just make the best of it. And many of them never will turn back to God, because God demands the rejection of the illusion. While the illusion really causes them to suffer, they don't realize this, and so refuse to give it up.

What you recognize as the deeper part of ourselves that seeks for God, I view as the call of God. There is a distinct difference between our views here, for I don't view God as automatically within everyone, as you do. While Christ agreed with you in scripture that he must be within people, for them to come to heaven, he also said clearly that this is not automatically the case with everyone. "In order for you to come to heaven, you must be born again." That isn't even remotely close to your statement, "In order for you to come to heaven, you have been born again." The deep instinct calling people is the call of God on our souls. Most people love the illusion too much to accept it, for to accept the eternal (or as you might say, the reality) one must give up the illusion. One cannot love both God and the illusion.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I don't think it though the people who killed Jesus did so after seeing the truth and choosing falsehood, or seeing the road to peace for what it was, and choosing suffering.

So I think people move away from peace because suffering is not usually thought of as suffering, and seems more desirable.

I definitely agree with you here.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

But what they want is joy, even if they don't know what joy is. They want the end of suffering.

God wants the end of suffering. People want the perpetuation of suffering. It is because you don't separate God from people much that you think people want suffering, I expect. That stems from not grasping the deep importance of what Christ did for us on the cross. He took away the sins of those that he enters. He wipes us clean of evil, or "illusion". If one thinks that we always have had God in our hearts, then Jesus' sacrifice is irrelevant, and people would logically be naturally drawn to God.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

One should believe what is comfortable for that person. I don't mean "convenient". I mean, if it fits with what you believe, if you gain something good and worthwhile from it, and it makes sense to you, become a part of it.

The thing that's comfortable for people, seems good and worthwhile to them, makes sense to them, usually tends to be the illusion. People will be most ready to accept the religion-Buddhism, Christianity, Atheism-if it doesn't tamper with their finances, their relationships, their lifestyle. They'll take what's comfortable to them often, and so continue in the illusion, and so miss reality completely. Except to me, "miss" isn't so correct a word in this case as "shun".

[Ñólendil]

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

Yes they are, but they are also not simply those things. They are meant to be about those things, and they take place within an organized religion. You can read those doctrines and never be spiritual. And you can be spiritual and never read those doctrines. That was all I was trying to say there.

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

I don't see them as safety harnesses. I them largely as helpful guides. I see how they can be needed for people, but I don't think think that, in general, they are always needed. In my own personal life, I follow my heart before I follow any scripture. To me, the best stuff is inside.

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?

I think every name that has ever been spoken, for God, or for everyone else, came from human beings. As for the "the idea of God", I am speaking of the concepts human beings have created to conceive of Him. Someone has a name for God, and an image of Him in her mind, and ideas about how God feels about this, and how God feels about that, and what kind of God He is. All that is an idea, and God is so much more than that. It's all notions. We have all these notions about God, and ourselves, and souls, but all these things are so much more mysterious and powerful than we give them credit for, or know about. We cannot possibly truly understand and conceive of what God is with our tiny intellects. I am suggesting, then, that God is beyond the notions of God that Atheists reject. Atheists reject ideas. There are certain ideas of God that don't sit well with this Atheist or that Atheist, and it the reason why they are Atheists. But none of that matters to me. I say "Great! Reject all the notions you want!" In the end, loving devotion is a wonderful thing which can help us reach the ultimate goal, but at some point the seperation between God and Mankind must melt away. So it doesn't really matter whether you believe in an idea of God or not.

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.

I believe the brokenness is not nearly as deep as the wholeness, and the oneness. Your last two sentences frighten me. I do not believe that Christ is selective, or exclusive. I think eventually everybody gets it right, and everyone is embraced by God. This is probably the key fundamental difference between our beliefs that causes all the disagreements. I don't think freedom is freedom if some are left in chains.

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?

I think both good and evil are false. We can speak of good or evil to help us understand things, but really, there is no good or evil. There is only Reality. We often speak of Reality as being Good, because that helps us understand about "bliss" and all that. But good and evil can only truly exist if there is duality in Reality, and I don't think there is. There is only Oneness.

Then Christ's dying for the world was meaningless.

Christ's death was meaningless if no one is seperate from him? Why? Perhaps you mean to say that we have to be broken in order to need a savior. Maybe I haven't been real clear on what I'm about as far as souls and egos go. You'll find all the pain and suffering in the ego. You'll find all the divinity in the soul. I don't see why, under this idea, we wouldn't need deliverance from sin. Though, I personally don't believe that Christ died in order for us not go to Hell. I think he died because he was religiously and politically unpopular, and I think he died because he made a sacrifice by standing up for what he believed in, and not backing down. But in any case, you can believe that our essential natures are the same as the nature of Christ, and still believe that Christ needed to save us--as we aren't living in our essential natures, we aren't realizing our essential natures, and we go against our essential natures.

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.

Clearly we come from very different ends of the spectrum. I don't want to sound rude, but I think this sort of attitude towards other religions plants very negative seeds. "Your God is not forgiving, your God is not my God, you worship a false God" is the stuff of wars.

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

No, but if you look in the person's pocket, you may find the paper from which card decks are made.

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The thing that's comfortable for people, seems good and worthwhile to them, makes sense to them, usually tends to be the illusion. People will be most ready to accept the religion-Buddhism, Christianity, Atheism-if it doesn't tamper with their finances, their relationships, their lifestyle. They'll take what's comfortable to them often, and so continue in the illusion, and so miss reality completely. Except to me, "miss" isn't so correct a word in this case as "shun".

I don't think the majority of people really are this shallow...especially with a little age. We hear and see about the ones who are, it's sensationalism...something to talk about, but I know so many plain old boring people, and they really aren't two dimensional comfort freaks, if you take the time to see. I don't think people have to be overtly "religious" to be spiritual, ....and...I resent it when people think otherwise...

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lizra

I don't think people have to be overtly "religious" to be spiritual, ....and...I resent it when people think otherwise...

What is "spiritual", and what is "religious"?

To me, "spiritual" means that you aren't only focused on the physical, but you also think, meditate, absorb your surroundings, and have a comfortable view of God and humanity. I'd be surprised if anyone mentioned to me a spiritual person whose insights contained many negative or uncomfortable views. "Religious" means adhering to various doctrines, scriptures and religious beliefs.

As I said to Ñólendil, religion is like a safety harness. It also is instructive. Someone can experience God outside of this, but it is easier to make goof-ups, mistakes, or to get misled. It's the same way with a field of science. You can make discoveries separate from modern scientific thought, but it's much harder to make new or correct discoveries. You may find your discoveries were disproved fifty years ago, or something. Does my selective, exclusive view seem less irritating, now?

Originally Posted by Lizra

I don't think the majority of people really are this shallow...especially with a little age. We hear and see about the ones who are, it's sensationalism...something to talk about, but I know so many plain old boring people, and they really aren't two dimensional comfort freaks, if you take the time to see.

Well, I disagree. I think almost everyone in the world is a two dimensional comfort freak. Self absorption is extremely common. Insidious Rex would probably say it's the rule . Anyway, that's just a difference we'll have to endure.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

You can read those doctrines and never be spiritual. And you can be spiritual and never read those doctrines. That was all I was trying to say there.

I guess I'll agree with that.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I don't see them as safety harnesses. I them largely as helpful guides. I see how they can be needed for people, but I don't think think that, in general, they are always needed. In my own personal life, I follow my heart before I follow any scripture. To me, the best stuff is inside.

That sounds nice. I've had very bad experiences with following my heart in the spiritual realm, though, so I tend to view things from a different perspective. I know that there are dangers in the spiritual realm, and ignoring doctrines and scriptures exposes people to those dangers. To me, many of those spiritual laws that are taught in scripture are as natural as gravity. They weren't planned for our destruction, but they can destroy us if misused. Ignoring safety harnesses can cause damage. Or perhaps I'm just one of those people that needs the doctrines . I don't believe that to be the case, however, for I've found the spiritual forces of evil can impact more people then one. Therefore they are objective rather then subjective realities. If they are objective realities, they can impact far more people then just me. Therefore ignoring the doctrines and scriptures that show us the truth can lead to damage. It can lead to physical or spiritual death, even.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I believe the brokenness is not nearly as deep as the wholeness, and the oneness. Your last two sentences frighten me. I do not believe that Christ is selective, or exclusive.

I'm afraid you'll need to read the Gospels again, then, and perhaps no longer refer to God as Christ. What Christ said is, "Narrow is the path to heaven, and only a few find it, but broad is the path to destruction, and many go that way." And he said, "I am the way," not "I am a way", and "Many will come to me in those days and say, 'Lord, Lord, did we not cast out demons and perform miracles in your name?' And I will say, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" So Christianity is a religion that is exclusive. It's one of the less then pleasing aspects of it. It doesn't say everyone will be saved, but on the contrary, Jesus talks an enormous amount about hell and people winding up there, in the New Testament. So I think you'll end up being forced to no longer refer to God as Christ, for he is different in nature from the Hindu God (or belief about God). Not to say here that Hinduism is wrong. In fact, from what you've said, I've found some fascinating areas of agreement between Hinduism and Christianity. I'm pointing out, though, an important difference between Hinduism and Christianity.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I think eventually everybody gets it right, and everyone is embraced by God. This is probably the key fundamental difference between our beliefs that causes all the disagreements.

One important difference, anyhow.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I don't think freedom is freedom if some are left in chains.

I think that Iraq is free, even though Saddam is in chains. Don't you?

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I think both good and evil are false. We can speak of good or evil to help us understand things, but really, there is no good or evil. There is only Reality. We often speak of Reality as being Good, because that helps us understand about "bliss" and all that. But good and evil can only truly exist if there is duality in Reality, and I don't think there is. There is only Oneness.

Hmm. A very interesting perspective this is, to me. I completely don't agree with it, but I still find it very interesting to hear.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Christ's death was meaningless if no one is seperate from him? Why? Perhaps you mean to say that we have to be broken in order to need a savior. Maybe I haven't been real clear on what I'm about as far as souls and egos go. You'll find all the pain and suffering in the ego. You'll find all the divinity in the soul. I don't see why, under this idea, we wouldn't need deliverance from sin.

Christ died so that divinity could be within the souls of men. If divinity already was there, and is in fact within everyone, then this sacrifice was unneeded. If everyone already is united with God, why should someone die
to unite people with God? If no one is going to hell, why die to save people from hell?

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Though, I personally don't believe that Christ died in order for us not go to Hell. I think he died because he was religiously and politically unpopular, and I think he died because he made a sacrifice by standing up for what he believed in, and not backing down.

He was executed because of blasphemy, because of claiming that he was the one and only Son of God. How does his claim to be omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent fit into things?

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

But in any case, you can believe that our essential natures are the same as the nature of Christ, and still believe that Christ needed to save us--as we aren't living in our essential natures, we aren't realizing our essential natures, and we go against our essential natures.

Realizing our essential natures is not why Jesus died, according to scripture. He died to make us new people, not to realize what we already were. Oh well. There's probably little point in continuing on this vein.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Clearly we come from very different ends of the spectrum. I don't want to sound rude, but I think this sort of attitude towards other religions plants very negative seeds. "Your God is not forgiving, your God is not my God, you worship a false God" is the stuff of wars.

If people choose to use swords instead of words. There is a war that takes place, and which many Christians are actively involved in. That is a spiritual war, a war against the evil powers that attempt to keep people locked away from God.

[Ñólendil]

I'm just going to respond to a few of these that I feel are most important, because I think my time in the hotseat ought to be over soon.

I'm afraid you'll need to read the Gospels again, then, and perhaps no longer refer to God as Christ. What Christ said is, "Narrow is the path to heaven, and only a few find it, but broad is the path to destruction, and many go that way." And he said, "I am the way," not "I am a way", and "Many will come to me in those days and say, 'Lord, Lord, did we not cast out demons and perform miracles in your name?' And I will say, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'" So Christianity is a religion that is exclusive. It's one of the less then pleasing aspects of it. It doesn't say everyone will be saved, but on the contrary, Jesus talks an enormous amount about hell and people winding up there, in the New Testament. So I think you'll end up being forced to no longer refer to God as Christ, for he is different in nature from the Hindu God (or belief about God). Not to say here that Hinduism is wrong. In fact, from what you've said, I've found some fascinating areas of agreement between Hinduism and Christianity. I'm pointing out, though, an important difference between Hinduism and Christianity.

I don't think I need to read any Gospels again. I am aware of Jesus saying "I am the way", and all that stuff about no one entering the Kingdom of Heaven except through him. Buddha and Muhammad said similar things. I can take that in a few different ways. I think it's possible he never said that. And I also think it possible, and perhaps more likely, that he was speaking as one who was at one with God. He was speaking as an Incarnation--no one shall reach Heaven or be saved except through the Lord. I don't see why I would be forced to stop referring to God as Christ. Christ to me was an Incarnation of God, and I have faith in Him. He is worshipped every day in my temple, along with Sri Ramakrishna, Buddha, and Sarada Devi.

And Christianity doesn't have to be exclusive. I was a part of a very inclusive Church. I think you have to look at the context in which things were written. I don't take many of the stories literally, for instance. I don't usually take them metaphorically, either. I think a lot of it was sermons, stories made to illustrate a point. And I also believe the Bible was written by inspired human beings. I realize we differ a lot on these points.

Christ died so that divinity could be within the souls of men. If divinity already was there, and is in fact within everyone, then this sacrifice was unneeded. If everyone already is united with God, why should someone die
to unite people with God? If no one is going to hell, why die to save people from hell?

Because we don't know that we are divine. It is the knowledge that saves us. As for hell, I only believe in lower, temporary "hells". I don't believe in permanent places where people suffer for ever. In Hinduism, hell may be compared to samsara, which is the cycle of birth and death. It is from this that we must be saved.

If people choose to use swords instead of words. There is a war that takes place, and which many Christians are actively involved in. That is a spiritual war, a war against the evil powers that attempt to keep people locked away from God.

I believe violence takes place in the mind, before it ever becomes a word, or a gunshot. You are waging a spiritual war against those who you view are wrong. I believe that True Peace does not and cannot come of war. Spiritual war to me is an oxymoron, when used in this sense. In Hinduism there is alot of violent imagery about conquering inner demons. The Bhagavad-Gita is all about that. But conquering other faiths? Is that what you are talking about? Conquering denial of God? Conquering views of God that you view as false? That can only lead to bad things. To want to do that, I see that as a violent desire. What this world needs is peaceful, accepting relationships between its different factions.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

And Christianity doesn't have to be exclusive. I was a part of a very inclusive Church. I think you have to look at the context in which things were written. I don't take many of the stories literally, for instance. I don't usually take them metaphorically, either. I think a lot of it was sermons, stories made to illustrate a point. And I also believe the Bible was written by inspired human beings. I realize we differ a lot on these points.

If a person takes away literal interpretation of large numbers of the scriptures, because they don't like what they're hearing, the Bible is useless to them. It is meant to instruct us how to live our lives, but if we remove those parts we don't like, then it's useless as a guide.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Because we don't know that we are divine. It is the knowledge that saves us.

Once again, Jesus said, "you must be born again", not "you must realize that you have been born again".

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

As for hell, I only believe in lower, temporary "hells". I don't believe in permanent places where people suffer for ever. In Hinduism, hell may be compared to samsara, which is the cycle of birth and death. It is from this that we must be saved.

Okay. I actually do believe in lower, temporary hells also. However, there are a large number of scriptures in both old and new Testaments which describe an eternal judgment, and eternal destruction. So you'll have to ignore or reinterpret all of those. However, since the scripture isn't the literal Word of God to you, I understand that this would be no problem.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I believe violence takes place in the mind, before it ever becomes a word, or a gunshot. You are waging a spiritual war against those who you view are wrong.

No. When I wage war, I wage war against spirits and invisible powers of the world. I never wage war against people- I wage war for people. It's not against "those who are wrong", but against the wrongness itself, and those from whom the wrongness really comes.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I believe that True Peace does not and cannot come of war.

Peace was won through the military defeat of Adolf Hitler's Germany. Other examples I believe can be drawn from history. This is not True Peace, but an earthly peace that I refer to here. I use it as an example. Through war can come peace, and sometimes peace can only come through war.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Spiritual war to me is an oxymoron, when used in this sense. In Hinduism there is alot of violent imagery about conquering inner demons. The Bhagavad-Gita is all about that.

That's part of it, though I wouldn't call them inner demons. Outer demons would be closer to the mark, though they strongly impact people's minds. They are exterior to us, invisible beings that are as real as people and at least as intelligent as people. Fighting demons is part of it.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

But conquering other faiths? Is that what you are talking about? Conquering denial of God? Conquering views of God that you view as false?

I don't see that destroying lies can be wrong, except in the rare circumstances that the lies are good. Conquering faiths? I'd much prefer to call it simply conquering lies. I wouldn't try to go and completely obliterate someone else's religious views. Not every part of other religions is wrong. Many religions do show great respect for various attributes of God which really are attributes of God. It is wrong to stomp on something simply because it isn't strictly Christianity, also. Only where falsehood can be discerned should war be waged. Where evil is done, evil should be stopped.

Often spirits produce lies to keep people from truth. Those lies should be fought, as should those from whom they come. I know that if I believed something that was an outright lie, I'd be very, very grateful if someone helped me out of that difficulty. Especially if that lie was keeping me from experiencing God. Wouldn't you?



By the way, I am completely willing to cease my debating, if you wish. That would give you the chance to answer more questions and tell us more things about Hinduism, rather then continue battling over specific points.

[Ñólendil]

If a person takes away literal interpretation of large numbers of the scriptures, because they don't like what they're hearing, the Bible is useless to them. It is meant to instruct us how to live our lives, but if we remove those parts we don't like, then it's useless as a guide.

I'm not taking anything away, I am interpreting the Bible in a non-literal manner, because I don't think the ancient minds were writing history for us. Genesis, for instance, was written when the Jews were enlaved to polytheists, and the author or authors of that book wanted a story that would establish Yahweh as the one true God, creator of all living things. At least this is one perspective I have heard scholars take. I'm not changing something because I don't like it, I am simply viewing it in a different way than you are.

Once again, Jesus said, "you must be born again", not "you must realize that you have been born again".

It would be silly if I said we are already born again. A second birth can certainly be about realization. I don't see why it can't be.

Okay. I actually do believe in lower, temporary hells also. However, there are a large number of scriptures in both old and new Testaments which describe an eternal judgment, and eternal destruction. So you'll have to ignore or reinterpret all of those. However, since the scripture isn't the literal Word of God to you, I understand that this would be no problem.

Somehow I think you are using the words "ignore" and "reinterpret" to sting. You are implying that each of these passages has an ultimate, fundamental meaning, and that fundamental meaning is literal. To think anything else of them is to ignore them or give them your own meanings? For me, it works usually the opposite of how it works for conservatives. I check in with how I feel about something, what I feel I know to be true. Then I look at the words on the paper, and I try to examine what it could mean, or where it could have come from. I ask, if I am interested, Biblical scholars I can trust, as I know one or two who are friends. I'll sit in on a Bible study group. I'll try to learn something about how the ancient mind thought, and what time period and place a piece is coming from. Then I'll make up my mind about the scripture.

No. When I wage war, I wage war against spirits and invisible powers of the world. I never wage war against people- I wage war for people. It's not against "those who are wrong", but against the wrongness itself, and those from whom the wrongness really comes.

But to those people who believe in the wrongness, as you call it, the war is against them, not the wrongness which they are taking part in. How do you think a gay man would respond, if you told him, "I am not warring against you, I am warring against your sexuality." I think your intentions are good, but, as you know, I disagree with them. Differing beliefs will not harm the soul, in my opinion. I think what really harms us is the vast walls we erect between ourselves. "You harbor wrongness, you stay on that side, until you are ready to accept what is right, and be on the good side."

Peace was won through the military defeat of Adolf Hitler's Germany. Other examples I believe can be drawn from history. This is not True Peace, but an earthly peace that I refer to here. I use it as an example. Through war can come peace, and sometimes peace can only come through war.

Where peace is the opposite of war, there will no end to the cycle of wrath and quietude and then more wrath. "Peaceful" days won by victories on the field of spiritual battle will only be followed by more blood. It is when all the legions come to together, and put away their arms that peace will be lasting. There is enough physical war. Need there be spiritual crusades? Wage war against wrath, and craving, and despair, and ignorance, but not against the ignorance of others, if that is what you will name it. Nobody wins that way.

Outer demons would be closer to the mark, though they strongly impact people's minds. They are exterior to us, invisible beings that are as real as people and at least as intelligent as people. Fighting demons is part of it.

Are you talking about fallen angels? Lucifer, and the like?

I don't see that destroying lies can be wrong, except in the rare circumstances that the lies are good. Conquering faiths? I'd much prefer to call it simply conquering lies.

Now people who believe things you don't agree with are ascribing to lies, is that it? Atheists, and other people you see as self-serving?

Not every part of other religions is wrong.

That is nice to know.

Many religions do show great respect for various attributes of God which really are attributes of God. It is wrong to stomp on something simply because it isn't strictly Christianity, also. Only where falsehood can be discerned should war be waged. Where evil is done, evil should be stopped.

So, would I be right in saying it this way: "Only that part of other religions which agrees with my religion is correct.", where "my religion" = Christianity? I think other faiths should be appreciated for their own sake.

Often spirits produce lies to keep people from truth. Those lies should be fought, as should those from whom they come. I know that if I believed something that was an outright lie, I'd be very, very grateful if someone helped me out of that difficulty. Especially if that lie was keeping me from experiencing God. Wouldn't you?

Yes, I would be very grateful indeed. So, here's what I am going to do. I ran into a Muslim the other day who was really saddened by all the lies going around in this world. I figured you and him could have something to talk about, but I didn't act on it. Now I will. I'll send him your way, and maybe you can both convert eachother. You'd be doing him a favor, and he'd just be doing you a favor, right?

I won't be surprised if that doesn't quite fit favorably with you. I bet it doesn't seem right at all.

By the way, I am completely willing to cease my debating, if you wish. That would give you the chance to answer more questions and tell us more things about Hinduism, rather then continue battling over specific points.

Evidently I am too engrossed and tempted. I'll let you respond, and then we can quit, and I'll ask if anyone else has any questions, before leaving the hotseat.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Somehow I think you are using the words "ignore" and "reinterpret" to sting.

Then I apologize.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

But to those people who believe in the wrongness, as you call it, the war is against them, not the wrongness which they are taking part in. How do you think a gay man would respond, if you told him, "I am not warring against you, I am warring against your sexuality."

I expect homosexuals to find some of my beliefs repugnant. My belief that homosexuality is harmful is not at all popular. If I were to speak with a homosexual on the subject, I would be very careful in what I said, so as not to hurt the person. I know homosexuals will find this part of my beliefs to be deeply personal. I don't even speak on the issue with most homosexuals I'm in contact with. I don't feel the need to attack other people's beliefs wherever I disagree with them, whenever I hear them. Right now I'm in a rather delicate situation regarding some people who have very different views then I do. I'm striving to find the right balance. When is the time to speak, and when the time to be silent? I'm trusting the Lord to show me when to speak and when to be silent, and he has thus far been faithful and has blessed me by enabling me to do his will.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

I think your intentions are good, but, as you know, I disagree with them. Differing beliefs will not harm the soul, in my opinion. I think what really harms us is the vast walls we erect between ourselves. "You harbor wrongness, you stay on that side, until you are ready to accept what is right, and be on the good side."

We act because of our beliefs. Many suicide bombers of modern times kill other people and give up their own lives because of their beliefs. Beliefs can cause us to act in different behavior patterns. When someone really believes in Christ, they have no choice but to organize their life in such a manner that they are no longer living in the immoral lifestyle they have hitherto been a part of. Beliefs caused the Nazis to brutalize the Jews. Beliefs have massive, massive impact upon people's lives and behaviors. As Jesus said, "it is not what comes into a man that makes him unclean, but what comes out of him."

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Where peace is the opposite of war, there will no end to the cycle of wrath and quietude and then more wrath. "Peaceful" days won by victories on the field of spiritual battle will only be followed by more blood. It is when all the legions come to together, and put away their arms that peace will be lasting. There is enough physical war. Need there be spiritual crusades? Wage war against wrath, and craving, and despair, and ignorance, but not against the ignorance of others, if that is what you will name it. Nobody wins that way.

We do wage war against those interior flaws. The Apostle Paul commanded us to "put them to death." I disagree with you though that war or violence is never right. It can be right to wage war, and even to kill. It definitely isn't always, but sometimes it can.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Are you talking about fallen angels? Lucifer, and the like?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Now people who believe things you don't agree with are ascribing to lies, is that it? Atheists, and other people you see as self-serving?

There is only one truth, and whatever deviates from it is a lie. Whatever captures a portion of it can still be truth. I won't claim that the Bible contains all truth. I think that it is infallible and utterly truthful, and contains what truth we need to live our lives. However, there are many things about reality and the universe around us that it doesn't get into. If something shows itself to be contrary to truth, then it is a lie. That's why we label certain beliefs "heresies". I think that I believe some things that are untrue, certainly. I don't claim that all the knowledge in my head right now is correct, or that all my interpretations of scripture are correct. Some of what I believe probably is a lie. Where that lie exists, I am glad that other Christians are around to correct it. I am also glad that the Holy Spirit is available to us as a guide, instruct, and lead us.

Yes, Atheists believe the lie that God does not exist (I call it a lie because I believe it was introduced to society by a malevolent force, probably by name Lucifer). (Sorry Lizra !) I believe some things that are simply untrue also. All of us do. Some things are vitally important for us to believe, however, in order to survive. We must believe that the law of gravity exists, or we probably will end up dead, having fallen from a height. Some truths of the natural world we need to believe in order to survive. We don't have to understand them- we have to believe them. Jesus Christ I believe is one of those truths. If we don't believe in him, we won't inherit eternal life.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

So, would I be right in saying it this way: "Only that part of other religions which agrees with my religion is correct.", where "my religion" = Christianity? I think other faiths should be appreciated for their own sake.

Parts that disagree outright with the Bible, I do believe are lies. I know that disagrees with your own beliefs.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Yes, I would be very grateful indeed. So, here's what I am going to do. I ran into a Muslim the other day who was really saddened by all the lies going around in this world. I figured you and him could have something to talk about, but I didn't act on it. Now I will. I'll send him your way, and maybe you can both convert each other. You'd be doing him a favor, and he'd just be doing you a favor, right?

I won't be surprised if that doesn't quite fit favorably with you. I bet it doesn't seem right at all.

Just like I've been deeply interested in what Hindus believe, I am deeply interested in learning more about what Muslims believe. If you send me his email address, I'll be happy to write him.

I haven't been attempting to convert you, Ñólendil. I've been attempting to learn more about your faith, and I am very pleased by the exposure knowing you has given me. I've been trying to learn more about Hinduism, and I'm very interested in learning more about Islam also. I've been hearing a lot of negative things about it from the people I know, and I really am interested in talking with someone who actually believes in Islam. This is a head knowledge about religions and beliefs that I'm after right now.

Originally Posted by Ñólendil

Evidently I am too engrossed and tempted. I'll let you respond, and then we can quit, and I'll ask if anyone else has any questions, before leaving the hotseat.

In this post I've just written, I didn't respond to everything you said. I only did with those things that I really wanted to take up and argue. I want to thank you very sincerely for all the information you've given me about Hinduism. There's a huge amount of understanding I have left to gain in this area, obviously, but I feel that at least I have an idea about what your religion is about. It's a rather tough one for me to understand, sometimes. I often have to think for many minutes before responding to your posts. You've definitely made me think.

I'm sorry if you've taken any insult in what I've said. I have certainly not intended any. I'm sorry you find certain of my beliefs also greatly repugnant, but I can't apologize for what I'm certain is true.

Anyway. I do somewhat hope you'll get me in contact with the Muslim, so that I can get a better idea of what they mean, also.

Meanwhile, I look forward to hearing more on your comments about Hinduism. Any more you have to offer, I'm very interested in reading.

May God bless you!

~Lief

[Lief Erikson]

Oh, actually Ñólendil, if you send me that email address, it would be better if you sent it to me over email. I don't check PMs during weekdays, so I'd have to delay any conversation for five days, if you didn't send it over email. Thanks!

~Lief

[Ñólendil]

Well Lief, now I feel terrible. I invented the Muslim to make a point. I didn't think you'd think there actually was a Muslim I ran into. I was trying to get across the idea that there are other people out there who believe exactly what you do--except for them Islam (or Hinduism, or any other religion) is the true way, and others need to be converted to theirs. My point was only: "How grateful would you be if someone came along (A Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever) and told you that you were dedicated to a lie, and that you need to see the truth?". I realize you would probably not say that to anyone, you are certainly more respectful than that. But I was responding to your quote which asked "I know that if I believed something that was an outright lie, I'd be very, very grateful if someone helped me out of that difficulty. Especially if that lie was keeping me from experiencing God. Wouldn't you?"

In other words, I was being rather sarcastic. I am very sorry, I hesitated in saying it, and I now see I really shouldn't have said it.

I think your desire to have a better understanding of Islam and Hinduism and other faiths is very good.

I should also add something I think ought to be noted: in my posts here, you have probably learned more about me than about Hinduism, though certainly you have seen a strong influence of Hinduism, especially Vedanta, in my posts. But there are conservative Hindus, just like there are liberal Christians. Some Hindus believe that only Hinduism is the right way, though this is not a Vedantist idea. Vedanta, for one thing, is more of a philosophy than a denomination. There are three main factions in Hinduism that most fall under: worshippers of Vishnu, worshippers of Shiva, and worshippers of Shakti. All of these believe in all the aspects of God, but for the Vaishnavites, if that is the right spelling (probably not), Vishnu is held most dear. I don't really fall into any of these categories. My ishta-devatas (chosen-ideals) are Brahma and Saraswati. Brahma is not, as I mentioned, very popular in India today, though Saraswati is.

In Vedanta, there is a lot of emphasis put on Ramakrishna (who was a historical person, and viewed as an Incarnation of God), and Sarada Devi (wife of Ramakrishna, and also considered an Incarnation). Jesus Christ and the Buddha are also very popular in Vedanta. Ramakrishna was actually a very inter-religious person. He was a Hindu, but in many ways he was a Christian, and a Muslim too. At times he would practice Christianity, and he would have visions of Christ, and when he practiced Islam he would see Allah, and when he practiced Hinduism he would see baby Krishna. He's probably largely responsible for the idea in Vedanta about the equality and validity of all faiths, though that is just my own guess.

Anyway, if anyone has any more questions, feel free to ask. Or anyone who wants to step up and take the hotseat is free to do so.

Again, Lief, I am very sorry about the conversion comment.

[Lizra]

Thanks Nolendil.....I'm still feeling pretty "happy".

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

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

data?

the basic idea...
the existance of god can never be proved or disproved
is a fact

the conclusion...
without data to prove his/her existance, he/she probably does not exist
not a fact, but a pretty solid theory

quod erat demonstrandum

[Rían]

*comes back to the Moot after a family weekend*

Oh my - I think I better get a very strong cup of tea - I'm gonna need it to catch up on these posts!!